McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,080
- Points
- 1,160
The Agent Orange and Its Repercussions Thread
- Thread starter Sandy Skipton
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
After reading some of the threads, I gathered the understanding that the active ingredient in Brushkill was 2, 4-D. Which was named Agent Orange. Wow. Concidering the fact that we used this on our farm fields and on our lawns every year. IE) Killex, Par III. I grew up in a farming community and worked for a couple of major players in the Agri instustry. Handling Chems and spraying chems are not that environmentally friendly ..by any means. But after reading that it's 2, 4 -D I believe there is a 7 day qaurantine on entering the spayed area, going by Mem. But I believe it's banned now as it is..But there is another called Dichloroprop which is an active agent that does the same thing. But 2, 4-D works soo much better. I'm curious to know what the rate was ie) the concentration in a water solution. Anyway, I'm in Gagetown now and I've already been warned not to drink out of the fountains. I can live with that. The residue should be washed off a loooong time ago, for crawling around and I do feel bad for those that are suffering from the effects...it's disheartening because they may have entered an area with in the activity window. Effects can be looked up on a MSDS sheet. Acute and Chronic. But back in the day we lined piping with Asbestos as well.
Cheers
-Buzz
Cheers
-Buzz
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?id=329f0096-abc9-4401-90ef-4970cc207d42
Feds downplay Agent Orange risk
The Canadian Press
Thursday, June 23, 2005
ADVERTISEMENT
CFB GAGETOWN -- Tempers flared at a military base in New Brunswick on Thursday as former military personnel and civilians hurled accusations at federal officials who were trying to relay information about the testing of the defoliant Agent Orange in the 1960s.
While federal officials stressed that the powerful chemical was used for only a few days in 1966 and 1967, members of the audience came forward to suggest Agent Orange and other toxic chemicals were used for a much longer period of time.
While Ottawa has said only a few barrels of Agent Orange was sprayed on the base, one member of the audience produced documents that suggested more than 6,000 barrels of various defoliants was sprayed, starting in the 1950s.
"We were poisoned by it,'' said a man who identified himself as a resident of Ontario who used to work at the base. "We ate our lunches with our bare hands and we ingested it.... I'm dying. I have to have a cancer test every three months.''
Others stepped up to microphones to recount the various ailments they and their friends and relatives have suffered over the years.
The responses from federal officials were often met with catcalls and loud groans.
Meanwhile, the federal officials said it's highly unlikely New Brunswick residents living near CFB Gagetown were exposed to the herbicide.
However, the Defence Department and the Veterans Affairs Department say they are encouraging those who believe they were affected by the defoliants to come forward and apply for a disability pension.
The Defence Department also says it will reopen its files to determine who was involved in the spraying program, and it will contact the U.S. authorities who conducted the tests.
The public meeting followed a series of media reports that have raised questions about the spraying program and how it may have affected members of the military and local residents.
Earlier this week, Defence officials told a Commons committee that Canadian Forces members who trained in the test areas would have had to ingest large amounts of contaminated material to be affected by the sprayings in 1966 and 1967.
And they insisted it's highly unlikely civilians outside the sprawling army base would have been exposed.
But some of the people who attended the public meeting Thursday stressed again and again that federal officials were making a mistake by taking such a narrow view of what went on at CFB Gagetown.
They urged federal officials to investigate the use of other defoliants over a longer time frame.
The use of the defoliants, which included Agent Orange, Agent Purple and Agent White, has been public knowledge in New Brunswick since 1981.
A handful of military personnel have received compensation for ailments linked to the spraying program, but the Defence Department says it's unclear how many received payments because of lost records.
However, the department has confirmed that it has assessed about two dozen applications for compensation since 2000. Only three were approved.
The military insists it's difficult to establish a link between certain ailments and the chemicals used in the defoliants.
Feds downplay Agent Orange risk
The Canadian Press
Thursday, June 23, 2005
ADVERTISEMENT
CFB GAGETOWN -- Tempers flared at a military base in New Brunswick on Thursday as former military personnel and civilians hurled accusations at federal officials who were trying to relay information about the testing of the defoliant Agent Orange in the 1960s.
While federal officials stressed that the powerful chemical was used for only a few days in 1966 and 1967, members of the audience came forward to suggest Agent Orange and other toxic chemicals were used for a much longer period of time.
While Ottawa has said only a few barrels of Agent Orange was sprayed on the base, one member of the audience produced documents that suggested more than 6,000 barrels of various defoliants was sprayed, starting in the 1950s.
"We were poisoned by it,'' said a man who identified himself as a resident of Ontario who used to work at the base. "We ate our lunches with our bare hands and we ingested it.... I'm dying. I have to have a cancer test every three months.''
Others stepped up to microphones to recount the various ailments they and their friends and relatives have suffered over the years.
The responses from federal officials were often met with catcalls and loud groans.
