NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm not going to claim I know much about the Vietnam War, but I do know that these images are highly disturbing. Children suffer birth defects because of the spraying of Agent Orange (and other chemicals) from 1961 to 1971. This is, for lack of a better word, evil...

http://images.google.com.au/images?q=agent+orange+victim&svnum=10&hl=en&lr=

http://images.google.com.au/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&q=agent+orange

http://images.google.com.au/images?q=agent+victim+vietnam&svnum=10&hl=en&lr=

Before we blame the US and agent orange shouldn't we conduct studies to see if agent orange was really responsible?


"The plaintiffs could not prove that Agent Orange, sprayed by the U.S. forces from 1961-1971, had caused their illnesses, largely because of a lack of large-scale research," he added.
http://www.thanhniennews.com/politics/?catid=1&newsid=5509

Before we blame the US and agent orange shouldn't we conduct studies to see if agent orange was really responsible?



http://www.thanhniennews.com/politics/?catid=1&newsid=5509

No, dammit. Facts should never get in the way of good rant against the United States.

Before we blame the US and agent orange shouldn't we conduct studies to see if agent orange was really responsible?



http://www.thanhniennews.com/politics/?catid=1&newsid=5509

"The plaintiffs could not prove that Agent Orange, sprayed by the U.S. forces from 1961-1971, had caused their illnesses, largely because of a lack of large-scale research," he added.

Maybe it's time for some large-scale research then? The US is obliged to check into this matter, since if we did cause these defects then we're responsible for helping out. If we didn't, then the source of the defects needs to be determined.

Then what exactly is causing all their birth defects? Then why do we give benefits to veterans who've been exposed to agent orange?

http://www1.va.gov/agentorange/

One of the chemicals (2,4,5-T) in Agent Orange contained minute traces of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (also known as TCDD or dioxin), which has caused a variety of illnesses in laboratory animals. More recent studies have suggested that the chemical may be related to a number of malignancies and other disorders.

Before we blame the US and agent orange shouldn't we conduct studies to see if agent orange was really responsible?



http://www.thanhniennews.com/politics/?catid=1&newsid=5509

You honestly think that Vietnam has the ability to do "large scale" research? Come on, it's a well-known "fact" that these effects were somehow linked to the Vietnam War, and even if there's no scientific proof, it's still pretty damn sad.

Then what exactly is causing all their birth defects? Then why do we give benefits to veterans who've been exposed to agent orange?

http://www1.va.gov/agentorange/

I don't know. Maybe someone should do some studies on that.

No, dammit. Facts should never get in the way of good rant against the United States.

Especially when the herbicide in question was sold and used commercially all over the world....

You honestly think that Vietnam has the ability to do "large scale" research? Come on, it's a well-known "fact" that these effects were somehow linked to the Vietnam War, and even if there's no scientific proof, it's still pretty damn sad.

It's sad, but we can't just assign blame based on a hunch. Without evidence why should the US or the companies who produced agent orange pay out any cash? Some people are convinced that cell phones cause cancer, right? They put out no ionizing radiation, only RF radiation. A study conclusively linking RF radiation and cancer has yet to emerge. Should cell phone manufacturers like Nokia start paying out money to every asshole with a brain tumor?

You honestly think that Vietnam has the ability to do "large scale" research? Come on, it's a well-known "fact" that these effects were somehow linked to the Vietnam War, and even if there's no scientific proof, it's still pretty damn sad.

Actually, it isn't a "fact". Especially since there's no scientific proof.

It's sad, but we can't just assign blame based on a hunch. Without evidence why should the US or the companies who produced agent orange pay out any cash? Some people are convinced that cell phones cause cancer, right? They put out no ionizing radiation, only RF radiation. A study conclusively linking RF radiation and cancer has yet to emerge. Should cell phone manufacturers like Nokia start paying out money to every asshole with a brain tumor?

Agreed, but I do think a US-funded but independent research institute should take a look into it. If Vietnam can't pay for the research, then we're obliged to check it out ourselves.

If Nokia was accused of causing wide-spread birth defects, then I would think they'd do the research to prove otherwise.

Saying "NUH UH!" and running away doesn't really make us look innocent.

Then what exactly is causing all their birth defects? Then why do we give benefits to veterans who've been exposed to agent orange?

http://www1.va.gov/agentorange/

That site is ridiculously American & biased! "Agent Orange was used...to protect US troops"? Agent orange is a herbicide, and it was used to kill the Vietnamese plant life so that there was no coverage and to deprive the population of food, not protect the US troops. Those exposed to it were probably nowhere near as badly effected, considering they would've been in planes with adequate clothing and such. The Vietnamese, on the other hand, had to live in an area completley covered in the toxin! I think they provide benefits so that if any veterans are effected by exposure they can afford health care, and also because it's very unlikely that the troops were informed of the dangers of the chemical.


Maybe it's time for some large-scale research then?

