Agent Orange and Children Latest Chronology

FORGOTTEN Our Innocent Children

Born & Being Born with Deformities

Caused by their fathers' exposure to Agent Orange during the Vietnam War

A CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER OF REPORTS AND SCIENTIFIC STUDIES Which Reveals Our Government's Deliberate Malfeasance and Deception

By Richard E Phenneger

Heartache etches the face of Vietnam veteran Al Martinelli, with his son Christopher, underscoring our U.S. Government's tragic abandonment of our Vietnam veterans' children - innocent victims of Agent Orange.

-- Picture by Gabe Green, Coeur d’Alene Press

213 South Coho Road Post Falls, Idaho 83854

www.vstnow.org ~ [email protected] [email protected]

Page 1 of 4

A "MORAL OBSCENITY" THAT SHOULD SHOCK OUR NATION'S CONSCIENCE

I want to tell you a tragic story, long under wraps and cruelly distorted. It must be told once and for all, clearly, provably, and completely free of political or partisan bias. It is a story of how hundreds of thousands of American and Vietnamese children, born and yet-to-be born, became innocent victims of AGENT ORANGE (AO) during the Vietnamese War. It is a story of American malfeasance and cover-up, falsifications and deceptions at the highest levels of government.

Agent Orange is a powerful and deadly concoction. It contains TCDD (2,3,7,8–tetrachlogodibenzo-para- dioxin), one of the most toxic manmade chemicals known to humankind–150,000 times the toxicity of arsenic. And it was on millions of our soldiers that this destructive concoction was wantonly expended.

The objective key to the whole is shown in the attached CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER OF REPORTS AND SCIENTIFIC STUDIES in which the overriding opinions from the scientific community should have been warning enough for anyone, even in time of war. All reports and studies shown in Column A were paid for, or manipulated by, our Federal Government. The reports and studies listed in Column B were conducted by independent scientists. (The differences are well defined in the two columns A and B.)

The tragedy started in the early 1960s with the spraying of AO in the Vietnam War. Based on documented facts our Government knew as early as 19521* that AO was dangerous to health, but it told our soldiers and the international community that it was not harmful. However, in November 1961 President Kennedy approved the use of Herbicide (Dioxin) spraying in Vietnam. For the following year, Presidential approval was required to spray Herbicides on any Vietnam target, troops or villages. Then in late 1962 President Kennedy delegated limited authority to order defoliation missions (herbicide spraying) to the U.S. Ambassador to South Vietnam and our military leaders and they were continued until April 15, 1970. On this day the U.S. Surgeon General issued a warning that Agent Orange might be hazardous to our health. Simultaneously the Secretaries of Agriculture, Health, Education and Welfare and the Interior jointly announced the suspension of it use. Why? Because Agent Orange (2,4,5-T) caused birth defects. By then the international community was of one voice in condemning the use of Agent Orange in combat operations and against civilian populations. However, one name stands out, the name of a widely admired and openly honest American military leader: Admiral Zumwalt, Chief of Naval Operations. Throughout all the studies, arguments, counter-arguments and cover-ups, this great man held on to and articulated the real truth about the evil of Agent Orange. He was ignored.

* A 1 or 4, etc. at the end of a word refers to the source of the information provided, which is located on pages 15-17 of the Chronological listing of reports and scientific studies.

Page 2 of 4

The Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA") estimated that 4,200,0004 of our Vietnam veterans were exposed to AO. Many of the children they fathered were born with major deformities and illnesses. Independent Scientific Studies proved these deformities and illnesses were the result of their fathers' DNA being altered by AO.14/15 Hidden Federal Government studies also confirm this fact.7 Yet the denial of truth continued. WHY? Why would any government do this? The answer lies in a series of memos from President Regan's Agent Orange Work Group ("AOWG") that ordered the manipulation of data and the altering of scientific conclusions to hide the truth that AO was the cause of deformed children fathered by Vietnam Soldiers exposed to AO.40/45/47 The White House had determined that the Federal Government could not afford the cost of caring for these deformed and ill children.28 When these soldiers were sent to war in the 1960s they were lied to about AO. When they returned home they were deliberately abandoned to suffer the life-long consequences of AO exposure to the children they fathered.

Today, we have hundreds of thousands of families, both in the United States and Vietnam, struggling with the burden of caring for children suffering from their fathers' exposure to AO. Our Government denies its complicity. The fact that the White House ordered the alteration and manipulation of data to hide the truth is shocking. It is also shocking that the Oval Office ordered the herbicide spraying as early as 1961.

In the ongoing research that I was conducting, a local Vietnam veteran, Al Martinelli, came to my attention. His story is typical of countless ones available to anyone who cares. His story is being cited here because it generated real interest on the part of the local Coeur d'Alene Press which then prompted The Press to conduct its own due diligence. Since then over 40,000 copies of this story have been downloaded, shared or mailed. The story is as follows.

Al Martinelli was a Navy Reservist stationed on the USS Cleveland LPD7 (the "Cleveland") from November 1967 to December 1968. The Cleveland operated between DaNang and Hue, very near the coast and at the mouth of the Qua Viet and Hue Rivers. The ship was close enough to the shore to be exposed to offshore drift of spraying operations by C-123 aircraft at the mouth of the Qua Viet River. The Cleveland (an amphibious transport dock ship, crewed by 164 officers, 396 enlisted and 840 troops,) supported the "Mike Boats;" delivering troops and supplies to the battle fields and retrieving troops after they patrolled in the rivers and operated on land. When the Mike Boats returned to the Cleveland with soldiers covered with dirt, mud and water contaminated with Agent Orange, Al and his fellow crewmen became contaminated as they worked on the Boats and helped our battlefield soldiers.

Al fathered two children, each born with major anomalies. After his first child was born with nervous system defects and skeletal defects (Hypo Condroplasia), he and his wife (Sharon) consulted with a team of doctors and asked if they dared to have any more children. The doctors searched the Martinellis' medical records for any history of birth deformities–none existed. Al and Sharon were advised that the chances of having another deformed child was one in a million. So they had another boy. He was born with Down's Syndrome, defects of the digestive system and hip abnormalities, deformities totally unrelated to the first child. The doctor that worked with the Martinellis was shocked. Based on their medical history, such deformities were impossible! When Al took the 2012 North Idaho Vietnam Veterans Agent Orange Survey he realized and confirmed that his two sons' deformities were the result of his exposure to Agent Orange during the 1968 Tet Counter-offensive in Vietnam.

Page 3 of 4

Attachment 2 is the Coeur d'Alene Press publication of the Martinelli story - Fighting for the next generation.

