On Friday, 17 January 2014 12:20:38 UTC-4, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/17/14, 11:07 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

On 1/17/2014 10:44 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:



On 1/17/14, 10:29 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:





You introduced the "point" that "Officialdom" has a history of *grossly*

understating the levels of pollutants to which the ordinary folks and

workers are exposed" .... with no statistics, or proof offered. Your

"point" really has nothing to do with the discussion, but rather an

attempt to slant the flavor of the discussion.









There are tons of examples of instances in which "officialdom" has

grossly understated or misrepresented or hidden the impact of its

actions in areas "environmental." As of two years ago, for example, the

U.S. VA was *still* denying some aspects of the health impact on

airplanes crews of Agent Orange used in Vietnam. Has the military

resolved PTSD cases in favor of those suffering them? If so, how long

has it taken? And in West Virginia, horrific pollution has been taking

place for generations, and public and corporate officialdom there many

times has been in deep denial and is so to this very day. The Gulf of

Mexico rig disaster resulted in the perp corporations lying about the

size of the leaks and their impact, and they are still lying.



Remember TMI? I had a small subcontract from an NRC contractor to do

some copy editing on sections of the recommendations of what to do if it

happened again. The contractor was recommending that people in the area

leave "in an orderly fashion" in directions to avoid wind blowing from a

nuclear site. I kid you not. One of my margin notes said, "What if the

wind changes direction?" Never heard back on that one.





I don't doubt that coverups have happened and reports of impacts under-

reported. I think there's almost always two sides of a story though and

the details have to be sorted out.



Example: The Agent Orange claims by Vietnam vets can be difficult to

determine physically or medically. I've actually been encouraged to

file for benefits simply because I "could" have been exposed even though

I have no physical or medical indications of such. Again, as much as I

hate to admit it, many military claims are bogus, just like many injury

claims resulting from a car accident are bogus.



To those who truly have been injured or affected, they should receive

every financial and/or medical benefit available. But unfortunately too

many jump on the bandwagon in pursuit of benefits they don't qualify for.





In regard to Agent Orange, there may be be doubts as to who exactly was

exposed and what the results may have been, but there is no denying that

the chemical was used, that it was extremely dangerous, and that it

caused horrific damage to hundreds of thousands of people, including

U.S. military personnel. *That* it did so was denied for years, and many

who suffered from its impact received a pittance or nothing for their

problems.



I find it interesting that when *we* use chemical warfare or sell

landmines, it apparently is "ok," but when other nations do it, why,

it's just an abomination.


There was a lot of press on Agent Orange tested next door in New Brunswick.
The US Army was only too happy to share what they had.
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-rep...-gagetown.page