Yes, yes it is.

You honestly think that Vietnam has the ability to do "large scale" research? Come on, it's a well-known "fact" that these effects were somehow linked to the Vietnam War, and even if there's no scientific proof, it's still pretty damn sad.

I wouldn't say "fact" and "somehow" in the same sentence and expect to be taken seriously.

Actually, it isn't a "fact". Especially since there's no scientific proof.

Thus the quotation marks.


Here... """""""
All you have to do is press shift+' !!
Try it with me!

" """" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

That site is ridiculously American & biased! "Agent Orange was used...to protect US troops"? Agent orange is a herbicide, and it was used to kill the Vietnamese plant life so that there was no coverage and to deprive the population of food, not protect the US troops. Those exposed to it were probably nowhere near as badly effected, considering they would've been in planes with adequate clothing and such. The Vietnamese, on the other hand, had to live in an area completley covered in the toxin! I think they provide benefits so that if any veterans are effected by exposure they can afford health care, and also because it's very unlikely that the troops were informed of the dangers of the chemical.

Yes, yes it is.

The purpose of a defoliant is to remove vegetation, so that the enemy soldiers have no place to hide or conceal themselves from attack.

That, in essence, is protecting US troops.

Agreed, but I do think a US-funded but independent research institute should take a look into it. If Vietnam can't pay for the research, then we're obliged to check it out ourselves.

If Nokia was accused of causing wide-spread birth defects, then I would think they'd do the research to prove otherwise.

Saying "NUH UH!" and running away doesn't really make us look innocent.

Agreed.

Agreed.

Dow Chemical has paid for innumerable studies, including some in Vietnam.

Still no proof.

Should we continue doing studies until you get your "proof"?

Odds are I doubt any Vietnamese will receive compensation for this looks like there just going to wait for everyone to die of old age first (and I think judging the history of pesticides and herbicides it probably was highly toxic at least its not DDT though…)

to deprive the population of food

:eek: first mobiles don't give you cancer now this

Dow Chemical has paid for innumerable studies, including some in Vietnam.

Still no proof.

Should we continue doing studies until you get your "proof"?

Who did their research? Is it published on their website?

Odds are I doubt any Vietnamese will receive compensation for this looks like there just going to wait for everyone to die of old age first (and I think judging the history of pesticides and herbicides it probably was highly toxic at least its not DDT though…)

:eek: first mobiles don't give you cancer now this


I suppose you think it preferable that millions of people die of malaria, because we stopped using DDT.

More than were killed as a result of combat action over the years of the ban.

Looks like the ban is being lifted.

http://allafrica.com/stories/200701040030.html

http://allafrica.com/stories/200612060566.html

Who did their research? Is it published on their website?

Hazelton Labs did a lot of the research, and they were never a part of Dow.

No, it's not published on their website. Why don't you go look in journals, where such things are published?

Hazelton Labs did a lot of the research, and they were never a part of Dow.

No, it's not published on their website. Why don't you go look in journals, where such things are published?

Because honestly, I don't care that much. I was just asking.

Because honestly, I don't care that much. I was just asking.

Here's a good place to start reviewing literature. It's on the web, but the links usually go to journal sites where you have to PAY to read each bit of research..


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?DB=pubmed

Here's a good place to start reviewing literature. It's on the web, but the links usually go to journal sites where you have to PAY to read each bit of research..


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?DB=pubmed

Ugh, paying to read research? I'm glad to have access to my school's files. Thanks for the link though, in the future I will be sure to poke around before mentioning research.

A promise I won't fulfill.

Again, though, if we're not the root cause for these birth defects, then they should be determined. Have they even checked to see if there are more defects than normal? Could these just be your average birth defects indicative of a rather poor nation?

I suppose you think it preferable that millions of people die of malaria, because we stopped using DDT.

and I suppose you think pesticides have had much success in the past? (also DDT is a bit strong to be of any help beyond the “we get the strongest shit so we look manly”)

and I suppose you think pesticides have had much success in the past? (also DDT is a bit strong to be of any help beyond the “we get the strongest shit so we look manly”)

DDT was apparently effective at keeping malaria rates down. They rose precipitously after the ban.

African nations are now demanding it.

Ugh, paying to read research? I'm glad to have access to my school's files. Thanks for the link though, in the future I will be sure to poke around before mentioning research.

A promise I won't fulfill.

Again, though, if we're not the root cause for these birth defects, then they should be determined. Have they even checked to see if there are more defects than normal? Could these just be your average birth defects indicative of a rather poor nation?

Well, it's not possible to conclusively say if it was the agent orange, or poverty, or war in general - I mean, the place had been in nearly constant guerilla warfare for decades.

Well, it's not possible to conclusively say if it was the agent orange, or poverty, or war in general - I mean, the place had been in nearly constant guerilla warfare for decades.