Meanwhile, the federal officials said it's highly unlikely New Brunswick residents living near CFB Gagetown were exposed to the herbicide.
However, the Defence Department and the Veterans Affairs Department say they are encouraging those who believe they were affected by the defoliants to come forward and apply for a disability pension.
The Defence Department also says it will reopen its files to determine who was involved in the spraying program, and it will contact the U.S. authorities who conducted the tests.
The public meeting followed a series of media reports that have raised questions about the spraying program and how it may have affected members of the military and local residents.
Earlier this week, Defence officials told a Commons committee that Canadian Forces members who trained in the test areas would have had to ingest large amounts of contaminated material to be affected by the sprayings in 1966 and 1967.
And they insisted it's highly unlikely civilians outside the sprawling army base would have been exposed.
But some of the people who attended the public meeting Thursday stressed again and again that federal officials were making a mistake by taking such a narrow view of what went on at CFB Gagetown.
They urged federal officials to investigate the use of other defoliants over a longer time frame.
The use of the defoliants, which included Agent Orange, Agent Purple and Agent White, has been public knowledge in New Brunswick since 1981.
A handful of military personnel have received compensation for ailments linked to the spraying program, but the Defence Department says it's unclear how many received payments because of lost records.
However, the department has confirmed that it has assessed about two dozen applications for compensation since 2000. Only three were approved.
The military insists it's difficult to establish a link between certain ailments and the chemicals used in the defoliants.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Blakey said:
So I guess out east they've never seen a crop spayer, man we even have Rogaters that spray 100's of thousands of acres out here. Anyone who grew up on a farm or in the country will know exactly what I'm talking about. Personally I think we should start going after farmers out here!! Who's with me?!? No I didn't think so. And point taken! Plus I quote again let alone all the harmful toxic chemicals that they spray on their lawns every year or the veggies they buy in the store. Veggies don't store chemicals in their tiny little plant cells and they keep themselves weed free.
And the media isn't going to take a simple "no cover up excuse" Naturally they want something juicy and really maybe they should look in the mirror and ask themselves if they just sprayed the lawn and the dog went out for a roll in the grass..and the little Johnny wanted to play with the dog. It's the same thing. But will always look for someone to blame. That's the problem with not reading the instructions. Cheers
-Buzz
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
As I understand it, (and I encourage correction if it is needed here) the difference between agent orange and commercially available herbicides is a demonstrated - not assumed, but certain - link between the agent and various maladies. Cancer being one of them.
I think it is being arguing that the compound degrades after a certain well known period, and hence no current risk endures. However given the record of disclosure that the government has on this file, I would feel much more comfortable if an independent third party conducted soil and water samples on the training area and in the community.
My file handler at the CFRC intimates that I have good reason to be hopeful that I will be in Gagetown in the near future. My wife feels anxious about living in that comunity and I can't say I blame her. I am anxious about working there. Not to mention the possibility of children. Unless I see a proper handling of this file - including third party, independent verification of the risks of living and working there - I will need to re-examine my future.
How disappointing that would be! ..After so many years looking forward to this. A shame. However I have more than myself to think about.
EDIT: Additionally, a comparison of cancer rates (and other relevant maladies - ask a doc. what those would be I wouldn't know) in the population that has passed through the Gagetown vs. the general Canadian population (or the New Brunswick/Nova Scotia/ Maine regional population) needs to be conducted. One that controls for time since the area was sprayed and direct exposure to the chemical.
FURTHER EDIT: Given the known toxicity of the substance in question, anything less than the above recommended measures is lazy and arguably negligent (..perhaps criminally so if the consequences are injurious ..let alone grave).
OK.. I'll let it rest there for now. I invite reply.
I think it is being arguing that the compound degrades after a certain well known period, and hence no current risk endures. However given the record of disclosure that the government has on this file, I would feel much more comfortable if an independent third party conducted soil and water samples on the training area and in the community.
My file handler at the CFRC intimates that I have good reason to be hopeful that I will be in Gagetown in the near future. My wife feels anxious about living in that comunity and I can't say I blame her. I am anxious about working there. Not to mention the possibility of children. Unless I see a proper handling of this file - including third party, independent verification of the risks of living and working there - I will need to re-examine my future.
How disappointing that would be! ..After so many years looking forward to this. A shame. However I have more than myself to think about.
EDIT: Additionally, a comparison of cancer rates (and other relevant maladies - ask a doc. what those would be I wouldn't know) in the population that has passed through the Gagetown vs. the general Canadian population (or the New Brunswick/Nova Scotia/ Maine regional population) needs to be conducted. One that controls for time since the area was sprayed and direct exposure to the chemical.
FURTHER EDIT: Given the known toxicity of the substance in question, anything less than the above recommended measures is lazy and arguably negligent (..perhaps criminally so if the consequences are injurious ..let alone grave).
