Agent Orange used on Ontario roads

[GostHacked]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/02/24/agent-orange-ont-highways485.html

See, we only find out about this kind of stuff 20-30 years later. What are they doing now that we won't find out for another 20-30 years?

Supporting Story ContentStory Sharing ToolsShare with Add ThisPrint this storyE-mail this story.End of Supporting Story ContentBack to accessibility links Beginning of Story ContentA provincial New Democrat says former officials with the Ontario Ministry of Transportation have told him that Agent Orange was sprayed near highways across the province until the 1980s.

Gilles Bisson, the member for Timmins-James Bay, said during question period at Queen's Park in Toronto that an email sent to him by the officials indicates the substance was sprayed along the side of the highways to curb the growth of grass and shrubs.

"It would appear that there was a good chance that if you were an employee, you were exposed," said Bisson. "And if you were the travelling public walking along the roads — blueberry picking, doing whatever — you might have been exposed to these chemicals."

Ken Graham was a highways supervisor in Cochrane, north of Timmins, Ont., in the late 1970s.

"We would drive along the shoulders of the highway, and spray out there," he told the CBC.

Fanf*ckingtastic.

[Dithers]

Ridiculous. There will be compensation to pay, surely.

[Wild Bill]

Ridiculous. There will be compensation to pay, surely.

One would think so! Although the danger of Agent Orange was not known at the time, that doesn't mean squat as far as legal culpability! If it was the government at the time that made the decision then they were responsible, even if we only find out about victims today. Ignorance or good intentions don't change things if someone was hurt.

It was Bill Davis, the Progressive Conservative, who was premier at the time. That's who takes the initial blame. The government is the government, despite if the ruling party changes, so it would be McGuinty's government who will have to pay compensation.

Or Hudak, if things change!

[Molly]

Agent Orange = 2,4-D (a very common herbicide)+ 2,4,5-T (a herbicide that was equally common until the late 70's early 80's)

How is it a surprise that a lot of people might have been exposed to a mixture of the two at some time or another? They were used, together or separately, on cereal crops and lawns and weed patches all over North America, for decades.

[guyser]

One would think so! Although the danger of Agent Orange was not known at the time, that doesn't mean squat as far as legal culpability! If it was the government at the time that made the decision then they were responsible, even if we only find out about victims today. Ignorance or good intentions don't change things if someone was hurt.

It was Bill Davis, the Progressive Conservative, who was premier at the time. That's who takes the initial blame. The government is the government, despite if the ruling party changes, so it would be McGuinty's government who will have to pay compensation.

Or Hudak, if things change!

Not necessarily so with respect to the lawsuit.

First hurdle--One would have to prove the govt knew the issues that arose long after using ag orange. I concur that they may pay out, but not accept responsibility.

Second hurdle-Provong that the ailment one has now can be positively linked to Ag Orange exposure that many years ago.

One only need look at the Hep C issue and the meagre payouts done by the govt. In fact, I know first hand that the time window they accepted was very limited.

As for the pmts made under Hep C , they are a little more than a token.

[capricorn]

Shades of UFFI.

Urea formaldehyde was commonly used when producing electrical appliances casing (e.g. desk lamps). Urea-formaldehyde foam insulation (UFFI) started being used in the 1970s. Homeowners used UFFI as a wall cavity filler at the time in order to conserve energy. In the 1980s, concerns began to develop about the toxic formaldehyde vapor emitted in the curing process, as well as from the breakdown of old foam. Emission rates of more than 0.1 parts per million (ppm) takes a toxic toll on humans. Consequently, its use was discontinued. The urea-formaldehyde emissions decline over time and significant levels should no longer be present in the homes today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urea-formaldehyde

At the time, if your home was found to have UFFI, resale was contingent on removing it and installing a different insulation.

Re agent orange, I guess we'll see when a complainant comes forward (and I think one will) and it becomes a test case.

[GostHacked]

One would think so! Although the danger of Agent Orange was not known at the time, that doesn't mean squat as far as legal culpability! If it was the government at the time that made the decision then they were responsible, even if we only find out about victims today. Ignorance or good intentions don't change things if someone was hurt.

It was Bill Davis, the Progressive Conservative, who was premier at the time. That's who takes the initial blame. The government is the government, despite if the ruling party changes, so it would be McGuinty's government who will have to pay compensation.

Or Hudak, if things change!

Of course the results of Agent Orange were known. Otherwise the US would not have used it in Vietnam.

[Wild Bill]

Of course the results of Agent Orange were known. Otherwise the US would not have used it in Vietnam.

I don't follow your logic, GH! At the time, the US used Agent Orange as a defoliant. It would kill broad swaths of jungle vegetation, leaving the Viet Cong nowhere to hide.