That's a good point, of course. But I'm pretty sure you can link birth defects to environmental factors. They could probably narrow it down, I think. Chemically linked birth defects should be the type of thing that's easy to pick out. I dunno anything about birth defects and chemistry though, it just seems like, for instance, malnutrition related defects would look different than chemically caused defects.

DDT was apparently effective at keeping malaria rates down. They rose precipitously after the ban.

African nations are now demanding it.

What about all the side-effects of DDT?

That's a good point, of course. But I'm pretty sure you can link birth defects to environmental factors. They could probably narrow it down, I think. Chemically linked birth defects should be the type of thing that's easy to pick out. I dunno anything about birth defects and chemistry though, it just seems like, for instance, malnutrition related defects would look different than chemically caused defects.

You also have to consider the other studies done on dioxin, such as the generational studies at Seveso, Italy.

Far more dioxin was released there than in all of Vietnam combined - and that was all at once.

Sure, dioxin is a short term toxin, but its long term effects are apparently not as vile as people make them out to be.

Seveso also produced a paradox about the use of scientific knowledge in the policy process. Although there was undoubted physical and psychological illness among people, together with the deaths of many animals, dread consequences for human health have been elusive (Mastroiacovo et al. 1988; Regione Lombardia 1989; Mocarelli et al. 1991). In this respect it could be said that Seveso is a disaster that has not yet produced identifiable disastrous consequences. Even the most recent epidemiological results, while showing an increase in some sorts of rare cancers, do not provide firm evidence for a generally increased cancer risk to the monitored population (Bertazzi et al. 1993)

In the Seveso case, dread was associated with the perceived toxicity of dioxin. Once it was realized that the population had been subjected to dioxin contamination, the accident became, by definition, a disaster with severe psychological, social, and economic effects. However, in this case, scientific certainty about the extreme toxicity of dioxin gradually dissipated. No established scientists have argued that Seveso's population continues to suffer significant health effects.7 So the recent accusations (Chronology 1992, 1993) that dioxin was a component of the factory's production would, paradoxically again, amount to evidence that the substance was less toxic to humans than was initially believed.

A visitor to Seveso now finds a park where the factory once stood; some say that Seveso is now the least polluted place in Italy. Of course, the history of illness, dread, and disruption cannot be undone. But the recovery of the community proceeded smoothly; only the stigma of the town's name survives as a present source of harm. So Seveso has become, simultaneously, a symbol of an industrial disaster and a monument to relevant ignorance in science (Keynes 1921). But such ignorance is not absolute and it need not be paralysing for decision-making. At Seveso, monitoring continues, and the lessons of this relevant ignorance are being assimilated into our understanding of the place of science in the modern world.

Hmm. Lot's of stuff to chew on in this thread. :D

Agent Orange in action...

Thank you, Canadian military of the 1960s (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/agentorange/) for using it on Gagetown (an in-depth analysis of the events and consequences). And here is the article (posted in a large quote below for those who hate clicking those pesky links): Military accused of lying (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/06/23/agent-orange-050623.html).

Need proof of 'research'? Or anything else? Canada is here to provide it. A military base in Gagetown New Brunswick was the testing grounds.

An angry crowd accused military officials of a coverup during a hearing into the spraying of Agent Orange and other defoliants at a New Brunswick military base in the 1950s and 1960s.

Officials from the Department of National Defence, Veterans Affairs Canada and Canadian Forces Base Gagetown tried to downplay health hazards on Thursday, at the first public briefing on the issue in more than 30 years.

The hearing at the base followed a CBC News report that revealed Agent Purple, considered three times more toxic than the cancer-linked Agent Orange, was also sprayed on the base in 1966.

The reassurances did little to calm the audience of more than 100 people, which included civilians and veterans who believe their health was damaged by the spraying.

'Don't try to shove that down our throats'

The military's most controversial comment was that Agent Orange and Agent Purple were only sprayed on a small area of the base and only for a total of seven days in 1966 and 1967.

Many people who stood up to ask questions accused officials of lying about the extent of the testing, as well as its effects.

At one point, a man shouted, "Don't try to shove that down our throats, we're not going to take it."

John Chisholm said he knew that claim was false because he worked as a member of the ground crew on the spray program.

"This wasn't just a few days. And it wasn't just one helicopter, either. It was fixed-wing aircraft and it went on for years, covering a very big area," Chisholm said.

'We were coloured yellow from the spray'

He and other veterans and civilians who worked on the base described being exposed to the spraying and blamed it for illnesses they later developed.

"[The] first few times that we were out there, we came in, we were coloured orange, we were coloured yellow from the spray that came down on top of us," Chisholm said.

Chisholm, who is being treated for cancer and other health problems, said his wife died of cancer in 1996 and virtually all of his friends who worked with him in the spray program are also dead.

Kenneth Dobbie said he joined other men to clear sprayed brush on the base without wearing any protective gear, gloves or face masks.