OK.. I'll let it rest there for now. I invite reply.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Joe Blow: The spraying was approximately 40 years ago. Since that time, thousands of Cdn, US, UK and other nation's troops (including me) have cycled through courses and exercises that involved being out in the Gagetown training area for days and weeks: digging in it, crawling and sleeping in it, slogging through swamps and creeks, breathing dust and getting covered in mud. Unless we can see that there is some very clear indication that there are higher rates of cancer amongst these people (and higher rates that are not attributable to smoking or other causes...) I don't think you have much to worry about as far as recent exposure. I went through there on my Inf offr course in 1983 and spent eight consecutive months there. much of it in the field. As far as I know, neither I nor my peers are suffering from the effects described. The older individuals in question seem to have been exposed to chemical in the undiluted form as it was being applied (or shortly after) in the 1960s, so it is quite likely that they have bad effects. The last thing we need is unsubstantiated panic about the CTC training area: it will just confuse the issue and draw attention away from those who need it.
Cheers
Cheers
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Joe Blow said:As I understand it, (and I encourage correction if it is needed here) the difference between agent orange and commercially available herbicides is a demonstrated - not assumed, but certain - link between the agent and various maladies. Cancer being one of them.
I think it is being arguing that the compound degrades after a certain well known period, and hence no current risk endures. However given the record of disclosure that the government has on this file, I would feel much more comfortable if an independent third party conducted soil and water samples on the training area and in the community.
My file handler at the CFRC intimates that I have good reason to be hopeful that I will be in Gagetown in the near future. My wife feels anxious about living in that comunity and I can't say I blame her. I am anxious about working there. Not to mention the possibility of children. Unless I see a proper handling of this file - including third party, independent verification of the risks of living and working there - I will need to re-examine my future.
How disappointing that would be! ..After so many years looking forward to this. A shame. However I have more than myself to think about.
EDIT: Additionally, a comparison of cancer rates (and other relevant maladies - ask a doc. what those would be I wouldn't know) in the population that has passed through the Gagetown vs. the general Canadian population (or the New Brunswick/Nova Scotia/ Maine regional population) needs to be conducted. One that controls for time since the area was sprayed and direct exposure to the chemical.
FURTHER EDIT: Given the known toxicity of the substance in question, anything less than the above recommended measures is lazy and arguably negligent (..perhaps criminally so if the consequences are injurious ..let alone grave).
OK.. I'll let it rest there for now. I invite reply.
Absolutely, and I can see a big cause for concern as I would be and am now. But it's the same chemical domestically as you would buy as industrial. Just in larger quantities. Also negligence in improper spraying techiques ei)rates over a given area usually has the kinda of thought more is better when infact more is worse. All the agent is good for is not killing the trees but to wipe off the leaves ..so the concentration right there tells me it's not enough to pose harm on the surface unless your standing right under the plane as it wizzes by. Though, leaching into the soil and entering the water table poses a concern.
But to further my understanding. It's everywhere in Canada. Like I said Farmers spray a form of Chemical similar to agent orange on their field every year. Year after year. And living in the country do you not think maybe I've been exposed to certain chemicals but had no choice as the same as anyone else living in the country versus the grand city living? But also people living in the city spray their lawns for dandilions and thistle so it's not so grand and no worries of leaching into the soil because of treated water that comes to the tap. Crawling around in the bush right now you would not have any exposure to it for there would be no residue. Obviosuly if a broad leave plant can grow in a certain area there cannot be any chemical residue left over. But taking soil samples to a depth of 24" could satisfy the concern and also water samples could prove benificial.
All I'm saying is that talk to a farmer that is out there on his tractor spraying his field, hopefully not under mist and in a light wind that goes in his direction. And having years and years of exposure. The concentration they use in a solution is the most they can get. More bang for their buck
But to me it's just a small thing made big......Cripes come out to the west!! LOL
Cheers!
-Buzz
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Just for info for those that have asked and those that seem to think that the 'Agents' compare to what farmers spray...
The 'Agents' are not just 2,4 D as you can see by the description.
Note the strength as compared to the '2,4,5-T (Current)' at the bottom of the list
Information obtained at http://www.gmasw.com/ao_terms.htm
Agent Orange A herbicide containing trace amounts of the toxic contaminant dioxin that was used in the Vietnam War to defoliate areas of jungle growth. The name was derived from the orange identifying strip on drums in which it was stored. Agent Orange was a 1:1 mixture of the n-butyl esters of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T). A byproduct contaminant of the manufacturing process for 2,4,5-T is 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin (TCDD), commonly referred to as dioxin. Demand for military Agent Orange resulted in higher levels of dioxin contamination than in the 2,4,5-T produced for civilian applications.
