Agent Orange and the Vietnam War
Some refer to this topic as “the last Vietnam battle.”
Let’s examine the facts. I sifted through multiple accounts that I will attempt to summarize for you to foster a better understanding of a complex, somewhat contentious subject. One poorly understood because of conflicting reports. One that Google research fails to resolve definitively because statistical valid correlation coefficients are lacking for the observations.
This is my best effort to assess the disability claims arising from Agent Orange exposure in Vietnam. I could not even find a precise number of vets involved. That’s how muddled the issue stands.
First, what is Agent Orange? It is a rainbow herbicidal defoliant with a dioxin related base.
Why is that relationship important? Because dioxin is considered a carcinogen and may have caused significant ongoing health issues to our troops and the Vietnamese peasants. That is the basic supposition which I will examine in this blog, but, admittedly, probably not resolve to everyone’s satisfaction because scientific proof is lacking.
Why was Agent Orange used in the Vietnam war? It was used to deprive enemy troops’ cover in the jungles and countryside. The Viet Cong and NVR conducted guerilla warfare. They would “hit and run” back into the rainforests and jungles to reload and resupply.
Operation “Ranch Hand” had the objective to expose their hideouts by obliterating the foliage hindering recon and airstrike missions and to identify the enemy’s location to enable our ground troops’ search and destroy operations. The aerial spraying also targeted VC crops and inadvertently contaminated waterways. It is estimated that 17.8% of the South Vietnam forest hectares were sprayed from the air.
How extensive was the Ranch Hand operation in Vietnam and Cambodia? Thirteen million gallons were sprayed from the air, covering 4.5 million acres from 1961 to 1971. Seventy percent never penetrated beyond the top canopy of the jungle, killing the leaves, but not the trees. That challenged its effectiveness.
Why was it called “Agent Orange”? Because it was stored in 55- gallon drums with orange stripes. Actually, the chemical defoliant was colorless and sprayed in small amounts- 0.0009 oz of liquid per square foot.
Exposure risks: Contact exposure would cause an acne-like rash, but no immediate sickness. Long-term studies of 479 Ranch Hand veterans, those with maximal exposure, were compared to 479 VN vets not working with the chemical. This is the only objective evidence I could find: The Ranch Hands had a two-times greater risk of an obscure blood dyscrasia (MGUS) 7% vs the vets with no known exposure.
A four-decade follow up of the Ranch Hands was featured in BG Burkett’s book, Stolen Valor indicating the only proven link to the agent is skin irritation. Other alleged long-term complications have not been scientifically validated, ranging from cancers, Hodgkin disease, blood neoplasms, PTSD, and genetic defects passed on to vet’s children. This presented a conundrum for the VA to process many claims of Vietnam disabilities associated with Agent Orange.
The claims became more prevalent than those documented to have suffered exposure to Agent Orange. The controversy became a contentious issue. Malingering and gaming the system evolved, forcing the Bush administration to authorize the VA to honor claims “presumed” to be associated with exposure in 1991. This was a compassionate, pragmatic solution without scientific proof, but one deemed appropriate amid all the media hype and veteran lobbying regarding Agent Orange.
My research failed to even identify the actual number of vets exposed or treated, or the number of Vietnamese involved. In fact, one US troop estimate, 3 million, exceeded the number of Americans actually serving in country, 2.7 million during the Vietnam era. That gives you an idea of how difficult it is to indict Agent Orange in a cause/effect correlation scenario without statistical validation. Thus, Agent Orange has been the source of litigation and considerable debate. My research suggests the number of cases is exaggerated because government liability is not clear cut and cases difficult to document.
Vietnam myths abound. Agent Orange is no exception. Some vets claimed they were “soaked with orange liquid.” Fabricated claims like this were hyped by the hysterical press who failed to report the chemical is colorless and sprayed in small amounts, not enough to soak anyone. This is unfortunate because it interferes in the diagnosis and care of those with authentic claims.
This blog may elucidate the issue or confuse you. Your comments are invited, if civil. Especially if you suffered complications associated with Agent Orange. Not many things associated with the Vietnam war are clear cut. I go into numerous contentious issues like this in my historical novel, RECALL. I invite you to read the narrative.
It is refreshing to read factual, non-political information about Vietnam. I was an infantryman (11B10) with A Co., 1/506 Abn Inf, 101st Abn Div,, 69-70. I served in I Corps and we sometimes drank from streams and standing water. I am 70% SC for multiple fragment wounds (mortar), PTSD, and Type II diabetes (AO/presumptive).
I am curious about the recent claims of “blue water” Navy vets re: Agent Orange exposure. I’m familiar with the USAF “Operation Ranch hand” operation but some Navy vets are saying they were involved with loading AO on naval aircraft spraying AO in Vietnam. Was the Navy involved with AO spraying? Claims of exposure through contaminated water desalinated 100 miles off the coast sound bogus to me, though. Thank you for addressing Vietnam issues in such a professional manner!
Joe- Thank you for your comments, My blog on Agent Orange required research which was not definitive. Therefore, President Bush liberalized the criteria for claims to lay the issue to rest. The “Blue Water” claim may be a stretch. The “Ranch Hand” study was the only statistically valid study I found. I hope you get a chance to read RECALL.