"We cut it, we ingested the fumes, we burned it, therefore we inhaled the smoke ... and when it came time to eat, we sat down among all the toxins and we ate lunch with our bare hands."

A woman recounted her father's memories of becoming coated with the spray after being asked to watch the spraying operation from a hill. She blamed the spraying for problems with pregnancies in her family, including her mother's 13 miscarriages.

'It's time that you stood up and admitted that there is a problem'

"It's time that you stood up and admitted that there is a problem, that there wasn't only two or three barrels of this stuff sprayed at Base Gagetown," said Glen Stewart, the executive director of the provincial branch of the Royal Canadian Legion.

Like many in the audience, Stewart expressed fear that rates of cancer and other illnesses were abnormally high around the base.

"I am very confident that you will find that the death rate from various types of illnesses, including cancer, is higher in this area than it is in any other place in Canada," Stewart said.

At the meeting, both Defence and Veterans Affairs officials promised to do everything they could to investigate potential health hazards and help people who might have been affected.

Spraying was 'small scale,' DND says

Karen Ellis, a Defence spokeswoman, said Agent Orange was sprayed over seven days on a "small scale" under strict controls that prevented the spray from drifting more than about 15 metres.

She said it was very unlikely that civilians living near Gagetown were exposed to Agent Orange, which contains the carcinogen dioxin.

Ellis said health studies in the 1980s showed no ill effects, but promised a new investigation in response to community complaints.

"We will review the issue again now in light of concerns about the persistence of dioxins in the environment," Ellis said.

She said the Defence Department is studying soil and water on and around the base for evidence of dioxin poisoning. It will also consult with the U.S. military to find out the exact levels of carcinogens used.

The Defence Department is already paying compensation in two cases connected to the spraying. It has now received 300 compensation claims and more than 400 inquiries.

Ellis said each one would be evaluated fairly, with soldiers getting "the benefit of the doubt."

At the time of the spray program, it was believed the chemicals were harmless to human health and virtually no precautions were taken to minimize human contact.

U.S. forces sprayed Agent Orange to defoliate large areas of forest in Vietnam from 1961 until 1971, when it was discovered to contain dioxin.

Agent Orange in action...

Thank you, Canadian military of the 1960s (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/agentorange/) for using it on Gagetown (an in-depth analysis of the events and consequences). And here is the article (posted in a large quote below for those who hate clicking those pesky links): Military accused of lying (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/06/23/agent-orange-050623.html).

Need proof of 'research'? Or anything else? Canada is here to provide it. A military base in Gagetown New Brunswick was the testing grounds.

You'll skip that bit about Seveso being inundated with far more dioxin than any place you can name, and still, there are no scientists who will step forward and say that there are any long term effects...

Agent Orange in action...

Thank you, Canadian military of the 1960s (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/agentorange/) for using it on Gagetown (an in-depth analysis of the events and consequences). And here is the article (posted in a large quote below for those who hate clicking those pesky links): Military accused of lying (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/06/23/agent-orange-050623.html).

Need proof of 'research'? Or anything else? Canada is here to provide it. A military base in Gagetown New Brunswick was the testing grounds.

I notice from the article that nobody in that Canadian town reported strange birth defects in children born since the spraying. Kinda undermines the Vietnamese case that agent orange gave them weird looking kids.

You'll skip that bit about Seveso being inundated with far more dioxin than any place you can name, and still, there are no scientists who will step forward and say that there are any long term effects...

But, we have evidence of it being used in more than a dank third world commie country no one gives a flying rat's ass about.

But, it still points in the direction as being extremely harmful to people exposed to it, who experience health side effects later in life.

But, we have evidence of it being used in more than a dank third world commie country no one gives a flying rat's ass about.

But, it still points in the direction as being extremely harmful to people exposed to it, who experience health side effects later in life.

There are no studies that show long term effects in humans.

Prompt effects, sure. But nothing like cancer or birth defects in humans.

Before we blame the US and agent orange shouldn't we conduct studies to see if agent orange was really responsible?



http://www.thanhniennews.com/politics/?catid=1&newsid=5509

You are operating on a technicality. Saying Agent Orange does not cause birth defects is the equivalent of saying thalidomide does not cause birth defects. I pretty confident there will never be any research that stands up for long that states either of these two chemicals cause birth defects.

In both instances it appears that in production of the chemical there was a byproduct produced. This byproduct is what has caused the birth defects. Thalidomide has an optical isomer which causes birth defects. The process used to create agent orange has a byproduct called 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin (TCDD). TCDD is considered to be one of the most toxic compounds ever created, and no safe exposure level has been found.

The company that produced the thalidomide used in Britain settled the court case againist to the tune of £20 million. The fact that £20 million is the sum that was being asked for implies an admission of guilt, but an attempt to stop the legal ruling of guilt. So if a company can be deemed responsible for the problems that thalidomide caused when thalidomide itself was responsible for the creation of the branch of chemistry that identifies the problems with the production of thalidomide (optical isometry). Then the least that the producers of agent orange can do is pay compensation to those affected by TCDD in Vietnam, South Korea and US veterans.