Are you saying that was the only result they thought they'd get from AG? Or are you implying that they were using it to try to turn all Viet Cong into pollution mutant monsters?

Occam's Razor would suggest that they were simply trying to kill the vegetation. Turning the enemy into mutants takes too damn long.

[GostHacked]

I don't follow your logic, GH! At the time, the US used Agent Orange as a defoliant. It would kill broad swaths of jungle vegetation, leaving the Viet Cong nowhere to hide.

Ya don't say!!! Well durrrr.

Are you saying that was the only result they thought they'd get from AG? Or are you implying that they were using it to try to turn all Viet Cong into pollution mutant monsters?

If it kills large swaths of forest, imagine what it does to your lungs. The health issues on Agent Orange were known as well. Where are you getting mutants out of this?

Occam's Razor would suggest that they were simply trying to kill the vegetation. Turning the enemy into mutants takes too damn long.

Not sure how you are getting mutants out of what I am talking about. But there are sever health side effects from Agent Orange. It won't turn you into a mutant, it will simply make you sick and the least, and dead at the most.

[GostHacked]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/03/02/0ntaro-agent-orange.html

Well, not just roads. Rail lines and hyrdo facilities were using it as well.. this is much bigger that we think.

n Ontario, the government has launched a probe into the use of Agent Orange after former forestry and hydro workers came forward saying they had been exposed.

However, Collins wants Ottawa to look into the use of the defoliant since CN Rail was a Crown corporation when he worked there.

"We know that it was used in hydro, we know that it was used in forestry, we know it was used in airports," said NDP MP Charlie Angus. "It would make sense they were possibly using it on the rail lines. The implications are enormous."

[Hydraboss]

GH, I think what Bill is trying to point out is that every time the words "Agent Orange" and "Vietnam" are used together in a statement, people start acting like the US was using a chemical weapon. It seems to be a very common misunderstanding - AO was only being used to kill off vegetation in large key areas so the enemy couldn't come-a-sneakin' without being seen. The assertion that it was used to "poison" people is ridiculous. The US had far more effective chemicals they could have used in place of a herbicide if they wanted to kill Vietcong.

This whole situation is no different from Thalidomide. At one point, doctors were giving it to pregnant mothers. Now? Not so much.

Edited March 3, 2011 by Hydraboss

[Saipan]

If they can sue anyone it would be the scientists who approved it's safe. Politicians don't have the qualifications.

Maybe if some are hang to dry they'll be more careful coming to "consensus".

[Wild Bill]

Ya don't say!!! Well durrrr.

If it kills large swaths of forest, imagine what it does to your lungs. The health issues on Agent Orange were known as well. Where are you getting mutants out of this?

Not sure how you are getting mutants out of what I am talking about. But there are sever health side effects from Agent Orange. It won't turn you into a mutant, it will simply make you sick and the least, and dead at the most.

Hydraboss has it right, GH. At the time in Viet Nam, who says that the health issues of Agent Orange were known? Just because it kills grass and leaves doesn't mean it would bother humans. Most toxins are specific. Most farmers back in the 60's routinely used weed killers without the slightest worry they might harm people. In most cases there was no collateral harm!

The most publicized example was DDT, the 'bug' killer. It was used for decades before it was found to cause genetic damage to wildlife and even people. Hence my reference to 'mutants'.

As a sad side note, DDT was also the best insecticide ever invented, before or since. Nothing we have since works as well. Many third world countries suffered terribly after the DDT ban, due to malaria from mosquitoes running almost unchecked. The eagles stopped having deformed chicks but more children died from malaria.

Nothing is ever quite as simple as it seems, I guess.

[cybercoma]

Of course the results of Agent Orange were known. Otherwise the US would not have used it in Vietnam.

I'm really not sure the human health effects were well-known as you claim. They used it in Vietnam as a de-foliant, see: "Charlie in the trees!" If they knew the human-effects and were using it as a biological weapon, well... that's a whole different argument that might be worth exploring.

[GostHacked]

I'm really not sure the human health effects were well-known as you claim. They used it in Vietnam as a de-foliant, see: "Charlie in the trees!" If they knew the human-effects and were using it as a biological weapon, well... that's a whole different argument that might be worth exploring.

If you can take out large tracts of jungle in Vietnam, it's not hard to extrapolate what that can do to the human body. You are aware of the birth defects from one of Monsantos' most toxic products ... right? And this was not the first time a product from Monsantos or DOW had produced similar results.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3798581.stm

Birth defects

Agent Orange was designed to defoliate the jungle and thus deny cover to Vietcong guerrillas.

It contained one of the most virulent poisons known to man, a strain of dioxin called TCCD.

