Dioxin on the Carriers Part-2

When we think about our atmosphere, we generally don’t consider items of such small size as being things at all. Nonetheless, they are solid things that have mass, that both make up the structure of, and are suspended in, the air that surrounds us. Regardless of their size, in Newtonian Physics they are objects that interact with other objects.

Friction and Charge

Friction is a force created by objects rubbing against one another. These moving objects interact at the molecular level where they exchange positive ions and negative electrons. When this interchange occurs, the result can be electrostatic attraction. Extremely strong interaction can actually weld the two bodies together (referred to as brazing). Less strong interaction keeps the two bodies captured, and they stay attached to one another until the static charge dissipates. When there is electrostatic discharge, attraction is no longer present.(10)

Bound by the Laws of Physics As something moves through our atmosphere, it comes into contact with all the objects with mass, creating friction, thus creating a static electric charge (or heat, depending on the conditions). The faster something moves through the atmosphere, the stronger the static charge can become.

In the instance of a jet, a very strong static charge can develop and electrical grounding is required for the safety of people leaving or approaching the plane, for the integrity of electronic equipment aboard the aircraft and certainly before any flammable material such as fuel is brought near the plane. The voltage on aircraft can be in the 10’s or even 100’s of kilovolts. Thus static wicks and grounding cables are designed into and used on these craft for everyone’s safety.(11)

Nothing capable of holding a static charge can move through the atmosphere without a static charge developing. Jet airplanes cannot escape static charge build-up. That is a simple fact of physics that we have learned to live with and have taken into account in the design and construction of aircraft.

Bound by the Laws of Physics As something moves through our atmosphere, it comes into contact with all the objects with mass, creating friction, thus creating a static electric charge (or heat, depending on the conditions). The faster something moves through the atmosphere, the stronger the static charge can become.

In the instance of a jet, a very strong static charge can develop and electrical grounding is required for the safety of people leaving or approaching the plane, for the integrity of electronic equipment aboard the aircraft and certainly before any flammable material such as fuel is brought near the plane. The voltage on aircraft can be in the 10’s or even 100’s of kilovolts. Thus static wicks and grounding cables are designed into and used on these craft for everyone’s safety.(11)

Nothing capable of holding a static charge can move through the atmosphere without a static charge developing. Jet airplanes cannot escape static charge build-up. That is a simple fact of physics that we have learned to live with and have taken into account in the design and construction of aircraft.

Vietnam’s Atmosphere Between 1962 and 1972, the United States Military sprayed approximately 23 million gallons of herbicides over the countryside of South Vietnam. Close to 18 million gallons of that was a mixture called Agent Orange. One of the components within the Agent Orange mixture was a form of dioxin (TCDD), which many scientists believe is the most toxic chemical yet created by man.

During the spray operations, which happened on a daily basis unless the weather absolutely ruled out flight, tiny droplets of the herbicide stayed airborne in a phenomenon called "spray drift" and could be carried over 15 miles before settling. Smaller droplets became captured by the wind as aerosol and could easily be carried hundreds of miles. (12)

During and after spray missions, vapors of the herbicide were blamed for heavy damage of vegetation hundreds of yards from their initial location and these vapors and aerosols also became captive by the winds and simply stayed aloft.

The military used incendiary weapons, like napalm, to kill enemy combatants seen or believed to be in some location that had previously been sprayed with herbicide. Burning this vegetation carried large amounts of herbicide-laden particles upward by the smoke plume and heat of these fires. Once the particles were lifted, they could rise to high altitudes and stay suspended in the atmosphere for weeks as well as travel extremely long distances on the winds.

A theory of dioxin dispersion was tested during the 1990s in North America when an Alaskan village detected measurable amounts of dioxin in its local environment. Suspecting that the dioxin was being blown in on winds from the south, an array of sensors was placed around the area and particulate matter that descended to the ground was collected and analyzed. Dioxin was not only measurable, but could be identified as to its source because of its chemical signature. Numerous sites within the Continental United States were identified, and dioxin compounds originating in Mexico were regularly detected. (13)

The myth that dioxin molecules, alone or as part of some other particulate matter, could not travel on the wind is officially put to rest. It simply becomes part of the atmosphere and freely moves on the wind. It was possible for airborne dioxin to reach all the ships serving offshore Vietnam in high enough concentration to kill healthy vegetation. There is absolutely no reason to believe this dosage was not toxic to men.

Dosages and Consequences Based on what we now know, South Vietnam can easily be identified as having a high atmospheric saturation of dioxin on a nearly continuous basis, more so directly after the nearly daily spraying by Ranch Hand aircraft. And this herbicide spraying program lasted almost 10 years. Dioxin was a persistent element of the local atmosphere of South Vietnam.