I notice from the article that nobody in that Canadian town reported strange birth defects in children born since the spraying. Kinda undermines the Vietnamese case that agent orange gave them weird looking kids.

It's primarily a military base. The adults exposed were heavily effected, including women, one of whom reported thirteen miscarriages because of exposure to the substance.

You are operating on a technicality. Saying Agent Orange does not cause birth defects is the equivalent of saying thalidomide does not cause birth defects. I pretty confident there will never be any research that stands up for long that states either of these two chemicals cause birth defects.

In both instances it appears that in production of the chemical there was a byproduct produced. This byproduct is what has caused the birth defects. Thalidomide has an optical isomer which causes birth defects. The process used to create agent orange has a byproduct called 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin (TCDD). TCDD is considered to be one of the most toxic compounds ever created, and has no safe exposure level has been found.

The company that produced the thalidomide used in Britain settled the court case againist to the tune of £20 million. The fact that £20 million is the sum that was being asked for implies an admission of guilt, but an attempt to stop the legal ruling of guilt. So if a company can be deemed responsible for the problems that thalidomide caused when thalidomide itself was responsible for the creation of the branch of chemistry that identifies the problems with the production of thalidomide (optical isometry). Then the least that the producers of agent orange can do is pay compensation to those affected by TCDD in Vietnam, South Korea and US veterans.

I've already posted the info that dioxin has no long term cancer or birth defect effects, and that no scientist is saying any of that is a problem in Seveso, where pure dioxin was released in mass quantities.

There are studies that show that thalidomide causes birth defects. There are no such studies for dioxin in humans.

You are operating on a technicality. Saying Agent Orange does not cause birth defects is the equivalent of saying thalidomide does not cause birth defects. I pretty confident there will never be any research that stands up for long that states either of these two chemicals cause birth defects.

In both instances it appears that in production of the chemical there was a byproduct produced. This byproduct is what has caused the birth defects. Thalidomide has an optical isomer which causes birth defects. The process used to create agent orange has a byproduct called 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin (TCDD). TCDD is considered to be one of the most toxic compounds ever created, and no safe exposure level has been found.

The company that produced the thalidomide used in Britain settled the court case againist to the tune of £20 million. The fact that £20 million is the sum that was being asked for implies an admission of guilt, but an attempt to stop the legal ruling of guilt. So if a company can be deemed responsible for the problems that thalidomide caused when thalidomide itself was responsible for the creation of the branch of chemistry that identifies the problems with the production of thalidomide (optical isometry). Then the least that the producers of agent orange can do is pay compensation to those affected by TCDD in Vietnam, South Korea and US veterans.

Ok, so th eprocess used to CREATE agent orange makes a very toxic byproduct. Was agent orange created in the jungles of Vietnam? No. It was created in factories in the US. It was purified and sold as an herbicide. How is anyone in Southeast Asia harmed by a substance left behind in the USA?

Ok, so th eprocess used to CREATE agent orange makes a very toxic byproduct. Was agent orange created in the jungles of Vietnam? No. It was created in factories in the US. It was purified and sold as an herbicide. How is anyone in Southeast Asia harmed by a substance left behind in the USA?Just how pure do you think they managed to make Agent Orange? The EPA has a Maximum Contaminent Level Goal of 0 for TCDD in drinking water. With the Maximum Contaminent Level being 0.00003 parts per billion.
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/dw_contamfs/dioxin.html

Hmm... yes, find me a source that suggests that the US herbicide industry thought it necessary to purify Agent Orange. Or that they were indeed able to isolate 2,3,5-T from TCDD. I seem to be finding infomation that says some batches of 2,4,5-T that were created has as much as 27ppm of TCDD. And that the only real method used to lower levels of TCDD in 2,4,5-T is to carefully control the conditions during production.
http://www.inchem.org/documents/pds/pds/pest13_e.htm
In fact I'm sure that now. No company that produces organic compounds bothers with refinement of isomers once the product has been made. The only way in which companies control levels of impurities is through controled conditions during production.


TCDD is also very similar to 2,4,5-T. And 2,4,5-T is toxic itself. Nowhere near to the extent of TCDD, but so much so that it is no longer in use today.

2,4,5-T
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/06/2%2C4%2C5-T.png
TCDD
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c3/TCDD_structure2.svg/220px-TCDD_structure2.svg.png
With my humble understanding of chemistry, it seems to me that under the right circumstances 2,4,5-T could react with itself to form TCDD and chloroethanoic acid.

"The plaintiffs could not prove that Agent Orange, sprayed by the U.S. forces from 1961-1971, had caused their illnesses, largely because of a lack of large-scale research," he added.

