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 ~ rep@vstnow.org
rep@phenneger-associates.com

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 1952
1*
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 4,200,000
4
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 rep@vstnow.org 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-tetrachloro-
dibenzo 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.
Revised - 04/08/2014 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 2
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 30
th
- 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-tetrach-
lorodibenzo 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 AO
3/4/109










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, 4
th
paragraph.)
COLUMN A COLUMN B
Revised - 04/08/2014 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 3


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

Revised - 04/08/2014 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 4
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

Revised - 04/08/2014 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 5
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)
Revised - 04/08/2014 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 6
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 1
st
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 18
th
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 DECEPTION
26/98


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)
Revised - 04/08/2014 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 7
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 101
st
Congress 2
nd
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?)
Revised - 04/08/2014 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 8



1986 – A July 18
th
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
Revised - 04/8/2014 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 9



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
Revised - 04/08/2014 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 10



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
Revised - 04/08/2014 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 11



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
Revised - 04/08/2014 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 12



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 con-
clusion 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
Revised - 04/08/2014 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 13



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 copiedfromchicagotribune.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 herb-
icides. 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
Revised - 04/08/2014 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 14




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
Revised - 04/08/2014 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 15




1 - Agent Orange – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia AGENT ORANGE – (Page 4) 2
nd
Para.
2 – Boston College Environment Affairs Law Review Vo. 8/Issue 2 12/1/1979 Soldiers of Orange; (Page 160) 4
th
Para.
3 – Boston College Environment Affairs Law Review Vo. 8/Issue 2 12/1/1979 Soldiers of Orange; (Page 161) 1
st
/2
nd
Para.
4 – Boston College Environment Affairs Law Review Vo. 8/Issue 2 12/1/1979 Soldiers of Orange; (Page 164) 1
st
Para.
5 – Boston College Environment Affairs Law Review Vo. 8/Issue 2 12/1/1979 Soldiers of Orange; (Page 175) 2
nd
Para.
6 – Boston College Environment Affairs Law Review Vo. 8/Issue 2 12/1/1979 Soldiers of Orange; (Page 164) 3
rd
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) 3
rd
Para.
9 – Article – The Extent and Patterns of Usage of Agent Orange and other Herbicides in Vietnam (Page 684) 3
rd
Para.
10 – Boston College Environment Affairs Law Review Vo. 8/Issue 2 12/1/1979 Soldiers of Orange; (Page 164) 4
th
Para.
11– Boston College Environment Affairs Law Review Vo. 8/Issue 2 12/1/1979 Soldiers of Orange; (Page 165) 2
nd
Para.
12– See Admiral Zumwalt's Report to the Secretary – May 1990 (Page 3) 3
rd
Para.
13 – Boston College Environment Affairs Law Review Vo. 8/Issue 2 12/1/1979 Soldiers of Orange; (Page 167) 1
st
Para.
14 – Boston College Environment Affairs Law Review Vo. 8/Issue 2 12/1/1979 Soldiers of Orange; (Page 166) 2
nd
Para.
15 – See Admiral Zumwalt's Report to the Secretary – May 1990 (Page 5) 1
st
Para.
16 – Boston College Environment Affairs Law Review Vo. 8/Issue 2 12/1/1979 Soldiers of Orange; (Page 167) 2
nd
Para.
17 – Boston College Environment Affairs Law Review Vo. 8/Issue 2 12/1/1979 Soldiers of Orange; (Page 171) 3
rd
Para.
18 – Agent Orange On Trial – Mass Toxic Disasters in the Courts by Peter H. Schuck; (Page 37) 1
st
and
2nd
Para.
19 – Boston College Environment Affairs Law Review Vo. 8/Issue 2 12/1/1979 Soldiers of Orange; (Page 180) 1
st
Para.
20 – Boston College Environment Affairs Law Review Vo. 8/Issue 2 12/1/1979 Soldiers of Orange; (Page 171) 3
rd
Para.
21 – Agent Orange: Veterans’ Complaints and Studies of Health Effects Issue Brief No. IB83043; (Page CRS-7) 5
th
Para.
22 – Agent Orange: Veterans’ Complaints and Studies of Health Effects Issue Brief No. IB83043; (Page CRS-7) 6
th
Para.
23 – Agent Orange: Veterans’ Complaints and Studies of Health Effects Issue Brief No. IB83043; (Page CRS-5) 6
th
Para.
24 – See Admiral Zumwalt's Report to the Secretary – May 1990 (Page 3) 4
th
Para.
25 – Agent Orange: Veterans’ Complaints and Studies of Health Effects Issue Brief No. IB83043; (Page CRS-8) 2
nd
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) 2
nd
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) 2
nd
Para.
31 – See Admiral Zumwalt's Report to the Secretary – May 1990 (Page 14) 3
rd
Para.
32 – See Admiral Zumwalt's Report to the Secretary – May 1990 (Page 15) 3
rd
Para.
33 – TWELFTH REPORT by the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS; (Page 32) 4
th
Para.
34 – See Admiral Zumwalt's Report to the Secretary – May 1990 (Page 16) 2
nd
Para.
35 – Agent Orange On Trial – Mass Toxic Disasters in the Courts by Peter H. Schuck; (Page 220) 2
nd
Para.
36 – Agent Orange On Trial – Mass Toxic Disasters in the Courts by Peter H. Schuck; (Page 218) 2
nd
Para.
37 – TWELFTH REPORT by the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS; (Page 29) 3
rd
Para.
38 – TWELFTH REPORT by the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS; (Page 29) 4
th
Para.
39 – TWELFTH REPORT by the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS; (Page 29) 5
th
Para.
REFERENCES
Revised - 04/08/2014 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 16
REFERENCES