In conducting its own due diligence, the CDA Press contacted the Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA"). Randy Noller, a spokesman for the VA in Washington DC, responded to the documented government denial of responsibility for Agent Orange deformities by saying, ". . . VA makes these decisions relying on our scientific advisors from the independent Institute of Medicine [IOM] of the National Academy of Sciences [NAS]." "IOM has ongoing analysis of the scientific literature looking at questions of health effects from exposure to Agent Orange, including birth defects." However, let's look at the actual history in the attached Chronological Order of Reports and Scientific Studies:

A. 1969 - Page 3, right column, paragraph 3 states, ". . .NAS Research Council Committee received a "confidential" report prepared by the Bionetrics Research Council Committee "BRC" that 2,4,5-T (which contains TCDD) showed a significant potential to increase birth defects." Contrary to Mr. Noller's statement, this NAS sponsored report was ignored - not relied upon.

B. 1970 - Page 4, right column, paragraph 3. - Use of 2,4,5 - T (which contains TCDD, or 2,3,4,8- tertrachlogodibenzo-para-dioxin) was a "teratogen" (causing developmental malformations & monstrosities - birth defects). Dow also confirms the BRC/NAS report, when dioxin was disbursed in quantities exceeding production specifications, birth defects did occur. Again, the VA ignored these findings that supported the conclusions of the NAS in 1969.

C. 1974 - Page 5, right column, paragraph 1 - NAS expressed concern over TCDD because of (1) it's very high toxicity to animals, (2) it's presence in Agent Orange, (3) preliminary reports of presence of TCDD in fish in Vietnam, and (4) the lack of any data permitting assessment of TCDD effects on humans. The NAS recommendation that long-term studies be made did not start until 18 years later and birth defects were not included in the studies.

D. 1980 - Page 6, right column, paragraph 2. - An anonymous memorandum sent to Senator Daschle on VA stationary which stated; ". . . Agent Orange and Agent Blue, are mutagenic and teratogenic. This means they intercept the genetic DNA message processed on an unborn fetus, thereby resulting in deformed children being born. Therefore the veteran would appear to have no ill effects from exposure but he would produce deformed children due to the breakage in his genetic chain . . ."

E. 2010 - Page 13, right column, paragraph 3. - IOM Veterans and Agent Orange: Update. IOM stated "Work needs to be undertaken to resolve questions regarding several health outcomes, most importantly COPD, tonsil cancer, melanoma, brain cancer, Alzheimer's disease, and paternally transmitted effects to offspring." As late as 2010 the VA has continued to ignore the IOM's recommendations regarding birth defects. Clearly, birth defects had not been researched by the IOM or NAS.

Mr. Noller's statement that the IOM has an ongoing analysis ". . .including defects" is blatantly false. The 1991 Agent Orange Act (P.L. 102-4) instructed the VA to commission the IOM to conduct an analysis of the effect of Agent Orange on the health of Vietnam soldiers. However, birth defects were not included. (Note page 11 of the attached Chronological Study, right column, starting at paragraph 4.)

Page 4 of 4

Mr. Martinelli's case is but one of tens of thousands that could be cited, all of which prove out the warnings of the majority scientific community, of Admiral Zumwalt and other highly respected and credible participants in the debate. Furthermore, the havoc wrought upon hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese children is as much a part of the story as anything else.

The problem is not just the VA's denial, it is the failure of Congress to properly oversee the Department of Veteran Affairs. The data outlined in the Chronological Order of Reports and Scientific Studies is not new. The real tragedy is: (1) the continued failure of the Oval Office to recognize the enormous harm the Federal Government has inflicted on the soldiers it sent to Vietnam and the children these soldiers fathered, and (2) the failure of Congress to fix a problem they have known about for decades. Where does the buck stop? What must we, the 21,000,000 Veteran families, mothers, fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers do? These families consist of at least 60,000,000 voters. The answer is simple, the task daunting.

We must act as one and demand that our White House and Congress: (1) stop the ongoing cover-up, falsifications and deceptions that have caused the early death of hundreds of thousands of our Vietnam veterans and the birth of untold thousands of ill and deformed children, (2) complete the Agent Orange Exposure Study that was ordered by Congress four decades ago, but cancelled by the White House to hide this massive, life destroying cover-up, and (3) establish a Trust Fund to care for these children who, because of the failures of Congress, cannot care for themselves. The Trust Fund can also advance scientific research to reverse the damage done to the DNA of our Vietnam veterans exposed to Agent Orange.

The cost of this is primarily your time. Will you devote the time to flood our Congressional leaders with your demands to fix the problem? VST has the legal talent to help make this happen. We need your help and will provide you all of the materials and contacts you will need. Let VST know you are on board by e-mailing us at [email protected] and simply say: "YES, I will help to get Congress to fix the problem." Please send this letter and Chronological Study to everyone you know. Ask them to join in the battle.

I want to stress that my passion (and I hope yours, too) is generated by conscience, by a plea for the exercise of universal moral values, a plea to protect and care for our children, born and yet-to-be born. It is not driven by politics, or partisan flimflammery. It is an outright plea for justice and rightness and plain, unqualified honesty by our Federal Government.

Can you imagine the impact of mothers, fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers joining with Al and Sharon Martinelli and countless thousands of others in seeking the truth and identifying wrongdoing –

Fighting for the next generation?

Richard Phenneger President VST

attachments

A special note - the four-year cost of developing the Chronological Order of Reports and Scientific Studies has been totally born by trusted friends, educators, writers, attorneys, committed volunteers and scientists who care. Without them we would have failed. They have created the foundation upon which we stand. If you can help going forward, it would be wonderful. $5.00 will go a long way. Veteran Services Transparency, Inc. (“VST”) is a 501(c)(19) Corporation - Federal Tax ID #27-1042577

CHRONOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

OF REPORTS AND SCIENTIFIC STUDIES

"ATTACHMENT 1"

Revised - 04/08/2014 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 1

+ 1962 Purple and Blue were the first herbicides to arrive in

Vietnam. Later, it was determined Purple had a higher concentration of TCDD (2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo para dioxin) [“DIOXIN”] than any of the

(Continued)

1943 A botanist, Arthur Galston studied the compound triiocobenzoic acid (a plant growth hormone) in an attempt to adapt soybeans to a short growing season. He found that excessive usage caused catastrophic defoliation – a finding later used to develop herbicides disbursed in Vietnam.1

1943 The U.S. Army contacted the University of Chicago to study the possible use of herbicides (2,4-D & 2,4,5-T) to destroy enemy crops in War. This grew out of a warning by NAS (National Academy of Sciences) to the Secretary of War of the potential dangers to the U.S. of biological warfare. 92/94

1950 – Most of the chemical industry knew that large quantities of TCDD may be formed as a byproduct of the 2,4,5-T manufacturing process if the manufacturing procedures were not carefully controlled. (TCDD is a carcinogen – a cancer-causing substance.)5

1952 – Internal memoranda revealed that Monsanto (a major manufacturer of 2,4,5-T) had informed the U.S. Army Officials that its 2,4,5-T (later called Agent Orange and Purple) was contaminated during production with TCDD (DIOXIN); DIOXIN is 150,000 times more toxic than arsenic. It is the most dangerous molecule ever created by man.64/7

COLUMN B COLUMN A

The tragic chronological history of how untold thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, of children became innocent victims of AGENT ORANGE ("AO”) is outlined below. AO contains TCDD (2,3,7,8–tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin), one of the most toxic chemicals known to man. The Tragedy started in the early 1960s when our government ordered the spraying of AO in the Vietnam War, knowing that AO was dangerous to health. They told our soldiers and the International Communities that it was not harmful. Millions of our soldiers were exposed to AO, and fathered children born with major deformities. The chronological listing below of the studies conducted by independent and government paid/controlled scientists provides a simplified process for studying and comparing their results. The left column lists the reports and scientific studies that concluded AO was not harmful. The right column lists the reports and scientific studies that concluded AO was harmful and causes or could cause birth defects.