The probability of aircraft encountering dioxin in the atmosphere over South Vietnam was 100% for some airplanes at some points in time. That easily invokes the presumption of exposure of the aircraft that returned to sea-based carriers. Immediately upon landing, the maintenance crew was in direct contact with the airplanes which carried the contaminated particles on their outer surfaces. Following their electrical grounding, the static attraction dissipated. The probability of the ground crew contamination can clearly be presumed.

There may be lingering questions about the exactness of which aircraft encountered dioxin and how much was returned to the carrier deck. However, under the rules of presumption of exposure, neither of these notions are considerations as long as the potential for exposure existed. This is what applies to those with boots on ground. If adjudication rules are to be kept uniform and unbiased, it must likewise apply to those on the carriers offshore.

What are the VA’s requirements for proof of exposure under the rules of presumptive exposure?

Exposure opportunity has been defined as the potential for exposure rather than as a quantitative determination of exposure (that is, relatable to dose) and is therefore only a crude estimate of dose (IOM, 2008). There are no environmental concentration data (for example, data on concentrations in soil and water) […] on which to base estimates of individual dose or exposure levels. Thus, the potential for exposure is the best—in fact, the only—available method for assessing and comparing exposure.(14)

What are the levels of dioxin considered harmful to the human body? The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other researchers state that there are no known safe levels for TCDD/dioxin. However, in setting standards for safe drinking water, the EPA established the Maximum Contamination Level at 30 parts per quadrillion (10^15). We are once again taken to the realm of the very small sized particles. (15)

How can dioxin enter the human body?

In 1979, the Air Force was requested to prepare for the DoD a report identifying the most likely criteria by which military personnel could have been exposed to dioxin. Three modes were given:

- Percutaneous absorption and inhalation of vapors/aerosols by direct exposure to sprays.

- Percutaneous absorption and inhalation of vapors by exposure to treated areas following spray application, and

- Ingestion of foods contaminated with the material. (16)

CONCLUSION

If the Department of Veterans Affairs is going to be the least bit rational and consistent in their decisions regarding the potential of exposure to herbicide, the same ground rules must apply to all personnel in the area of Vietnam. To the DVA’s embarrassment, the IOM Report of May, 2011 concluded that the three types of service (boots-on-ground, inland water service, and Blue Water Navy offshore) had exactly the same level of certainly for herbicide contamination

In no cases were there grounds for any of these three services to claim to know or demonstrate their level of contamination. All Vietnam veterans were returned to an equal status for the feasibility of contamination.

In this analysis of the probability of contamination to the aircraft carriers offshore Vietnam, a careful scientific analysis of the conditions determined a 100% feasibility of contaminants from the atmosphere being carried back to the carriers once their airplanes entered the airspace above South Vietnam.

Therefore, those who served aboard Task Force 77 aircraft carriers in the Vietnam War at either Yankee or Dixie Stations should receive the same DVA consideration for medical care and disability support as those who were in-country with boots-on-ground.

Footnotes:

1) Training Letter 10-06, Sept 9, 2010, page 5 http://www.bluewaternavy.org/navy_nam.pdf

2) Public Law 102-4 (HR 556), Feb. 6, 1991, http://bluewaternavy.org/PL%20102.doc

3) Spray Drift of Pesticides Arising from Aerial Application in Cotton, Woods, et. al., 2001, http://www.bluewaternavy.org/harbors/cottonspraydrift.pdf

4) Report of Trip to Republic of Vietnam 15 Aug – 2 Sept, 1969, R.A. Darrow, Dept. of Army, http://bluewaternavy.org/harbors/00207.pdf

5) Operation Pink Rose, GlobalSecurity.org, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/pink-

6) Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans and Agent Orange Exposure, IOM, May, 2011, page 137, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13026&page=137

7) Miscellaneous historical reports and interviews with Carrier deck crews and officers, 2012

8) Miscellaneous historical reports and interviews with Carrier deck crews and officers, 2012

9) Space Handbook, Air University, Maxwell AFB, 1985

10) Electricity-Basic Navy Training Courses, NAVPERS 10622, Chapter 2, 1945, http://www.rfcafe.com/references/electrical/Electricity%20-

11) Personal Correspondence, Engineer, Electro-Static Solutions LTD

12) Spray Drift From Aerial Application Of Pesticides, Kelly Franklin, 2007, www.bluewaternavy.org/general/Spray%20drift1.doc

13) Long-range Air Transport of Dioxin, Commoner, et. al., 2000, http://www.bluewaternavy.org/dispersion/dioxins%20canada%203.pdf

14) Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans and Agent Orange Exposure, page 89, IOM Study, 2011

15) No Evidence of Dioxin Cancer Threshold, Mackie, et. al., 2003, http://www.ejnet.org/dioxin/nosafedose.pdf

16) Criteria for Determining Exposure Levels of Military Personnel to Dioxin and Herbicide Orange During Vietnam, 1979, 05762, http://bluewaternavy.org/harbors/05762criteria_air_craft%20.pdf