40 – TWELFTH REPORT by the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS; (Page 31) 2
nd
3
rd
Para.
41 – See Admiral Zumwalt's Report to the Secretary – May 1990 (Page 18) 2
nd
Para.
42 – TWELFTH REPORT by the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS; (Page 19) 3
rd
Para.
43 – TWELFTH REPORT by the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS; (Page 19) 4
th
Para.
44 – TWELFTH REPORT by the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS; (Page 20) 2
nd
& 3
rd
Para.
45 – TWELFTH REPORT by the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS; (Page 32) 2
nd
Para.
46 – TWELFTH REPORT by the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS; (Page 22) 4
th
Para. & (page 23) 2
nd
Para.
47 – TWELFTH REPORT by the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS; (Page 32) 3
rd
Para.
48 – TWELFTH REPORT by the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS; (Page 33) 2
nd
Para.
49 – TWELFTH REPORT by the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS; (Page 32) 4
th
Para.
50 – TWELFTH REPORT by the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS; (Page 33) 3
rd
& 4
th
Para.
51 – TWELFTH REPORT by the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS; (Page 33) 5
th
Para.
52 – TWELFTH REPORT by the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS; (Page 34) 1
st
, 2
nd
Para.
53 – See Admiral Zumwalt's Report to the Secretary – May 1990 (Page 14) 4
th
Para.
54 – See Admiral Zumwalt's Report to the Secretary – May 1990 (Page 14) 1
st
Para.
55 – See Admiral Zumwalt's Report to the Secretary – May 1990 (Page 2) 4
th
Para.
56 – See Admiral Zumwalt's Report to the Secretary – May 1990 (Page 16) 2
nd
Para.
57 – See Admiral Zumwalt's Report to the Secretary – May 1990 (Page 16) 1
st
Para.
58 – See Admiral Zumwalt's Report to the Secretary – May 1990 (Page 19) 2
nd
Para.
59 – See Admiral Zumwalt's Report to the Secretary – May 1990 (Page 4) 2
nd
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, 1
st
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) 1
st
– 6
th
Para.
64 – Wikipedia Free Encyclopedia AGENT ORANGE (Page 3) 3
rd
Para.
65 – Boston College Environment Affairs Law Review Vo. 8/Issue 2 12/1/1979 Soldiers of Orange; (Page 178) 2
nd
Para.
66 – Boston College Environment Affairs Law Review Vo. 8/Issue 2 12/1/1979 Soldiers of Orange; (Page 166) 4
th
Para.
67 – Boston College Environment Affairs Law Review Vo. 8/Issue 2 12/1/1979 Soldiers of Orange; (Page 167) 3
rd
Para.
68 – Admiral Zumwalt’s 1990 testimony before the Human Resources Committee, U.S. House; (Page 2) 6
th
Para.
69 – THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES – Agent Orange Act of 1991; Public Law 102-4; 102
nd
Congress (1
st
Session)
70 – US Comptroller General-Health Effects of Exposure to Herbicide Orange in South Vietnam should be Resolved (Page 2) 3
rd
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) 4
th
Para.
73 – See Admiral Zumwalt's Report to the Secretary – May 1990 (Page 21) 3
rd
Para.
74 – See Admiral Zumwalt's Report to the Secretary – May 1990 (Page 20) 2
nd
Para.
75 – San Diego Union – Tribune Robert Weissman – Nov 2, 1988 (Page 2) 5
th
& 6
th
Para.
76 – See Admiral Zumwalt's Report to the Secretary – May 1990 (Page 4) 2
nd
Para.
77 – San Diego Union – Tribune Robert Weissman – Nov 2, 1988 (Page 9) last Para. & (page 10) 1
st
Through 2
nd
Para.
Revised - 04/08/2014 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 17
REFERENCES