Throughout the chronological history you will see reference numbers such as a 1 or a 23, usually at the end of a sentence. These refer you to the source of the information provided. The sources are listed in the "Reference" section (pages 15-17).

Please, read the Chronological History and draw your own conclusions.


COLUMN A COLUMN B

1961 Defense Secretary McNamara requested feasibility tests for defoliation of jungle vegetation in Vietnam. 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T mixtures used. The herbicide choice to be based on: chemicals that had had considerable research, availability in large quantities, cost, “known/proven safety in regard to their toxicity to humans & animals. . .” 2/3

1961 – November 30th - President Kennedy gave approval in principle to herbicide (dioxin) spraying in Vietnam. For the year following, Oval Office approval was required for any herbicide spraying of Vietnam targets. In 1962 limited authority granted to the U.S. Ambassador to Vietnam and military to

95

1962 Purple and Blue were the first herbicides to arrive in Vietnam. Later, it was determined Purple had a higher concentration of TCDD (2,3,4,8-tetrachlorodibenzo para dioxin) ["DIOXIN"] than any of the other mixtures, White, Pink, Green and event- ually Orange (AO). The Air Force conducted most of the spraying using C-123s – “OPERATION RANCH HAND.” Spraying was also conducted with army helicopters, River Boats and by hand. From 1962 to 1971 4.2 million U.S. Soldiers possibly made transient/significant contact with AO3/4/109

1965 AO became the standard herbicide used from 1965

on. Following 1965 the Federal Government reported finding DIOXIN in Agent Orange. How- ever, they denied that AO was harmful. 24 (NOTE - Monsanto's disclosure to Army in 1952, 13 yrs. earlier.) 1.9 million liters of Agent Purple was sprayed from 1962-1965. Agent Purple was far more toxic than AO. 3/96

approve herbicide spraying of Vietnam targets.

1963 – U.S. Army reviewed toxicity studies on 2,4,5-T & found increased risk of chloracne, respiratory irritations; this risk was increased when the chemical was applied in high concentrations by inexperienced people. The President's Science Advisory Committee reported to the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the possible health dangers of herbicide use.93

1964 - Dow Chemical was aware as early as 1964 that TCDD was a byproduct of the manufacturing process for Agent Orange.8

1965 – Military dispensed AO in concentrations 6 to 25 times the manufacturer’s suggested rate. It was also sprayed undiluted. The U.S. Government knew that AO was harmful to our Soldiers.12/70 (Note Monsanto 1952 internal memorandum on page 1, 4th paragraph.)

COLUMN A COLUMN B


1967 DOD contracted with Midwest Research Institute (MRI) for an in-depth assessment of the ecological effects of extensive or repeated use of herbicides. MRI reported that, “. . the possibility of lethal toxicity to humans. . . .is highly unlikely and should not be a matter of deep concern . . .” (First USAF Ranch Hand Study Results)10

1968 U.S. Department of State released an assessment of

the ecological consequences of the defoliation program in South Vietnam provided by Tschirley: . . . “There is no evidence to suggest that herbicide used in Vietnam will cause toxicity for man or animals. 11

1969 Society for Social Responsibility in Science sponsored a “visit” by two zoologists to supplement Tschirley’s report. They reported finding little evidence of the toxic effects of herbicides to animals, although they did receive a report (by interview) of many sick & dying birds & mammals, they did not investigate this report. They found no evidence that herbicides had direct adverse effects on human health. 11

1969 While birth defects did significantly increase in

Saigon, critics contended that Saigon was not an area where heavy defoliation missions occurred. So they attributed the increase to the influx of U.S medical personnel who kept better records. (Note response in Column B) 97

1967 – Botanist Arthur Galston warned, “we are too ignorant of the interplay of forces in ecological problems to know how far-reaching and how lasting will be the changes in ecology brought about by the widespread spraying of herbicides in Vietnam. These changes may include immediate harm to people in sprayed areas. . .” 6

1968 – Dr James Clary – (former gov. scientist with the Chemical Weapons Branch, BW/CW Division) – letter to Senator Daschle “When we (military scientists) initiated the herbicide program in the 1960’s, we were aware of the potential for damage due to dioxin contamination in herbicide . . . . .We never considered a scenario in which our own personnel would become contaminated with the herbicide . . . .” 59

1969 – The National Academy of Science (NAS) Research Council Committee received a “confidential” report prepared by the Bionetics Research Council Commit- tee(“BRC”) that 2,4,5-T (which contains TCDD) showed “a significant potential to increased birth defects.” The USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) had hired BRC to conduct the Study. The Study was then provided to the NAS.14/15

1969 - Four months after the NAS Committee saw the BRC report the first reports of human birth defects allegedly attributed to AO started appearing in Vietnamese news papers. 97 The critics’ argument fails to recognize the fact that an unknown number of Vietnamese were forced to move to Saigon because the U.S. had destroyed their food crops and their villages. (The U.S. sprayed Dioxin on 63,500 acres in 1964; 160,300 acres in 1965; 751,100 acres in 1966 and 547,400 acres in the first four months of 1967, killing crops in the sprayed areas.) 91 Later studies conducted at the OB-GYN Hospital of Ho Chi Minh City in South Vietnam proved that AO had a significant impact on civilian birth defects.15 (Note 10)

OCT. 1969 – Dr. Lee F. Dubridge, Science Advisor to the President, announced that there would be a partial curtailment of the use of AO. 66


COLUMN A COLUMN B

1970 – “Teratogenic Evaluation of 2,4,5-T” study by K. Courtney, D. Gaylor, M. Hogan, H Falk, R. Bates and I. Mitchell (published in Science 5/15/1970). High doses of AO could cause malformed offspring as well as stillbirths in mice.

1970 Dow Chemical Company, the primary manufacturer of 2,4,5-T & 2,4-D denied the teratogenicity of 2,4,5-T, stating that according to their tests (with 2.4.5-T that Dow had produced and then had been disbursed in accordance with their production specifications), there was no indication of any fetal abnormalities. Note – Column B 67

1970 – (Follow-up to Dow Chemical Co. 2,4,5-T Study); HOWEVER, the Dow texts did confirm the BRC findings that, when dioxin was disbursed in quantities exceeding (then-current) production specifications, birth defects did occur.67 Note – the military dispensed AO in concentrations 6 to 25 times the manufacturer’s suggested rate.24

1970 – Surgeon General of the U.S. issues a warning that the use of 2,4,5-T might be hazardous to “our health.” The Secretaries of Agriculture, HEW, and the Interior jointly announced the suspension of certain uses of 2,4,5- T. These suspensions resulted from published studies indicating that 2,4,5-T was a “teratogen” (causing developmental malformations & monstrosities [birth defects]).16/67

1970 – The Depart of Defense suspended all use of AO.