Description TCDD (Dioxin) Foliage Use
Agent Orange 1.77 to 40 ppm Broad Leaf
Agent Blue (Purple) 32.8 to 45 ppm Narrow Leaf
Agent Red (Pink) 65.6 ppm Anything
Agent White (Green) 65.6 ppm Broad Leaf
Silvex 1 to 70 ppm Fungicide
2,4,5-T (Current) 0.1 ppm or less Broad Leaf
Farmers do spray chemicals but think, they know what they are spraying and they also know the precaution's that SHOULD be taken. Under any circumstances dioxins are poison and IF the local people and service members had KNOWN then they too could have taken precautions. The major point is that they were not informed (except to be told it was safe) and when the government discovered it was not safe, the government chose to NOT let these people know. Chemicals are not something to be afraid of if they are used properly and if our medical services have the information to know what to watch for in the event of a health problem developing... Government secrecy and lying when they could have come forward so many times in the past has just become pretty overwhelming to those that have lost family members when medical attention could have and may have extended their life and mostly their quality of life. Being ill or having pain for years, not knowing why and doctors not knowing what the cause might have been is TORTURE, both mental and physical for the person and for their families....
The 'Agents' are not just 2,4 D as you can see by the description.
Note the strength as compared to the '2,4,5-T (Current)' at the bottom of the list
Information obtained at http://www.gmasw.com/ao_terms.htm
Agent Orange A herbicide containing trace amounts of the toxic contaminant dioxin that was used in the Vietnam War to defoliate areas of jungle growth. The name was derived from the orange identifying strip on drums in which it was stored. Agent Orange was a 1:1 mixture of the n-butyl esters of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T). A byproduct contaminant of the manufacturing process for 2,4,5-T is 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin (TCDD), commonly referred to as dioxin. Demand for military Agent Orange resulted in higher levels of dioxin contamination than in the 2,4,5-T produced for civilian applications.
Description TCDD (Dioxin) Foliage Use
Agent Orange 1.77 to 40 ppm Broad Leaf
Agent Blue (Purple) 32.8 to 45 ppm Narrow Leaf
Agent Red (Pink) 65.6 ppm Anything
Agent White (Green) 65.6 ppm Broad Leaf
Silvex 1 to 70 ppm Fungicide
2,4,5-T (Current) 0.1 ppm or less Broad Leaf
Farmers do spray chemicals but think, they know what they are spraying and they also know the precaution's that SHOULD be taken. Under any circumstances dioxins are poison and IF the local people and service members had KNOWN then they too could have taken precautions. The major point is that they were not informed (except to be told it was safe) and when the government discovered it was not safe, the government chose to NOT let these people know. Chemicals are not something to be afraid of if they are used properly and if our medical services have the information to know what to watch for in the event of a health problem developing... Government secrecy and lying when they could have come forward so many times in the past has just become pretty overwhelming to those that have lost family members when medical attention could have and may have extended their life and mostly their quality of life. Being ill or having pain for years, not knowing why and doctors not knowing what the cause might have been is TORTURE, both mental and physical for the person and for their families....
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
MIKsam said:
Your website refers to a questionable site...sorry but I went to the chem company that makes it today. I'm not arguing that there may have been some question form back in the day ...but those complaining about it today. That's the biggest question.
http://www.dowagro.com/ca/prod/frontline-2.htm
Please feel free too look up any other chemical ei) Diathane and the MSDS sheet on that one.
Also remember that these checmicals compound in concentration as they leach into the soil...So one year its less...but the following year it double than the original rate. Third year, triple the original...plus whatever else is applied to make a nice cocktail down there multiplied by however many years it's been applied. see?
It's not just the farmer applying the chemical. Maybe can't see the forest for the trees. My point was that it's being applied every year sinse the dawn of day here. The concentration level could be through the roof. There has been even cases of nitrate poisoning or levels close to that has killed off stock and has entered water supply.
Sorry but those are the facts and can't hide or deny them...I really don't think the gov't was denying it or currently is. Everything applied is also approved by the provincial gov't aswell or to prov standard. so maybe they are to blame as well? There's a thought.
All in good conversation hahaha
Cheers!
-Buzz
Hi Everyone
My name is Kenneth Dobbie and I was one of those present at the DND Technical Briefing at the CFB Gagetown Base Theatre on Thursday, June 23. I presented information to the panel which is contained in a document that I obtained from the DND freedom of information officer in Ottawa (Thanks Milksam).
The Document was orignally produced in 1982 and it includes a range of documentation from drums of herbicide being buried on the base to the numbers of acres sprayed with various defoliaants over a period of 38 years from 1956 to 1984.
You can get a copy of the document by calling the Freedom of Information Officer at 613-992-9560. It will be sent to you immediately free of charge. It is called #A-2004-00207.
I am going to quote from it.