78 – San Diego Union – Tribune Robert Weissman – Nov 2, 1988 (Page 10) 1
st
- 8
th
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) 2
nd
Para.
81 – Hatfield Consultants – 2011 Environmental & Human Health assess. Of Dioxin Contamination (Vietnam) (Page 2) 3
rd
Para.
82 – Hatfield Consultants – 2011 Environmental & Human Health assess. Of Dioxin Contamination (Vietnam) (Page 3) 4
th
Para.
83 – Hatfield Consultants – 2011 Environmental & Human Health assess. Of Dioxin Contamination (Vietnam) (Page 3) 6
th
Para.
84 – Hatfield Consultants – 2011 Environmental & Human Health assess. Of Dioxin Contamination (Vietnam) (Page 5) 1
st
Para.
85 – Hatfield Consultants – 2011 Environmental & Human Health assess. Of Dioxin Contamination (Vietnam) (Page 5) 3
rd
Para.
86 – Hatfield Consultants – 2011 Environmental & Human Health assess. Of Dioxin Contamination (Vietnam) (Page 6) 6
th
Para.
87 – Wikipedia Free Encyclopedia AGENT ORANGE (Page 8) 2
nd
Para.
88 – Admiral Zumwalt’s 1990 Testimony Before the Human Resources Committee, U.S. House; (Page 3) 4
th
Para.
89 – Boston College Environment Affairs Law Review Vo. 8/Issue 2 12/1/1979 Soldiers of Orange; (Page 179) 4
th
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) 3
rd
Para.
93 – The Freeman - Government Claims Immunity from Tort Liability - (Page 1) 5
th
and 6
th
Para.
94 – Boston College Environment Affairs Law Review Vo. 8/Issue 2 12/1/1979 Soldiers of Orange; (Page 160)2
nd
Para.
95 – Operation Ranch Hand; Air University Review; July-August 1983; (Page 2) 4
th
Para
96 – Dr. Stellmans' - The Extent , Patterns & Usage of Agent Orange (Page 682) 3
rd
Para.
97 – Boston College Environment Affairs Law Review Vo. 8/Issue 2 12/1/1979 Soldiers of Orange; (Page 166) 3
rd
Para.
98 – See Admiral Zumwalt's Report to the Secretary – May 1990; (Page 22) 1
st
& 3
rd
Para.
99 – Boston College Environment Affairs Law Review Vo. 8/Issue 2 12/1/1979 Soldiers of Orange; (Page 179) 2
nd
Para.
100 – TWELFTH REPORT by the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS; (Page 19) 2
nd
Para.
101 – TWELFTH REPORT by the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS; (Page 12) 5
th
Para.
102 – TWELFTH REPORT by the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS; (Page 10) 3
rd
Para.
103 – TWELFTH REPORT by the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS; (Page 20) 5
th
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) 1
st
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) 3
rd
Para.











Al MARTINELLI STORY
FIGHTING FOR THE NEXT GENERATION
"ATTACHMENT 2"

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful