On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 11:07:55 -0500, "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.


There is a list of medical problems associated with Agent Orange for which benefits will ensue. The
Army used to publish the Agent Orange Newsletter, which included this:

The following health conditions are presumptively recognized for service connection. Vietnam
veterans with one or more of these conditions do not have to show that their illness(es) is (are)
related to their military service to get disability compensation. VA presumes that their condition
is service-connected.
Conditions Recognized in Veterans
1.
Chloracne (must occur within 1 year of exposure to Agent Orange)
2.
Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma
3.
Soft tissue sarcoma (other than osteosarcoma, chondrosarcoma, Kaposi’s sarcoma, ormesothelioma)
4.
Hodgkin’s disease
5.
Porphyria cutanea tarda (must occur within 1 year of exposure)
6.
Multiple myeloma
7.
Respiratory cancers, including cancers of the lung, larynx, trachea, and bronchus
8.
Prostate cancer
9.
Acute and subacute transient peripheral neuropathy (must appear within 1 year of exposure and
resolve within 2 years of date of onset)
10.
Type 2 diabetes
11.
Chronic lymphocytic leukemia

As one who was exposed to quite a bit of that crap, I've always been very interested. Luckily, none
of those medical conditions have surfaced. It's a damn shame 'Hearing Loss' isn't one of the
conditions listed!