First it killed the rainforest, stripping the jungle bare.

In time, the dioxin then spread its toxic reach to the food chain - which some say led to a proliferation of birth deformities.

In a small commune in the heavily sprayed Cu Chi district, the family of 21-year-old Tran Anh Kiet struggles with the problems of daily living.

His feet, hands and limbs are twisted and deformed. He writhes in evident frustration, and his attempts at speech are confined to plaintive and pitiful grunts.

Kiet has to be spoon-fed. He is an adult stuck inside the stunted body of a 15-year-old, with a mental age of around six.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/agentorange/chi-agent-orange3-dec08,0,2946008.story

Decades after the Vietnam War ended, the most contentious question surrounding the use of defoliants by the U.S. military is the impact on the health of untold numbers of Vietnamese.

At the heart of the controversy is the suspected link between the herbicides and birth defects in Vietnam, where more than 5 out of every 100 children are born with some form of physical or mental abnormality, a fourfold increase since the start of the war, according to Vietnamese scientists.

http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t960416a.html

Testimony on Birth Defects Among Vietnam Veterans' Children by J. David Erickson D.D.S., M.P.H., Ph.D. (CDC)

Chief, Birth Defects and Genetic Diseases Branch

Division of Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities

National Center for Environmental Health

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Before the House Veterans' Affairs, Subcommittee on Hospitals and Health Care

April 16, 1997

Good morning. I'm Dr. Dave Erickson, Chief of the Birth

Defects and Genetic Diseases Branch, National Center for

Environmental Health of the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (CDC). I'm pleased to be here to provide testimony

about CDC's two studies on birth defects among children fathered

by veterans of the Vietnam conflict.

Need any more proof?

[cybercoma]

Gost, I don't need evidence that Agent Orange is toxic. We know that now. All the studies you showed are about birth defects that developed later. What I'm saying is that I'm not so certain they were aware of how toxic it was pre-1970. You can show me all the reports on birth defects that you want, but those studies show knowledge of the dangers after-the-fact rather than before.

I should say too that this in no way releases them of responsibility. They were clearly negligent by not finding out whether this would be toxic to humans before they ordered them to be heavily exposed to it, spraying it from backpacks and trucks along the side of highways and allow hydro corridors through forests and farmlands.

[Wild Bill]

If you can take out large tracts of jungle in Vietnam, it's not hard to extrapolate what that can do to the human body. You are aware of the birth defects from one of Monsantos' most toxic products ... right? And this was not the first time a product from Monsantos or DOW had produced similar results.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3798581.stm

http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/agentorange/chi-agent-orange3-dec08,0,2946008.story

http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t960416a.html

Need any more proof?

Yes, I'm afraid we do! You see GH, you keep giving evidence that Agent Orange is harmful to people. No one is disputing that - today!

The premise here is whether or not the USA KNEW during the Viet Nam War that Agent Orange was that harmful to human beings! So far you haven't addressed that point. You're just arguing from the benefit of hindsight, years later.

[guyser]

The premise here is whether or not the USA KNEW during the Viet Nam War that Agent Orange was that harmful to human beings! So far you haven't addressed that point. You're just arguing from the benefit of hindsight, years later.

I suspect, and there is some data to verify , that Monsanto knew that AO was more than just a vegetation killer.It would not be a stretch to believe that Monsanto told the Govt , yet didnt tell the Govt, how bad AO was to humans. Afterall....it wasnt Yanks they were to use it on.

Yet, There own workers were getting sick as far back as the 40's.

We can liken this to cigarettes and other chemicals , drugs et al where we have proven that the companies that produced any of the above new the long term effects were bad, but the short term profits were too huge to pass up.

No one needs a lesson on how big biz and big pharma have sold stuff that was at the least damn bad for humans and at the worse was a killer.

Thalodomide is another , bad for babies yet good for some stuff, and not surprisingly, has made a resurgence but a cautious one.

Edited March 3, 2011 by guyser

[bush_cheney2004]

I suspect, and there is some data to verify , that Monsanto knew that AO was more than just a vegetation killer.It would not be a stretch to believe that Monsanto told the Govt , yet didnt tell the Govt, how bad AO was to humans. Afterall....it wasnt Yanks they were to use it on.

Not sure what you mean by this....the so called "Rainbow" defoliants weren't meant to be used directly on people per se. Defoliants were tested and used in many American locations, Panama Canal Zone, Okinawa Japan, etc. for its expressed purpose. Dioxin based defoliants were manufactured by several small and large chemical companies, including those in Canada. There was money to be made!

Edited March 3, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[guyser]

Not sure what you mean by this....

Sure you do.

There was money to be made!