As follows:
Page 84 of the document reads
OVERVIEW OF HERBICIDE SPRAY PROGRAMME 1956-1984
Please note that Agent Orange is 2,4,D + 2,4,5,T
1956 - 3,687 acres sprayed 2,4,D + 2,4,5,T
1957 - 3,879 acres sprayed 2,4,D + 2,4,5,T
1958 - 8,018 acres sprayed AMMATE + 2,4,5,T
1959 - No Spraying Done
1960 - 9,079 acres sprayed 2,4,5,T
1961 - 5,189 acres sprayed 2,4,5,T
1962 - No spraying done
1963 - 9,653 acres sprayed 2,4,D + 2,4,5,T
1964 - 9,225 acres sprayed 2,4,D + 2,4,5,T
Quoting from Page 82
"In 1964 a spray application accident occured. 2,4,-D PLUS 2,4,5,T was being applied by fixed wing aircraft. A temperature inversion and increasing soil termperature suspended the spary above the target species. Several hours later the increased winds carried the spray to the Upper Gagetown and Sheffield Area shown on the map as Area 3 (See Annex B) ** Annex B was not included in the package**. The Crown paid approximately $250,000 to several market gardens in the area as reparation for th damage to their crops"
In 1965, DND continued with the spraying program using another defoliant called TORDON 101. Which is a mixture of Picloram 65G/L and 2,4,D 240G/L
In case you are not familiar with the American name for TORDON 101. iT IS CALLED AGENT WHITE.
1965 4,708 acres sprayed with TORDON 101
1966 8,431 acres sprayed with TORDON 101 + What the Americans Sprayed That Year In terms of Agent Orange
1967 7,375 acres sprayed with TORDON 101 + What the Americans Sprayed that Year, In Terms of Agent Orange and Agent Purple
and so on...
It concludes on page 84 with the totals sprayed from 1956 to 1984.
I quote
181,038 Acres sprayed 6,504 barrels used
That is 292,680 galllons of defoliants which included six out of eight years with Agent Orange and 20 years of spraying TORDON 101 either by itself or combinations of other chemicals which included TORDON 101, THEN TORDON 10K, OR SPIKE 5P OR HERBEC 20P
Again note that TORDON 101 BY ITSELF IS AGENT WHITE.
Altogether, CFB Gagetown was sprayed with 1,328,767 liters of chemical defoliants over 181,038 acres (73,264) hectares from 1956 to 1984.
This is all contained in the DND document.
Now the big question is how much more defoliant chemicals have been sprayed since 1984 to present.
I just wanted to clear things up a bit as to how much spraying was done. And if you have a hard time believing it. Call the number and ask for the document.
I could not believe the amounts myself...but seeing is believing especially when it comes directly from the Government itself.
It is no wonder that we who worked in the training area are sick.
Ken Dobbie
My name is Kenneth Dobbie and I was one of those present at the DND Technical Briefing at the CFB Gagetown Base Theatre on Thursday, June 23. I presented information to the panel which is contained in a document that I obtained from the DND freedom of information officer in Ottawa (Thanks Milksam).
The Document was orignally produced in 1982 and it includes a range of documentation from drums of herbicide being buried on the base to the numbers of acres sprayed with various defoliaants over a period of 38 years from 1956 to 1984.
You can get a copy of the document by calling the Freedom of Information Officer at 613-992-9560. It will be sent to you immediately free of charge. It is called #A-2004-00207.
I am going to quote from it.
As follows:
Page 84 of the document reads
OVERVIEW OF HERBICIDE SPRAY PROGRAMME 1956-1984
Please note that Agent Orange is 2,4,D + 2,4,5,T
1956 - 3,687 acres sprayed 2,4,D + 2,4,5,T
1957 - 3,879 acres sprayed 2,4,D + 2,4,5,T
1958 - 8,018 acres sprayed AMMATE + 2,4,5,T
1959 - No Spraying Done
1960 - 9,079 acres sprayed 2,4,5,T
1961 - 5,189 acres sprayed 2,4,5,T
1962 - No spraying done
1963 - 9,653 acres sprayed 2,4,D + 2,4,5,T
1964 - 9,225 acres sprayed 2,4,D + 2,4,5,T
Quoting from Page 82
"In 1964 a spray application accident occured. 2,4,-D PLUS 2,4,5,T was being applied by fixed wing aircraft. A temperature inversion and increasing soil termperature suspended the spary above the target species. Several hours later the increased winds carried the spray to the Upper Gagetown and Sheffield Area shown on the map as Area 3 (See Annex B) ** Annex B was not included in the package**. The Crown paid approximately $250,000 to several market gardens in the area as reparation for th damage to their crops"
In 1965, DND continued with the spraying program using another defoliant called TORDON 101. Which is a mixture of Picloram 65G/L and 2,4,D 240G/L
In case you are not familiar with the American name for TORDON 101. iT IS CALLED AGENT WHITE.
1965 4,708 acres sprayed with TORDON 101
1966 8,431 acres sprayed with TORDON 101 + What the Americans Sprayed That Year In terms of Agent Orange
1967 7,375 acres sprayed with TORDON 101 + What the Americans Sprayed that Year, In Terms of Agent Orange and Agent Purple
and so on...