Maybe it's time for some large-scale research then? The US is obliged to check into this matter, since if we did cause these defects then we're responsible for helping out. If we didn't, then the source of the defects needs to be determined.

Yeah, screw that. You would have us right every wrong we may have conducted in a war, under wartime conditions. We did what was necessary. Before we help anybody, let's see if we can't get at least an apology from the Vietnamese for their crimes--say, starting with using civilians as soldiers. I say the US was justified.

Yeah, screw that. You would have us right every wrong we may have conducted in a war, under wartime conditions. We did what was necessary. Before we help anybody, let's see if we can't get at least an apology from the Vietnamese for their crimes--say, starting with using civilians as soldiers. I say the US was justified.

spraying agent orange over vietnam with massive ecological damage and apparently a lot of physical/psychological damage up until this day surely was justified. maybe if the US didn't commit war crimes, or didn't intervene in vietnam in the first place there would have been way less civilians fighting. why was the US there anyway? vietnam doesn't seem that important to me.

With my humble understanding of chemistry, it seems to me that under the right circumstances 2,4,5-T could react with itself to form TCDD and chloroethanoic acid.
are you sure about that? because if i was a Cl i'd rather attack the C with the most + charge on it (the last one, most to the right with all those O's on it)

Before we blame the US and agent orange shouldn't we conduct studies to see if agent orange was really responsible?

http://www.thanhniennews.com/politics/?catid=1&newsid=5509

No, it couldn't possibly be the thousand tons of dioxin that were dumped into the soil and water supply. :rolleyes:

are you sure about that? because if i was a Cl i'd rather attack the C with the most + charge on it (the last one, most to the right with all those O's on it)I my chemistry knowledge, as I said, is rusty. However, I seem to remember that chloromethanoic acid is unstable. I can't tell you why, but something in the back of my mind is shouting that the chlorine would attack the carbon closest to the oxygen bridge that isn't part of the benzene ring.

What can I say. It's been close to three years since I did chemistry.

Ahah! I've remembered! There are no hydrogens on the furthest right carbon, therefore the chlorine cannot attack that carbon and must attack the next carbon along the chain.

spraying agent orange over vietnam with massive ecological damage and apparently a lot of physical/psychological damage up until this day surely was justified. maybe if the US didn't commit war crimes, or didn't intervene in vietnam in the first place there would have been way less civilians fighting. why was the US there anyway? vietnam doesn't seem that important to me.

"War crimes?" Buddy, give me a break. I want to see the communist government of Vietnam and North Korea brought to trial for their crimes. I want to see the leaders and acolytes of the VietCong brought to justice for their actions in Vietnam. The VC blurred the line between civilians and combatants. Hell, they made civilians combatants.

And who knows? Yeah, Vietnam doesn't seem that important. Now. But then again, we don't have a communist superpower breathing down our necks, using every available means to spread its influence and combat the West. Because, really, nothing matters now. After all, not only do circumstances never change, and are judged only according to the context of the present circumstances, we don't learn anything from the past either.

So yeah, let's attack the US presence in 'Nam thirty years ago, because if they hadn't been there none of this wouldn't have happened. I don't disagree with you. But you know what? It happened. And now the only thing we can do is look at the facts. Because that's what the past is all about. You can't change it. But go ahead and complain about how the US got involved, because it isn't going to make a bit of difference.

I my chemistry knowledge, as I said, is rusty. However, I seem to remember that chloromethanoic acid is unstable. I can't tell you why, but something in the back of my mind is shouting that the chlorine would attack the carbon closest to the oxygen bridge that isn't part of the benzene ring.

What can I say. It's been close to three years since I did chemistry.

Ahah! I've remembered! There are no hydrogens on the furthest right carbon, therefore the chlorine cannot attack that carbon and must attack the next carbon along the chain.

you might be right about that, the only thing that can react with a COOH is an alcohol (-OH), but i don't know if it has something to do with the absence of hydrogen (i learned it was because most nucleophile are bases too and there is a acid/base reaction instead of a nucleophilic substitution.)

"War crimes?" Buddy, give me a break. I want to see the communist government of Vietnam and North Korea brought to trial for their crimes. I want to see the leaders and acolytes of the VietCong brought to justice for their actions in Vietnam. The VC blurred the line between civilians and combatants. Hell, they made civilians combatants.

i'm no fan of the VC either, and yes they should be brougt to justice, but the same is true for the US, are you sure they didn't commit any warcrimes?


So yeah, let's attack the US presence in 'Nam thirty years ago, because if they hadn't been there none of this wouldn't have happened. I don't disagree with you. But you know what? It happened. And now the only thing we can do is look at the facts. Because that's what the past is all about. You can't change it. But go ahead and complain about how the US got involved, because it isn't going to make a bit of difference.

you're right here, complaining about the past solves nothing. but maybe it would just be right if the US tried to help the vietnamese, just build some hospitals etc. wouldn't that be great?

The purpose of a defoliant is to remove vegetation, so that the enemy soldiers have no place to hide or conceal themselves from attack.

That, in essence, is protecting US troops.

In essence, troops could be better protected if they were not sent into pointless wars.

Dow Chemical has paid for innumerable studies, including some in Vietnam.

Still no proof.

Should we continue doing studies until you get your "proof"?

Research funded a chemical company into allegations it could be liable for one of the single greatest crimes against humanity is about as reliable as research by Moloboro into the effects of smoking.

I suppose you think it preferable that millions of people die of malaria, because we stopped using DDT.
*snip*
http://allafrica.com/stories/200701040030.html

http://allafrica.com/stories/200612060566.html

"We have approved DDT, but we know it is a deadly chemical which should not be handled carelessly."

Death by malaria and death by a poisonous chemical both equate to death.
The CDC recommends that large scale immunisation would be more effective, and that comes without the risk of killing innocent people.

I notice from the article that nobody in that Canadian town reported strange birth defects in children born since the spraying. Kinda undermines the Vietnamese case that agent orange gave them weird looking kids.

"Weird looking kids"? I think detrimental birth defects are a little more than that. According to Kryozerkia...

It's primarily a military base. The adults exposed were heavily effected, including women, one of whom reported thirteen miscarriages because of exposure to the substance.

There are other known side effects to dioxin poisoning, that are both acute & terrible.

"War crimes?" Buddy, give me a break. I want to see the communist government of Vietnam and North Korea brought to trial for their crimes. I want to see the leaders and acolytes of the VietCong brought to justice for their actions in Vietnam. The VC blurred the line between civilians and combatants. Hell, they made civilians combatants.

And who knows? Yeah, Vietnam doesn't seem that important. Now. But then again, we don't have a communist superpower breathing down our necks, using every available means to spread its influence and combat the West. Because, really, nothing matters now. After all, not only do circumstances never change, and are judged only according to the context of the present circumstances, we don't learn anything from the past either.

So yeah, let's attack the US presence in 'Nam thirty years ago, because if they hadn't been there none of this wouldn't have happened. I don't disagree with you. But you know what? It happened. And now the only thing we can do is look at the facts. Because that's what the past is all about. You can't change it. But go ahead and complain about how the US got involved, because it isn't going to make a bit of difference.
Ah yes, "The Red Menace" god forbid we go a decade without draging that one back. Seriously, does America really have such a major small-dick-complex it still fears the takeover of a small third world country by communism will spell the end of the United States?

Ah yes, "The Red Menace" god forbid we go a decade without draging that one back. Seriously, does America really have such a major small-dick-complex it still fears the takeover of a small third world country by communism will spell the end of the United States?

Did you even bother reading what I wrote? No. It shows--go back, read the second paragraph, and tell me where I said that the US "still fears the takeover of small third world country by communism will spell the end of the United States." Oh yeah, I didn't, I wrote about taking things in context. But, I digress. Yeah, Vietnam doesn't seem that important for us to go tirading about in the name of Democracy. However, that being said, we do not live in the same world we did thirty years ago. You're right, it was just a small third world country. But I have two reasons here. The first, at the time, most people strongly believed in "the domino theory"--the assumption that if a country or several countries fell to Communism, it would only be a matter of time before the rest of the world followed. Like dominos, you knock down the first one and the rest fall after. Of course, today we can look back and consider how this theory might not stand to reason, but then again, hindsight's always 20/20. The second reason is more on principle. It was necessary in the socio-political spectrum of the time for the Western superpower, and the one considered most able and therefore responsible for "defending" democracy/captalism et al. to combat the spread of communism on any front. Remember, we judge in the context of present circumstances, but it would behoove many to consider that different times do in fact have different motivations, situations, and rationale.

Did you even bother reading what I wrote? No. It shows--go back, read the second paragraph, and tell me where I said that the US "still fears the takeover of small third world country by communism will spell the end of the United States." Oh yeah, I didn't, I wrote about taking things in context. But, I digress. Yeah, Vietnam doesn't seem that important for us to go tirading about in the name of Democracy. However, that being said, we do not live in the same world we did thirty years ago. You're right, it was just a small third world country. But I have two reasons here. The first, at the time, most people strongly believed in "the domino theory"--the assumption that if a country or several countries fell to Communism, it would only be a matter of time before the rest of the world followed. Like dominos, you knock down the first one and the rest fall after. Of course, today we can look back and consider how this theory might not stand to reason, but then again, hindsight's always 20/20. The second reason is more on principle. It was necessary in the socio-political spectrum of the time for the Western superpower, and the one considered most able and therefore responsible for "defending" democracy/captalism et al. to combat the spread of communism on any front. Remember, we judge in the context of present circumstances, but it would behoove many to consider that different times do in fact have different motivations, situations, and rationale.
Vietnam was wrong, people thought it then and took to the street to illustrate their point. The war was judged then, and now, as one of the worst decisions made by the United States and her allies. The difference is now, we add Iraq to that list.

