Jump to content

Talk:Agent Orange

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 80.177.116.201 (talk) at 20:26, 2 May 2008 (→‎Increasingly POV). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconMilitary history: Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
Associated task forces:
Taskforce icon
Military science, technology, and theory task force
Taskforce icon
Weaponry task force
Taskforce icon
North American military history task force
Taskforce icon
United States military history task force
WikiProject iconVietnam B‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

National Academy of Science study

I removed the external link

because it required a paid membership to access the article.

The same article is available here without subscription: [1] bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 09:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


How effective was the spraying? Any figures on the area of cleared forests? About how much did it cost to produce all of the Agent Orange? From my (uneducated?) perspective, this tactic of clearing huge areas of forest for warfare purposes is incredibly baffling, in a way. Similar to trying to move a mountain. Peoplesunionpro 03:44, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

By: me

Why not put something like why was it used and what for. other then just putting ya it was bad.. it is poisonis. put something like where it was used in vietnam. and why. and how effective it was. How was it placed on the forests and stuff

Redgum's "I was only Nineteen"

I think that this song should get a mention somewhere in this article. I'm not sure if it directly links to agent orange, but the line "And what's this rash that comes and goes, can you tell me what it means?" I think is a reference to human contact with the chemical. If someone could look into that and leave a comment on my talk page (User talk:Xykon) that would be great. (by the way, the reason im not adding this in is because when I did some research into this i turned out nothing) --Xykon 08:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time of classification?

"National Toxicology Program has classified 2,3,7,8-TCDD, the dioxin in Agent Orange, to be a known human carcinogen, frequently associated with soft-tissue sarcoma, Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Hodgkin disease and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)." Could someone please indicate when the NTP classified 2,3,7,8-TCDD as such? --crumb 16:06, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

OtherUses template

Please change the article to use Template:OtherUses instead of Template:otheruses it currently uses. The OtherUses template has information about the contents of the article.

{{OtherUses|info=information about the contents of the article}}

For a sample use of this template refer to the following articles Alabama or Algiers--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DuKot (talkcontribs) .

Note that that functionality is now at {{otheruses1}}. {{OtherUses}} redirects to {{otheruses}}, and is deprecated.--Srleffler 18:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I say Images should be included in this article to show the effects of the bio-chemic. I have posted a link in the external links to pictures but i suggest we should add one to the article. Images at http://snopes.com/photos/medical/orange.asp --Anonymous?

http://todayspictures.slate.com/20070507/ Above link shows pictures of Vietnamese victims affected by Agent Orange. (dark stuff)

--Drmistermaster 02:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nature claims errors

Nature disputes the accuracy of this article; see http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/multimedia/438900a_m1.html and Wikipedia:External_peer_review#Nature. We're hoping they will provide a list of the alleged errors soon. —Steven G. Johnson 01:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I find this entry confusing... and the song list?

I came across this article during the Nature controversy. Although I can't comment on the factual problems, I do find the article itself to be of very poor quality.

For one, the introduction states that Agent Orange was deadly, and that one of its two constituants has since been banned. The article later goes on to apparently state that the problem was not the chemicals themselves, but dioxin contamination. These two statements seem to be at odds. If dioxin contamination is the "real" cause of the problem, a statement I have heard in the past, this should be stated clearly in the very first paragraph.

Additionally the history of the lawsuits is mixed with the technical description, which makes the entire article quite confusing. Although I can understand that the "contention" is over the technical details and thus may be mixed with the legalities, I should also point out there is no description, even in passing, of how Agent Orange actually works.

Finally, do we really need a list of songs?!? Does someone actually think this is a reasonable addition to this article? Could this entire section not be replaced with a single statement along the lines of "Due to its politically sensitive nature, Agent Orange has become a common topic in rock music"?

Maury 15:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Snippage from another article

We really need to collect the information from the various "color" articles into one. Perhaps Agent Orange is the right place, perhaps not. Anyway, here's some snippage from Agent Purple that does not belong specifically to that article. If someone can tell me where they think the "right" place for this discussion belongs, I will be happy to collect it all...

Maury 13:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The health effects of Agents Orange and Purple exposure remain unclear. The Government of Canada is not suggesting that these agents are not harmful; however, adverse affects of exposure must be determined by the potential of the chemical to cause harm, the possibility of exposure and the dose of the exposure.

Based on U.S. studies, the Canadian Forces Surgeon General and her expert staff found that significant spray drift beyond the borders of target areas in low wind conditions (as was the case in Gagetown during the 1966-67 tests) is considered extremely unlikely.

      Done! Invadervelcron 07:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

many gallons and GOS =

We may want to add this info:

"An estimated 19 million gallons of herbicidal agents, including more than 12 million gallons of Agent Orange, were used by the United States Armed Forces in South Vietnam during the war. [...] Neither the extent of exposure nor the long-term health effects among the 3.2 million Americans who served in Vietnam are fully understood [...] In the year 1991, The Agent Orange Act instructed the Secretary of Veteran Affairs to obtain a comprehensive evaluation of the available scientific evidence regarding the health effects of dioxin and other chemical compounds in herbicides. Since 1994, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) has issued several reports examining the health risks posed to Vietnam veterans by exposure to Agent Orange. These reports also recommended that the Department of Veteran Affairs facilitate additional epidemiological studies by independent researchers and non-governmental organizations.