1970 - Teratogenic evaluation of 2,4,5-T (Science, May 1970) "The herbicide 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid is teratogenic and fetocidal in two strains of mice. . . .” “. . . the occurrence of hemorrhagic gastrointestinal track in the rat fetus suggest that this compound also has fetotoxic properties.”

1972 – 57 horses in an Eastern Missouri arena died shortly after exposure to arena turf that had been oil- treated with surplus oil sludge contaminated with TCDD. Causes of death? – Skin lesions, severe weight loss & heptotoxicity. Birds, dogs, cats, insects & rodents were also found dead in and around arena. A six-year old girl that was exposed developed epstaxis, gastrointestinal complaints and severe hemorrhagic systitis.65


COLUMN A COLUMN B

1974 – In the NAS 1974 Report on its South Vietnam Study, concern was expressed regarding TCDD (Dioxin) because of: (1) its very high toxicity to animals, (2) its presence in Agent Orange, (3) preliminary reports of presence of TCDD in fish in Vietnam, and (4) the lack of any data permitting assessment of TCDD effects on humans. As a result, NAS recommended that long-term studies be made to obtain a firmer basis of assessing the potential harmful effects on man. The NAS committee could not gather any definitive indications on direct damage by herbicides to human health.17

1974 – However, during the NAS Committee's South Vietnam Study, the committee was unable to visit the Montagnards where they lived to verify common and consistent reports of serious illness and death, especially among children, after exposure to herbicide sprays. (Rand Corporation 1967 Report, page 15, addresses spraying impact on Montagnards.)

1977- “Not for Release” VA Doc. AO’s high toxicity and deformed children – similar to thalidomide situation.7

1978 – Paul Reutershan, E. Gorman (pers. Injury lawyers) filed suit in N.Y. against Dow Chemical & two other chemical manufacturers for diseases suffered by Vietnam Veterans & their families (including birth defects) due to exposure to Agent Orange.18

1978 – The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an emergency suspension of the spraying of 2,4,5-T in national forests after finding “a statistically significant increase in the frequency of miscarriages among women living near forests sprayed with AO. AO exceeded risk criteria for teratogenic (causing birth malformations) and fetotoxic (causing harm to the fetus) set by regulations.19/89

1979 - Dr. Paul Haber (VA) reported it was theoretically possible that about 4,200,000 soldiers could have been exposed to AO. 4 (note #22)


COLUMN A COLUMN B

1979 – During Congressional Hearings before House Commerce Committee, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, quoted, “Human Disease Linked to Dioxin: Congress Calls for 2,4,5-T Ban After Dramatic Herbicide Hearings,” 28 Bioscience 454 (August 1979).108

This study, also known as the Alsea Study, cited as showing the 1st correlation between 2,4,5-T (contaminated with TCDD) and teratogenic (BIRTH DEFECTS) in humans.108/99

1980 – Senator Daschle and Rep. Bonior received an anonymous memorandum written on VA stationary which stated: chemical agents 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D commonly known as Agent Orange and Agent Blue, are mutagenic and teratogenic. This means they intercept the genetic DNA message processed to an unborn fetus, thereby resulting in deformed children being born. Therefore, the veteran would appear to have no ill effects from exposure but he would produce deformed children due to the breakage in his genetic chain . . . 7

1982 – Study ordered by P.L. 96-151 & expanded by P.L. 97-72 was transferred to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), October 1982.22

1983 – Monsanto Zack & Gaffy Study – Basic conclusion that TCDD (Dioxin) not a factor in medical health.98

(Also Published in the "Environmental Science Research,1983.)

1983 – January 18th 1983 the CDC accepted responsibility for the Agent Orange Exposure Study. (AO Study) 25 It substantially modified the Study Protocol and launched the Study.32

October 1982 – GAO investigated the effectiveness of the Agent Orange examination program. The GAO stated the VA’ s work was poorly designed & being administrated by physicians who were not familiar with the reported health effects of Agent Orange. 23

Dr. G. Roush (Monsanto’s Medical Director) Researchers deliberately omitted 5 deaths from exposure and classified 4 workers as unexposed in the Monsanto Zack and Gaffy Study, to equalize the death rates among exposed and unexposed workers. Dr. Roush further admitted that the overall death rate from cancer was 65% greater in the exposed population than expected.

ADMITTED FRAUD AND DECEPTION26/98

1983 – ". . .the Reagan Administration decided to revised

the charter of the White House Panel by eliminating (Continued)

1983 – By focusing the work of the AOWG on Agent Orange only, the administration laid the groundwork for

(Continued)


COLUMN A COLUMN B

1983 – (Cont.) its mandate to explore the effects of all

herbicides and contaminants and concentrating . . . only on Agent Orange." White House Panel called the Agent Orange Work Group (“AOWG”). 28 - page 27

1983 – Dissenting Views of Hon. Richard K. Armey, Hon.

Frank Horton, Hon. Howard C. Vielson, Hon. J. Dennis Hastert, Hon. Jon L. Kyl, and Hon. Chuch Douglass – “Regrettably however, instead of advancing the debate on Agent Orange in a positive direction, the Human Resources Subcommittee has abused this issue in order to launch an ideological assault upon a Republican White House with which it has never agreed. Consequently, constructive suggestions for further review and detached review of science are given a back seat . . .” 29

1984 – Monsanto Zack & Suskind 1980 Study AND the

Suskind & Hertzberg 1984 Study that TCDD (Dioxin) not a factor in medical health.26/88

1984 – Sept. AOWG ordered that “. . . . all documents

related to Agent Orange research studies slated for review by any person or organization outside the Federal Government be submitted first to the Chair, AOWG.” 33 (Emphasis added)

1984 – The White House Agent Orange Working Group

also withheld a second report on the Birth Defects of RANCH HAND Vets. This is the report RANCH HAND scientists disclosed to Senator Daschle in 1987. Ranch Hand scientists (Dr. Albanese and Dr. Michalek) told Senator Daschle that the White House AOWG withheld the Birth Defect Study. The report was finally published in 1988.60/106

1986 – The Justice Department ordered the Defense

Department not to assist the Special Master (person organizing the Distribution Plan ordered by Judge Weinstein) overseeing the legal settlement between manufacturers of AO and Vietnam Veterans. 37

1983 – (Cont.) manipulating the [AO] Study to the point of uselessness. (as reported in Admiral Zumwalt’s 1990 AO Report and the 101st Congress 2nd Session House Report 101- 672, page 28-37) The White House had been warned by the OMB (Offices of Management & Budget) that the cost of caring for Vietnam Veterans suffering from diseases related to their exposure to AO while serving our Country in the Vietnam War would be in the hundreds of billions of dollars. “The White House was deeply concerned that the Federal Government would be placed in the position of paying compensation to veterans suffering diseases related to Agent Orange and, moreover, feared that providing help to Vietnam Veterans would set the precedent of having the United States compensate civilian victims of toxic contamination exposure. . .” 28( Page 28) 3rd Para.

1984 – Dr. Suskind – Purposefully omitted secret Monsanto Studies that documented psychoneuroses and long term nervous system & liver damage.88

1984 – December 17, 1984, The Air Force Birth Defects study concluded that “There was an increase in the risk of Ranch Hand birth defects with time (pre versus post – Southeast Asia), and this change is statistically significant,” had remained unpublished. The study also concluded, “A significant change in risk of the occurrence of neonatal death was noted. . .” U.S. Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine, “Project Ranch Hand II: An Epidemiological Investigation of Health Effects in Air Force Personnel Following Exposure to Herbicides: Reproductive Outcome Update,” WORKING DRAFT – NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 90

1986 – Judge Weinstein’s Distribution Plan included funding for a class of children fathered by Vietnam Veterans, “of children with birth defects.” 36 (Question – If the Defense Department provided assistance, would that suggest that the Government agreed AO could be the cause of Vietnam Veteran illnesses & birth defects?)


1986 – A July 18th OMB memorandum provides evidence that it was the White House, not CDC, that was making decisions during possibly the most crucial phase of the AO Exposure Study. The memorandum states that the decision on whether to cancel the [AO] study will be influenced by CDC’s public testimony before the House Veterans Affairs Committee on July 31, 1986. “It is important that the testimony leave the AOWG with options on the future of the Agent Orange study . . .” The memorandum contains an admission that the final decision was based on the Federal Government’s legal culpability, not necessarily the independent work of scientists. 40 (Emphasis added)

1987 . . . the Chair of the AOWG informed the Chairman of the White House Domestic Policy Council, “it has been concluded that military records cannot support a valid epidemiological study of the health effects of Agent Orange exposure on Vietnam Veterans . . .I advise you to recommend to the Domestic Policy Council that the Agent Orange exposure study be cancelled.” 45 (emphasis added)

1986 – The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Energy & Commerce documented how untutored officials of the Office of Management & Budget (OMB) interfered with and second- guessed the professional judgments of agency scientist & multidisciplinary panels of outside peer review experts effectively to alter or forestall CDC research [on AO]41

1986 – Environmental Study Group, Department of Defense (ESG) personnel informed the IOM team that ESG’s “ability to make determinations on company locations has been hampered by CDC's – imposed constraints. The ESG also pointed out that there is a considerable loss of numbers of veterans with potential exposure from the study because of CDC’s stringent eligibility requirements.” 42

1986 – After reviewing the work of the Environmental Study Group, Dept. of Defense (ESG), the IOM team concluded that CDC had wrongly restricted the study.43

Testimony (1990) – Opinions & comments of scientists regarding the use of exposure data & correlation with spray in an Agent Orange Epidemiological Study. They all disagreed with the AOWG opinion that military records cannot support a valid epidemiological AO study: 1. Dr. Jeanne Stellman – stated that available records were quite sufficient to determine exposure to AO. 102

2. Richard Christian (ESG member) – CDC conclusions false, he had personally informed the CDC that adequate military records existed to identify Company-specific movements as well as spray locations. 101

3. (Regarding the 1988 IOM site visit) The IOM said it was “satisfied” that the ESG was capable of determining locations & filling in gaps, and that the ESG was highly competent in recording data collected. 100

4. IOM critical of CDCs alteration of protocol and the AOWG's lack of scientific experience. 44/100

5. Dr. Dennis Smith – "historical records available appear to be of tremendous importance to our Agent Orange Project."107

COLUMN B COLUMN A


1987 – Two months later the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) acknowledged the instruction to cancel the [AO] study. “. . . AOWG has instructed CDC to begin the process of cancelling the contracts and closing out all activities related to the Agent Orange Exposure Study.” 47

1988 – The Chairman of the AOWG sent a memorandum to its members advising them that the future release of any information related to Agent Orange must be cleared by the AOWG. Quote, “The release of any report, without the review mandated by the Agent Orange Working Group [AOWG] procedures, could constitute a serious breach and may undercut our credibility. Any premature release could cause embarrassment to the government. Research

(Continued)

1987 – NOTE – Once the Agent Orange Exposure Study was cancelled on the premise that assessing exposure was scientifically impossible, Federal scientists were able to dismiss any link between diseases and maladies they discovered and Agent Orange. 48/60

1987 – Ranch Hand Scientists (Dr. Albanese, Dr. Michalek) confirmed to Senator Daschle that an unpublished 1984 Birth Defects Study shows that birth defects among Ranch Hand children were double those of children in the control group and not "minor" as originally reported. The unpublished Study proved the 1988 published Study was altered by the AOWG resulting in the perpetration of fraudulent conclusions.60 This increase in birth defects takes on added significance when one considers that the original CDC Birth Defects Study, which found no increase in birth defects, merely examined birth defects as reported on birth certificates, rather than as reported by the child’s parents [or doctor]. The CDC never recorded hidden birth defects, such as internal organ malformations and other disabilities that only became apparent as the child developed. Consequently, it is very likely that the CDC's negative findings on birth defects were also vastly understated.60 In addition to the elevated birth defects, Ranch Hander's also showed a significant increase in skin cancers unrelated to overexposure to the sun as originally suggested in the 1984 report. Air Force scientists also admitted that Air Force and White House Management representatives were involved in scientific decisions in spite of the study’s protocol which prohibited such involvement. (Quote from Admiral Zumwalt’s Agent Orange Report) 60

COLUMN B COLUMN A


1988 –(Continued) findings and conclusions must be submitted to the AOWG 48 hours prior to release for review, comment and clearance before going to Congress or the public.” 49 (Emphasis Added)

1989 – The CDC released its 1983 study concluding that AO was unlikely the cause of elevated cancer in Vietnam Veterans. (Note: The CDC Study was released even though it had been cancelled by the AOWG in 1987.)