And who knows? Yeah, Vietnam doesn't seem that important. Now. But then again, we don't have a communist superpower breathing down our necks, using every available means to spread its influence and combat the West. <snip> If you believe what you wrote, these lines prove my assertions valid.

Vietnam was wrong, people thought it then and took to the street to illustrate their point. The war was judged then, and now, as one of the worst decisions made by the United States and her allies. The difference is now, we add Iraq to that list.

I've laid my points on the table; neither of us are going to convince each other.

If you believe what you wrote, these lines prove my assertions valid.

Okay, going back to consider the arguments.

Ah yes, "The Red Menace" god forbid we go a decade without draging that one back. Seriously, does America really have such a major small-dick-complex it still fears the takeover of a small third world country by communism will spell the end of the United States?

Note the use of present tense.

And who knows? Yeah, Vietnam doesn't seem that important. Now. But then again, we don't have a communist superpower breathing down our necks, using every available means to spread its influence and combat the West. <snip>

See the difference? You are asserting that we still believe Vietnam would have spelled the end for the US; clearly, and in hindsight, it would not. However, and this is the part that you seem to have most trouble with, in the context of the era, yes, that was a valid reason. So, I do believe what I said, and it does not prove your point.

Dow Chemical has paid for innumerable studies, including some in Vietnam.

Still no proof.

Should we continue doing studies until you get your "proof"?

Kind of like the tobacco companies "studies" that showed it wasn't really as harmful as people suggested.

I knew a guy that was in the heavy exposed areas. He couldn't have children. He also had problem with skin rashes.....

Anyway:

The american cancer society:

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_1_3x_Agent_Orange_and_Cancer.asp?sitearea=PED

An interesting read is the book "Waiting for an army to die"

http://www.amazon.com/Waiting-Army-Die-Tragedy-Orange/dp/0932020682/sr=8-1/qid=1168110556/ref=sr_1_1/002-0081705-9184879?ie=UTF8&s=books

I knew a guy that was in the heavy exposed areas. He couldn't have children. He also had problem with skin rashes.....

Anyway:

The american cancer society:

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_1_3x_Agent_Orange_and_Cancer.asp?sitearea=PED

An interesting read is the book "Waiting for an army to die"

http://www.amazon.com/Waiting-Army-Die-Tragedy-Orange/dp/0932020682/sr=8-1/qid=1168110556/ref=sr_1_1/002-0081705-9184879?ie=UTF8&s=books

(You were right. I worked with NBC in the military.) The problem with the claims against the chemicals used in warfare is that they are largely anecdotal due to the disinformation involved in chemical warfare and there is an obvious reason why either side would want to skew the facts. It puts us in a position where it is difficult to nail down truth if there is any to be had. Dow is hardly reliable as a source of determining the damage caused by a product they made and sold and their responsibility to that damage.

The US military has proven itself unreliable in addressing the effects of chemical agents on US troops, let alone the "enemy". It's not a vast conspiracy though. It's simply that so much information is classified that there tends to be very little available paths to the truth. And whether information about the use of chemical attacks should be classified is a different thread. Without specific information that would let us isolate for the use of the chemical and for exposure it's difficult to nail down in any objective way, what side effects coincide with the use of Agent Orange. Some study can be done on animals and such but the value of such things is also limited.

Are there terrible crimes committed in war? Yes. Are these crimes usually to be found on any and all sides? Undoubtedly, yes. Was it a crime that we went into a country engaged in civil war and in the part of the country supposedly containing our allies we dropped a poisonous chemical on the civilian population? Yes. It would have been comparable to the US using chemical warfare against the civilian population of Britian during WWII.

It is true that the current evidence is sufficient to ban the use of agent orange. It is true that agent orange caused much death and suffering and is likely linked to further effects. It is also true that we did not have the current evidence at the time it was being used, any more than we did when the use of DDT was widespread.

As to the point on Vietnam being a bad war, it is a hindsight thing, like Iraq. Like Iraq, Vietnam had much popular support and it slowly went south as the war lasted to long and the death toll mounted. I'd say it was a bad decision, but the evidence (if one only uses the evidence available at the time) is less than conclusive.

I've laid my points on the table; neither of us are going to convince each other.



Okay, going back to consider the arguments.



Note the use of present tense.



See the difference? You are asserting that we still believe Vietnam would have spelled the end for the US; clearly, and in hindsight, it would not. However, and this is the part that you seem to have most trouble with, in the context of the era, yes, that was a valid reason. So, I do believe what I said, and it does not prove your point.
'In the context of the era' millions of Americans disagreed. Then and now there was more than ample evidence to prove that the spread of communism across Asia posed little to no concern to American security. Then and now it was/is considered a pointless, futile and wasteful war.