It concludes on page 84 with the totals sprayed from 1956 to 1984.
I quote
181,038 Acres sprayed 6,504 barrels used
That is 292,680 galllons of defoliants which included six out of eight years with Agent Orange and 20 years of spraying TORDON 101 either by itself or combinations of other chemicals which included TORDON 101, THEN TORDON 10K, OR SPIKE 5P OR HERBEC 20P
Again note that TORDON 101 BY ITSELF IS AGENT WHITE.
Altogether, CFB Gagetown was sprayed with 1,328,767 liters of chemical defoliants over 181,038 acres (73,264) hectares from 1956 to 1984.
This is all contained in the DND document.
Now the big question is how much more defoliant chemicals have been sprayed since 1984 to present.
I just wanted to clear things up a bit as to how much spraying was done. And if you have a hard time believing it. Call the number and ask for the document.
I could not believe the amounts myself...but seeing is believing especially when it comes directly from the Government itself.
It is no wonder that we who worked in the training area are sick.
Ken Dobbie
I'm a little bit worried...question is, "Should I be...?".
I was posted to CFB Gagetown during the later part of '89 to mid '89, approx six months in total, up and down the Lawfield Corridor (/ Tank Park) many times as well as other parts of the trng area (Scotty Dog Woods, Enniskillen, ect...). After reading that this thing has a "half life" of nine years.....
I feel fine, although some might say different....maybe i should just get a full physical done.
I was posted to CFB Gagetown during the later part of '89 to mid '89, approx six months in total, up and down the Lawfield Corridor (/ Tank Park) many times as well as other parts of the trng area (Scotty Dog Woods, Enniskillen, ect...). After reading that this thing has a "half life" of nine years.....
I feel fine, although some might say different....maybe i should just get a full physical done.
A
AirSgt
Guest
Blakey said:
Hello:
I am MikSam's son (Read back to see what we have been through) and yes as per most of the members in my family I am in the forces. I would suggest anyone that may have been exposed to such an enviorment should be examined. Now I as my mother Miksam has done urge anyone who may have record or pictures of sports events in that area please come forward and help us out.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
An update.. but not the one we wanted to post... No results on tests yet...
The Pathologist was asked to do a Toxicology when doing the autopsy... I went to see the pathologist and asked about progress... he says about another month until he will release the report... and that they CAN NOT do Toxicology for Dioxins... If I find a lab, he will turn tissue (parts of my husband) over to me and it will be my responsibility to have it transported to a lab and pay the cost for the toxicology to be done. I asked if he knew of any lab I could contact, his response was no.
So we are left with still trying to find a way to prove that my husband was in Gagetown.. we had hoped the toxicology would show that he had been exposed, which would have narrowed the info that DVA wants. There would be no other way that he could have been exposed and our story would have a more believable ring of truth... (we KNOW that he was there).
My younger son was at the University of NB to check the local newspapers 'Oromocto Post-Gazette' in hopes that a local sports writer may have printed info that would show that my husbands sport team in Gagetown... This paper, with various titles, started publishing under its initial banner 'Camp Gagetown Gazette' on December 16,1960. The University had papers starting with the date of April 11th 1968 but nothing before that date, so my son asked why. We now have a letter that says, I quote, "A year or so ago, the result of contacting by phone various departments: local library, Gagetown Military Museum, CFB Gagetown's Public Affairs Officer, staff at the newspaper, National Archives, National Library and the Department of Heritage, and the Department of National Defense Library produced no earlier copies of this paper. Of note, staff at the newspaper had indicated they believed the papers they had stored were transferred to the Department of National Defence as requested."
Why did the Dept of National Defence request these papers? Is all this part of the same coverup that seems to be what we are seeing?
I see my eldest son has posted here as well and as he says.. we are back to begging for any info that anyone might have concerning my husbands soccer team being in Gagetown... the first post of this topic gives an outline of what we are looking for...
Our search began about Apr 2003 and it seems all our roads have led to dead ends... just like the the men who travelled them before us.
The Pathologist was asked to do a Toxicology when doing the autopsy... I went to see the pathologist and asked about progress... he says about another month until he will release the report... and that they CAN NOT do Toxicology for Dioxins... If I find a lab, he will turn tissue (parts of my husband) over to me and it will be my responsibility to have it transported to a lab and pay the cost for the toxicology to be done. I asked if he knew of any lab I could contact, his response was no.
So we are left with still trying to find a way to prove that my husband was in Gagetown.. we had hoped the toxicology would show that he had been exposed, which would have narrowed the info that DVA wants. There would be no other way that he could have been exposed and our story would have a more believable ring of truth... (we KNOW that he was there).
My younger son was at the University of NB to check the local newspapers 'Oromocto Post-Gazette' in hopes that a local sports writer may have printed info that would show that my husbands sport team in Gagetown... This paper, with various titles, started publishing under its initial banner 'Camp Gagetown Gazette' on December 16,1960. The University had papers starting with the date of April 11th 1968 but nothing before that date, so my son asked why. We now have a letter that says, I quote, "A year or so ago, the result of contacting by phone various departments: local library, Gagetown Military Museum, CFB Gagetown's Public Affairs Officer, staff at the newspaper, National Archives, National Library and the Department of Heritage, and the Department of National Defense Library produced no earlier copies of this paper. Of note, staff at the newspaper had indicated they believed the papers they had stored were transferred to the Department of National Defence as requested."
Why did the Dept of National Defence request these papers? Is all this part of the same coverup that seems to be what we are seeing?
I see my eldest son has posted here as well and as he says.. we are back to begging for any info that anyone might have concerning my husbands soccer team being in Gagetown... the first post of this topic gives an outline of what we are looking for...
Our search began about Apr 2003 and it seems all our roads have led to dead ends... just like the the men who travelled them before us.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
I think you may be looking into this a little too deeply. DND is a big machine, and you don't know which department asked for them. For all you know, these papers may have been transfered to DND so that they could answer another ATI request. Just trying to lower the panic level here.
However, if you are looking for a lab to test for dioxins, I would suggest contacting a university that does research in environmental sciences. When I went to school (Chem Eng) the Enviro Science department used to test livers of various animals for the presence of PCBs in fatty tissues and livers because they would tend to accumulate (google bioaccumulation). Dioxins will accumulate in the same way. Given that there are several schools doing research in these two topics, you should have no problems finding a school to go to (or being refered to one) that can do this testing.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Funny stuff!
An american general said that until DND declares Gagetown's training area safe 100%, they won't train there anymore!!!!!!!!!!!
They are the ones that sprayed the stuff in our back yard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
An american general said that until DND declares Gagetown's training area safe 100%, they won't train there anymore!!!!!!!!!!!
They are the ones that sprayed the stuff in our back yard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hi Everyone
Just to clear things a bit once again...
Yes, the Americans, with DND's permission did spray Agent Orange and Agent Purple in small quantities in the summers of 1966 & 1967. But during this same time our DND was ALSO spraying Agent White from 1965 to 1984 inclusive COVERING 132,318 ACRES with Agent White (TORDON 101).
Our DND was spraying Agent Orange (2.4,D + 2,4,5,T) for six years out of 8 from 1956 to 1964 as follows, covering 47,820 ACRES.
1956 3,687 Acres sprayed with 2, 4, D and 2, 4, 5, T
1957 3,879 Acres sprayed with 2, 4, D and 2, 4, 5, T
1958 8,018 Acres sprayed with 2, 4, D and 2, 4, 5, T
1959 No spraying
1960 9,079 Acres sprayed with AMMATE and 2, 4, 5, T
1961 5,189 Acres sprayed with 2, 4, 5, T
1962 No spraying
1963 9,643 Acres sprayed with 2, 4, D and 2, 4, 5, T
1964 9,225 Acres sprayed with 2, 4, D and 2, 4, 5, T
It appears that Agent White (TORDON 101) may have been just as deadly as Agent Orange and Agent Purple. Our DND sprayed Agent White (TORDON 101) from 1965 to 1984 THROUGHOUT THE BASE TRAINING AREA.
It contained a combination of Picloram and 2,4,D. The deadly stuff is Picloram which contained as an "inert agent" Hexachlorobenzene (HCB). It has been identifed by the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry as being a deadly poison.
The nasty part of Tordon 101 is the Picloram which has an inert agent called Hexachlorobenzene. The EPA
has established that Picloram, HCB and its biodegradable successor, Pentachlorophenol (Penta) can and do harm to the liver, kidneys, blood, lungs, nervous system, immune system, and gastrointestinal tract yet our governments continued to spray almost a million liters of this poison over the base where human contact was inevitable.
Short-term: EPA has found picloram to potentially cause the following health effects when people are exposed to it at levels above the MCL for relatively short periods of time: Damage to central nervous system, weakness, diarrhea, weight loss.
Long-term: Picloram has the potential to cause the following effects from a lifetime exposure at levels above the MCL: liver damage.
Hexachlorobenzene seeks out aquifers and has been found at depths greater than 45 feet. It is relatively stable in Water. In loamy soil, it biodegrades and gives up a chloride ion and becomes Pentachlorophenol (Penta). If ingested, HCB undergoes an immediate chemical change to become Penta. Penta is also dangerous if inhaled, ingested with food or through dermal contact. Since the liver is the filter of fluids in the body, the contaminants, dioxins and other chemicals have to pass through this organ and are absorbed by the fatty cells in the liver, bones and other internal organs.
Thus over the years, we get sick with a host of diseases and disorders.
I am in the midst of considering a class action lawsuit against the federal government in Federal Court in Ottawa. I have been approached by the leading class action law firm in Canada to start a class action. I do not believe that our government will do anything to adequately or properly compensate military or civilian victims of the spraying of 1.3 million liters of poisonous defoliant over a period of 28 years.
No disability pension will ever compensate those who have died, those who are dying or those who are sick. The misery and suffering of every family involved has to be addressed properly. And no amount of money will ever make things right for failed health and runined lives but it will help the survivors.
If you wish to add your name to the list, email me at kdobbie2@cogeco.ca
REMEMBER WE STILL DON'T KNOW YET WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN SPRAYING FROM 1985 TO 2005.
Kenneth Dobbie
Just to clear things a bit once again...
Yes, the Americans, with DND's permission did spray Agent Orange and Agent Purple in small quantities in the summers of 1966 & 1967. But during this same time our DND was ALSO spraying Agent White from 1965 to 1984 inclusive COVERING 132,318 ACRES with Agent White (TORDON 101).
Our DND was spraying Agent Orange (2.4,D + 2,4,5,T) for six years out of 8 from 1956 to 1964 as follows, covering 47,820 ACRES.
1956 3,687 Acres sprayed with 2, 4, D and 2, 4, 5, T
1957 3,879 Acres sprayed with 2, 4, D and 2, 4, 5, T
1958 8,018 Acres sprayed with 2, 4, D and 2, 4, 5, T
1959 No spraying
1960 9,079 Acres sprayed with AMMATE and 2, 4, 5, T
1961 5,189 Acres sprayed with 2, 4, 5, T
1962 No spraying
1963 9,643 Acres sprayed with 2, 4, D and 2, 4, 5, T
1964 9,225 Acres sprayed with 2, 4, D and 2, 4, 5, T
It appears that Agent White (TORDON 101) may have been just as deadly as Agent Orange and Agent Purple. Our DND sprayed Agent White (TORDON 101) from 1965 to 1984 THROUGHOUT THE BASE TRAINING AREA.
It contained a combination of Picloram and 2,4,D. The deadly stuff is Picloram which contained as an "inert agent" Hexachlorobenzene (HCB). It has been identifed by the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry as being a deadly poison.
The nasty part of Tordon 101 is the Picloram which has an inert agent called Hexachlorobenzene. The EPA
has established that Picloram, HCB and its biodegradable successor, Pentachlorophenol (Penta) can and do harm to the liver, kidneys, blood, lungs, nervous system, immune system, and gastrointestinal tract yet our governments continued to spray almost a million liters of this poison over the base where human contact was inevitable.
Short-term: EPA has found picloram to potentially cause the following health effects when people are exposed to it at levels above the MCL for relatively short periods of time: Damage to central nervous system, weakness, diarrhea, weight loss.
Long-term: Picloram has the potential to cause the following effects from a lifetime exposure at levels above the MCL: liver damage.
Hexachlorobenzene seeks out aquifers and has been found at depths greater than 45 feet. It is relatively stable in Water. In loamy soil, it biodegrades and gives up a chloride ion and becomes Pentachlorophenol (Penta). If ingested, HCB undergoes an immediate chemical change to become Penta. Penta is also dangerous if inhaled, ingested with food or through dermal contact. Since the liver is the filter of fluids in the body, the contaminants, dioxins and other chemicals have to pass through this organ and are absorbed by the fatty cells in the liver, bones and other internal organs.
Thus over the years, we get sick with a host of diseases and disorders.
I am in the midst of considering a class action lawsuit against the federal government in Federal Court in Ottawa. I have been approached by the leading class action law firm in Canada to start a class action. I do not believe that our government will do anything to adequately or properly compensate military or civilian victims of the spraying of 1.3 million liters of poisonous defoliant over a period of 28 years.
No disability pension will ever compensate those who have died, those who are dying or those who are sick. The misery and suffering of every family involved has to be addressed properly. And no amount of money will ever make things right for failed health and runined lives but it will help the survivors.
If you wish to add your name to the list, email me at kdobbie2@cogeco.ca
REMEMBER WE STILL DON'T KNOW YET WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN SPRAYING FROM 1985 TO 2005.
Kenneth Dobbie
Just an added note to the class action. There is absolutely no cost to you to sign on. If there is no award, you pay nothing.
If damages are awarded by the federal court, then you share in the award of damages provided you have been able to give proof that you were medically affected and have an exposure episode.
To check out the firm dealing with this, here is the URL for their website.
http://www.merchantlaw.com/
Kenneth Dobbie
If damages are awarded by the federal court, then you share in the award of damages provided you have been able to give proof that you were medically affected and have an exposure episode.
To check out the firm dealing with this, here is the URL for their website.
http://www.merchantlaw.com/
Kenneth Dobbie
Similar threads