1989 – A CDC study found that Vietnam veterans were more likely than non Vietnam veterans to report birth defects. The study also concluded that Vietnam veterans reporting exposure to herbicides are at even greater risk of reporting miscarriages, birth defects, serious health problems, and infant mortality. Any possible link between herbicide exposure and the reported birth defects was dismissed by the CDC because of the cancellation of the exposure study.50 CDC’s review of birth records found that the offspring of Vietnam veterans were twice as likely to have digestive system birth defects and were also twice as likely to suffer early neonatal death. The birth records’ review also indicated that the offspring of Vietnam veterans were more susceptible to cerebrospinal malformations, such as spina bifida, anencephaly, and hydrocephalus.51 The CDC explained this problem as a underreporting of the birth defects among non-Vietnam veterans, rather than an excess among Vietnam veterans.51 CDC’s semen analysis of Vietnam veterans also found problems; Mean sperm concentration 20% lower. CDC quickly concluded there was no link to AO. 52

1990 – Air Force releases a follow-up morbidity report on the Ranch Hander's. That report, “1987 Follow-up Examination Results, “ described statistically significant increases in health problems among Ranch Hander's including all cancers – skin and systemic combined, both verified and suspected; skin cancers alone; hereditary and degenerative neurological diseases and other problems. The Air Force concluded, however, that these and other problems cannot necessarily be related to Agent Orange/dioxin exposure, as they do not always show a “ dose-response” relationship . . . “ 61

COLUMN B COLUMN A


1991 – Dow Chemical Company, response to 2,3,7,8 – TCDD study by Michael A. Gallo; Robert Wood Johnson Medical School University of Medicine . . New Jersey Attacks the validity of Gallo’s scientific study that tied TCDD (Dioxin) to Birth Defects. NOTE Dow 1970 admission on page 4, Column B that when dioxin was distributed in quantities exceeding (then current) production specifications that birth defects did occur.

1991 – TCDD Study by Michael A. Gallo; Robert W. Johnson Medical School University of Medicine . . .New Jersey – the human teratogenicity (developmental malformations and monstrosities) studies of these compounds [TCDD] suggest that “adverse reproductive effects can be caused by them.” The studies (principally toxicologic, but also some epidemiologic) conducted thus far suggest TCDD is capable of producing these effects.

1991 - Congress passes the Agent Orange Act (P.L. 102- 4),which superseded The "Veterans' Dioxin and Radia- tion Exposure Compensation Standards Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-542)."

1991 – The Agent Orange Act (P.L. 102-4) established for the first time a presumption of service-connection for diseases associated with herbicide exposure [ such as AO]. Under the Agent Orange Act, veterans seeking disability compensation for diseases they thought to be associated with herbicides no longer were required to provide proof of exposure. P.L. 102-4 authorized the VA to contract with the IOM to review and summarize the scientific evidence concerning the association between exposure to herbicides used in support of military operations in Vietnam during the Vietnam Era and each disease suspected to be associated with such exposure.

P.L. 102-4 mandated that the IOM determine, to the extent possible:105

1. "whether there is a statistical association between the suspect diseases and herbicide exposure, taking into account the strength of the scientific evidence and the appropriateness of the methods used to detect the association;" 2. "the increased risk of disease among individuals exposed to herbicides during service in Vietnam during the Vietnam Era;" and 3. "whether there is a plausible biological mechanism or other evidence of a causal relationship between herbicide exposure and the health outcome."

(Continued)

COLUMN B COLUMN A


1991 (Continued) The VA is then required to review the reports of the IOM and issue regulations establishing a presumption of service-connection for any disease for which there is scientific evidence of a positive association with herbicide exposure." (emphasis added) "Once the VA has established presumption of service connection for a certain disease or medical condition, a Vietnam veteran with that disease is eligible for disability compensation. The amount of compensation is based on the degree of disability and, again, veterans are compensated only for approved conditions that have demonstrated sufficient evidence of an association with herbicide exposure." (Note - no mention of analyzing birth defects as an IOM assignment.)105

1992 –Air Force finally publishes a Ranch Hand Birth Defects Report. The 1992 report confirmed the high rate of birth defects and infant deaths among children fathered by Ranch Hand veterans. But the report stated that because the birth defects did not increase consistently with dioxin exposure, Agent Orange wasn’t to blame. 77

1992 – 1994 - NAS concluded in 1994 that the 1992 conclusion might be inaccurate. The NAS criticized the Ranch Hand study and singled out the 1992 birth defects report as an example of its many flaws. NAS stated that the study group was too small to begin with and had omitted hundreds of subject from the analysis. That made it harder to connect birth defects to Agent Orange, or easier not to. NAS reported “Some aspect of the Ranch Hand experience to have increased the risk of fathering children with birth defects, but the implications of this finding are unclear.” 78

2000 – Results of the Hatfield Study. Agent Orange – dioxins is still very prevalent in and around where the dioxin was sprayed and around the airfields in Vietnam where it was loaded and stored. The dioxin has spread into the food chain. One mother’s breast milk contained dioxin levels six times higher than what the World Health

(Continued)

COLUMN B COLUMN A


2000 (Continued) Organization deems safe. She has a two year old with spina bifida, recognized by the U.S. as a child birth defect from AO. Another family living and working at one of the air fields has two children, both with dev- astating illnesses, including rare blood & bone diseases. One daughter died at 7. The 10-month old son requires painful blood transfusions every month to stay alive. Their only healthy child is the one they had before moving to the airbase. The U.S. denies any accountability.79

2009 – Dr. Jeanne Stellman (an epidemiologist who spent decades studying AO for the American Legion and the NAS) - “We do not know the answer to the Question: What happened to Vietnam veterans? The government doesn’t want to study this because of international liability and issues surrounding chemical warfare. And they’re going to win because they’re bigger and everybody’s getting old and there are new wars to worry about.” (quote copied from chicagotribune.com)

2010 –IOM Veterans & Agent Orange - Update 2010 (Congressionally mandated biennial update) stated “Work needs to be undertaken to resolve questions regarding several health out-comes, most importantly COPD, tonsil cancer, melanoma, brain cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, and paternally transmitted effects to offspring. Institute of Medicine

2911 – Hatfield Report – “Dioxin congerer profiles confirm that the main source of dioxin contamination at Bien Hoa Airbase was Agent Orange & other dioxin-containing herbicides. TCDD contributed over 80% of the TEQ (TCDD Toxic equivalents) in most soil and sediment samples analyzed from the Airbase.” 83

2011 – Hatfield Report – “The evidence indicates that dioxin moves from the former Agent Orange storage and washing/loading area (Z1 Area), & the Pacer Ivy Area into surrounding drainage ditches, small creeks, ponds & lakes, & ultimately into humans (via ingestion of contaminated fish, ducks and mollusks, direct dermal contact with soils and sediments, and likely via in- halation of dust) . . .” 84 (Emphasisadded)

COLUMN B COLUMN A


2011 – Hatfield Report – “The maximum TEQ concentration recorded in Tilapia fat from ‘Mr. Hoc Lake’ in the Pacer Ivy Area in 2010 (4,040 pg/g wet weight basis) is more than 200 times the acceptable level established by Health Canada. Tilapia fat tissue samples from ‘Mr. Quy Lake’ (2,460 pg/g), ‘NE Perimeter Lake’ (1,680 pg/g), ‘Gate 2 Lake’ (1,520 pg/g), and Z1 Lake’ (1,440 pg/g) all exceed this guideline by more than 70 times (Figure 7).” 85

2011 – Hatfield – “2011 All breast milk samples analyzed exhibited TEQs exceeding the WHO Tolerable Daily Intake guideline of 4 pg TEQ/kg bw/d. High dioxin and furan levels in breast mild are cause for concern, and emphasize the need for raising awareness of potential contaminated food items originating from Bien Hoa Airbase” 86

COLUMN B COLUMN A


1 - Agent Orange – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia AGENT ORANGE – (Page 4) 2nd Para. 2 – Boston College Environment Affairs Law Review Vo. 8/Issue 2 12/1/1979 Soldiers of Orange; (Page 160) 4th Para. 3 – Boston College Environment Affairs Law Review Vo. 8/Issue 2 12/1/1979 Soldiers of Orange; (Page 161) 1st/2nd Para. 4 – Boston College Environment Affairs Law Review Vo. 8/Issue 2 12/1/1979 Soldiers of Orange; (Page 164) 1st Para. 5 – Boston College Environment Affairs Law Review Vo. 8/Issue 2 12/1/1979 Soldiers of Orange; (Page 175) 2nd Para. 6 – Boston College Environment Affairs Law Review Vo. 8/Issue 2 12/1/1979 Soldiers of Orange; (Page 164) 3rd Para. 7 – See Admiral Zumwalt's Report to the Secretary – May 1990 (Page 26, Note #86) 8 – See Admiral Zumwalt's Report to the Secretary – May 1990 (Page 23) 3rd Para. 9 – Article – The Extent and Patterns of Usage of Agent Orange and other Herbicides in Vietnam (Page 684) 3rd Para. 10 – Boston College Environment Affairs Law Review Vo. 8/Issue 2 12/1/1979 Soldiers of Orange; (Page 164) 4th Para. 11– Boston College Environment Affairs Law Review Vo. 8/Issue 2 12/1/1979 Soldiers of Orange; (Page 165) 2nd Para. 12– See Admiral Zumwalt's Report to the Secretary – May 1990 (Page 3) 3rd Para. 13 – Boston College Environment Affairs Law Review Vo. 8/Issue 2 12/1/1979 Soldiers of Orange; (Page 167) 1st Para. 14 – Boston College Environment Affairs Law Review Vo. 8/Issue 2 12/1/1979 Soldiers of Orange; (Page 166) 2nd Para. 15 – See Admiral Zumwalt's Report to the Secretary – May 1990 (Page 5) 1st Para. 16 – Boston College Environment Affairs Law Review Vo. 8/Issue 2 12/1/1979 Soldiers of Orange; (Page 167) 2nd Para. 17 – Boston College Environment Affairs Law Review Vo. 8/Issue 2 12/1/1979 Soldiers of Orange; (Page 171) 3rd Para. 18 – Agent Orange On Trial – Mass Toxic Disasters in the Courts by Peter H. Schuck; (Page 37) 1st and 2nd Para. 19 – Boston College Environment Affairs Law Review Vo. 8/Issue 2 12/1/1979 Soldiers of Orange; (Page 180) 1st Para. 20 – Boston College Environment Affairs Law Review Vo. 8/Issue 2 12/1/1979 Soldiers of Orange; (Page 171) 3rd Para. 21 – Agent Orange: Veterans’ Complaints and Studies of Health Effects Issue Brief No. IB83043; (Page CRS-7) 5th Para. 22 – Agent Orange: Veterans’ Complaints and Studies of Health Effects Issue Brief No. IB83043; (Page CRS-7) 6th Para. 23 – Agent Orange: Veterans’ Complaints and Studies of Health Effects Issue Brief No. IB83043; (Page CRS-5) 6th Para. 24 – See Admiral Zumwalt's Report to the Secretary – May 1990 (Page 3) 4th Para. 25 – Agent Orange: Veterans’ Complaints and Studies of Health Effects Issue Brief No. IB83043; (Page CRS-8) 2nd Para. 26 – Admiral Zumwalt’s 1990 Testimony Before the Human Resources Committee, U.S. House; (Page 3) 3 rd Para. 27 – GAO 1990 Briefing Report – Agent Orange Studies; Poor Contracting Practices at CDC; (Page2) 2nd Para. 28 – TWELFTH REPORT by the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS; (Page 27-37) 29 – TWELFTH REPORT by the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS; (Page 39-42) 30 – See Admiral Zumwalt's Report to the Secretary – May 1990 (Page 10) 2nd Para. 31 – See Admiral Zumwalt's Report to the Secretary – May 1990 (Page 14) 3rd Para. 32 – See Admiral Zumwalt's Report to the Secretary – May 1990 (Page 15) 3rd Para. 33 – TWELFTH REPORT by the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS; (Page 32) 4th Para. 34 – See Admiral Zumwalt's Report to the Secretary – May 1990 (Page 16) 2nd Para. 35 – Agent Orange On Trial – Mass Toxic Disasters in the Courts by Peter H. Schuck; (Page 220) 2nd Para. 36 – Agent Orange On Trial – Mass Toxic Disasters in the Courts by Peter H. Schuck; (Page 218) 2nd Para. 37 – TWELFTH REPORT by the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS; (Page 29) 3rd Para. 38 – TWELFTH REPORT by the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS; (Page 29) 4th Para. 39 – TWELFTH REPORT by the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS; (Page 29) 5th Para.

REFERENCES


REFERENCES

40 – TWELFTH REPORT by the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS; (Page 31) 2nd 3rd Para. 41 – See Admiral Zumwalt's Report to the Secretary – May 1990 (Page 18) 2nd Para. 42 – TWELFTH REPORT by the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS; (Page 19) 3rd Para. 43 – TWELFTH REPORT by the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS; (Page 19) 4th Para. 44 – TWELFTH REPORT by the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS; (Page 20) 2nd & 3rd Para. 45 – TWELFTH REPORT by the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS; (Page 32) 2nd Para. 46 – TWELFTH REPORT by the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS; (Page 22) 4th Para. & (page 23) 2nd Para. 47 – TWELFTH REPORT by the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS; (Page 32) 3rd Para. 48 – TWELFTH REPORT by the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS; (Page 33) 2nd Para. 49 – TWELFTH REPORT by the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS; (Page 32) 4th Para. 50 – TWELFTH REPORT by the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS; (Page 33) 3rd & 4th Para. 51 – TWELFTH REPORT by the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS; (Page 33) 5th Para. 52 – TWELFTH REPORT by the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS; (Page 34) 1st, 2nd Para. 53 – See Admiral Zumwalt's Report to the Secretary – May 1990 (Page 14) 4th Para. 54 – See Admiral Zumwalt's Report to the Secretary – May 1990 (Page 14) 1st Para. 55 – See Admiral Zumwalt's Report to the Secretary – May 1990 (Page 2) 4th Para. 56 – See Admiral Zumwalt's Report to the Secretary – May 1990 (Page 16) 2nd Para. 57 – See Admiral Zumwalt's Report to the Secretary – May 1990 (Page 16) 1st Para. 58 – See Admiral Zumwalt's Report to the Secretary – May 1990 (Page 19) 2nd Para. 59 – See Admiral Zumwalt's Report to the Secretary – May 1990 (Page 4) 2nd Para. 60 – See Admiral Zumwalt's Report to the Secretary – May 1990 (Page 20) Full Page 61 – See Admiral Zumwalt's Report to the Secretary – May 1990 (Page 20 & 21) last Para. on Page 20, 1st Para. on Page 21 62 – San Diego Union – Tribune Robert Weissman – Nov 2, 1988 (Page 9) last Para. 63 – San Diego Union – Tribune Robert Weissman – Nov 2, 1988 (Page 11) 1st – 6th Para. 64 – Wikipedia Free Encyclopedia AGENT ORANGE (Page 3) 3rd Para. 65 – Boston College Environment Affairs Law Review Vo. 8/Issue 2 12/1/1979 Soldiers of Orange; (Page 178) 2nd Para. 66 – Boston College Environment Affairs Law Review Vo. 8/Issue 2 12/1/1979 Soldiers of Orange; (Page 166) 4th Para. 67 – Boston College Environment Affairs Law Review Vo. 8/Issue 2 12/1/1979 Soldiers of Orange; (Page 167) 3rd Para. 68 – Admiral Zumwalt’s 1990 testimony before the Human Resources Committee, U.S. House; (Page 2) 6th Para. 69 – THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES – Agent Orange Act of 1991; Public Law 102-4; 102nd Congress (1st Session) 70 – US Comptroller General-Health Effects of Exposure to Herbicide Orange in South Vietnam should be Resolved (Page 2) 3rd

Para. 71 – Affidavit of Admiral Zumwalt; 1996 Lawsuit Ivy vs. Diamond Shamrock Chem. Co. (Page 7) Para #25, #26, #27 72 – Zumwalt’s Interview 1996 – Agent Orange and the Anguish of an American Family (Page 4) 4th Para. 73 – See Admiral Zumwalt's Report to the Secretary – May 1990 (Page 21) 3rd Para. 74 – See Admiral Zumwalt's Report to the Secretary – May 1990 (Page 20) 2nd Para. 75 – San Diego Union – Tribune Robert Weissman – Nov 2, 1988 (Page 2) 5th & 6th Para. 76 – See Admiral Zumwalt's Report to the Secretary – May 1990 (Page 4) 2nd Para. 77 – San Diego Union – Tribune Robert Weissman – Nov 2, 1988 (Page 9) last Para. & (page 10) 1st Through 2nd Para.


REFERENCES

78 – San Diego Union – Tribune Robert Weissman – Nov 2, 1988 (Page 10) 1st- 8th Para. 79 – Agent Orange’s Lethal Legacy: At former U.S. Bases in Vietnam – a Potent Poison in Clear and Present Danger;

Chicago Trib. Part 4 (Pages 2-5) 80 – Congressional Research Services – Veterans Affairs: Health Care & Benefits for Veterans Exposed to Agent Orange (Page 4) 2nd Para. 81 – Hatfield Consultants – 2011 Environmental & Human Health assess. Of Dioxin Contamination (Vietnam) (Page 2) 3rd Para. 82 – Hatfield Consultants – 2011 Environmental & Human Health assess. Of Dioxin Contamination (Vietnam) (Page 3) 4th Para. 83 – Hatfield Consultants – 2011 Environmental & Human Health assess. Of Dioxin Contamination (Vietnam) (Page 3) 6th Para. 84 – Hatfield Consultants – 2011 Environmental & Human Health assess. Of Dioxin Contamination (Vietnam) (Page 5) 1st Para. 85 – Hatfield Consultants – 2011 Environmental & Human Health assess. Of Dioxin Contamination (Vietnam) (Page 5) 3rd Para. 86 – Hatfield Consultants – 2011 Environmental & Human Health assess. Of Dioxin Contamination (Vietnam) (Page 6) 6th Para. 87 – Wikipedia Free Encyclopedia AGENT ORANGE (Page 8) 2nd Para. 88 – Admiral Zumwalt’s 1990 Testimony Before the Human Resources Committee, U.S. House; (Page 3) 4th Para. 89 – Boston College Environment Affairs Law Review Vo. 8/Issue 2 12/1/1979 Soldiers of Orange; (Page 179) 4th Para. 90 – Affidavit of Admiral Zumwalt; 1996 lawsuit Ivy vs. Diamond Shamrock Chem. Co. (Page 11) Para #43 91 – Rand Report, October 1967, A Statistical Analysis of the U.S. Crop Spraying Program in South Vietnam. Prepared for

the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense; Page 1 Note at the Bottom of the Page. 92 – Wikipedia Free Encyclopedia AGENT ORANGE (Page 4) 3rd Para. 93 – The Freeman - Government Claims Immunity from Tort Liability - (Page 1) 5th and 6th Para. 94 – Boston College Environment Affairs Law Review Vo. 8/Issue 2 12/1/1979 Soldiers of Orange; (Page 160)2nd Para. 95 – Operation Ranch Hand; Air University Review; July-August 1983; (Page 2) 4th Para 96 – Dr. Stellmans' - The Extent , Patterns & Usage of Agent Orange (Page 682) 3rd Para. 97 – Boston College Environment Affairs Law Review Vo. 8/Issue 2 12/1/1979 Soldiers of Orange; (Page 166) 3rd Para. 98 – See Admiral Zumwalt's Report to the Secretary – May 1990; (Page 22) 1st & 3rd Para. 99 – Boston College Environment Affairs Law Review Vo. 8/Issue 2 12/1/1979 Soldiers of Orange; (Page 179) 2nd Para. 100 – TWELFTH REPORT by the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS; (Page 19) 2nd Para. 101 – TWELFTH REPORT by the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS; (Page 12) 5th Para. 102 – TWELFTH REPORT by the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS; (Page 10) 3rd Para. 103 – TWELFTH REPORT by the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS; (Page 20) 5th Para. 104 – See Admiral Zumwalt's Report to the Secretary – May 1990; (Page 26) Note 84 (Lilienfeld and Gallo) 105 – Congressional Research Services – Veterans Affairs: Health Care & Benefits for Vets Exposed to Agent Orange

(Page 3) 1st Para. 106 – How the Military Misled Vietnam Veterans and Their Families About the Health Risks of Agent Orange (Robert Weissman);

(Pages 1 & 2 - Full Pages). 107 – TWELFTH REPORT by the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS; (Page 11) Last Paragraph (Dr. Dennis

Smith's Testimony). 108 – See Admiral Zumwalt's Report to the Secretary – May 1990; (Page 7) Note 19, Last Para. 109 – Dr. Stellmans' - The Extent , Patterns & Usage of Agent Orange (Page 684) 3rd Para.

Al MARTINELLI STORY

FIGHTING FOR THE NEXT GENERATION

"ATTACHMENT 2"

Documents

Agent Orange and Children Latest Chronology