North American scientists believe that Vietnam remains contaminated with approximately one-quarter of the dioxin introduced into the country's environment during the war [...] In 1996, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued a proposal for the development of an exposure model that would become the foundation of new epidemiological research. A geographic information system (GIS) was developed as an exposure methodology to be used in large-scale epidemiological studies." University of Ottawa, Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment

Nature errors to correct

The results of what exactly Nature suggested should be corrected is out... -- user:zanimum

  • This entry implies that it was the herbicides that are problematic, which is not the case. It was dioxin, a byproduct of manufacture of 2,4,5-T that is of concern. Dioxin is persistent in the environment and in the human body, whereas the herbicides are not. In addition, there was a significant amount of dioxin in Agents Purple, Pink and Green, all of which contained 2, 4, 5 - T as well. However, we have less information on these compounds and they were used in lesser quantities.
  • The entry is on the verge of bias, at least. By use of the word "disputedly" in the second sentence there is at least an implication that the evidence of harm to exposed persons is in question. That is not the case, and the World Health Organization has identified dioxin as a "known human carcinogen", and other organizations such as the US National Academy of Sciences has documented harmful effects to US Air Force personnel.

Peripheral neuropathy, "limited evidence" vs. "disease most widespread"

The Mercury News article says that "peripheral neuropathy [is] the disease most widespread among Agent Orange victims"; but in the first technical part of the article it is defined as with "limited evidence". Can this hiatus be explained? It sounds strange that if considered as the "most widespread" disease related to Agent Orange, it continues to be in the category of "limited evidence". If it belong to this category, maybe a hierarchy could be done? Briefly put, the news article highlight it as one of the most evident sign of Agent Orange, although it seems to be still controversial in the scientific community? Could the precise controverse concerning this be further explained? Tazmaniacs 03:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bold writing

is it really necessary to have bold writing when dealing with large numbers? One would almost think someone was trying to overemphasise the figures.

Not only that, but in the grand scheme of things, the numbers aren't that huge. In the US, each year, we spray about 100 times more herbicide than what was sprayed on Vietnam during the entire conflict.

Disposal of agent oarnge

sorry, but i am forced to ask how agent oarnge is disposed of for school.

March 2006 Appellate Court?

Anyone know what is going on with the case right now?

Would anyone knowledgeable on the subject care to add a section detailing the use of the Rainbow Agents at CFB Gagetown and the surrounding area and the fight of those exposed to gain recognition and compensation? I think it is an important part of the Agent Orange story, considering that the US military used Gagetown as a testing ground, and the exposure of local civilians to the chemicals in addition to Canadian military personnel. mhunter 18:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


POV SCIENCE V SUPERSTITION

This article is POV. Agent orange was a mixture of two herbicides 24D and 245T both of which had been in use for many years before Vietnam worldwide. 245T was found to be contaminated with dioxins most of which are esentially harmless. However a small number do exhibit toxicity the most toxic of which is 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin (or TCDD).

TCDD is probably the most studied toxin in human history and yet in doses likely to be encountered in humans the only disease that can be definitively laid at its door is Chloroacne (as suffered by Viktor yushenko after he was poisoned with Doxin.

At the very least the article should acknowledge that serious doubts exist about the effects of Agent Orange.

Incidently the population most highly contaminated by TCDD are the people in Seveso Italy. These people have been followed for years and their exposure to TCDD actually measured. They have suffered no long term effects from their exposure. But this is science not superstition which is what rules discussions on AGENT ORANGE.


I dont know where you got your info, but that sounds like a sack of shit, theres numerous studies that have shown the effects of TCDD, abd the people at Seveso were not the worst expose, and they have suffered long term effect, including birth defects. 195.188.138.214 19:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We could sort all this out if someone would dig up some references. If there are 'numerous studies' - let's have them cited. If it's 'the most studied toxin in history' then it shouldn't be hard to rebut claims about its toxicity with hard facts. Ewen 19:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A reference is easy. Just go to http://veterans.iom.edu/subpage.asp?id=6197. The relevant information is as follows:

Sufficient Evidence of an Association - Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), Soft-tissue sarcoma, Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Hodgkin’s disease, Chloracne. Limited or Suggestive Evidence of an Association - Respiratory cancer (of lung or bronchus, larynx, and trachea), Prostatic cancer, Multiple myeloma, Acute and subacute transient peripheral neuropathy, Porphyria cutanea tarda, Type 2 diabetes, Spina bifida in the children of veterans. Nickleberry (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trade name and non-Vietnam use

Agent Orange was aold under another name on the commercial market. It was used into the 1980s (I think) in Canada. However, I find nothing about this in the article. // Liftarn 14:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just reformatted some text that was added to the Teratogenesis article and added it here - however, I noticed that someone removed that text from here as well labeling it as linkspam. Just wanted to give notice that I don't have any opinion as to the validity/notability of the text I added under Agent Orange#Miscellaneous(see diff). My interest in adding it here is that the info is not appropriate for the Teratogenesis article, not that I have any expertise on whether it is appropriate here. Trödel 15:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Word Changed

As it read:

Agent Orange (as well as Agents Purple, Pink, Blue, White, and Green) contained dioxins which are alleged to have caused harm to the health of those exposed during the Vietnam War.

I have changed the word alleged to known. Why? For starters how about 38CFR3.309 "Disease subject to presumptive service connection" ( link to CFR text ) then page down to (e) "Disease[s] associated with exposure to certain herbicide agents." Not enough? Then I would be happy to discuse this further. Walt Schmidt, Veteran Services Officer and Director of the Town of Oyster Bay, Nassau County, Long Island, New York, USA, Veterans Services Division, 516.733.8414, and a service-connected Viet Nam veteran whose contact with Agent Orange and other herbicide Dioxins during my three tours in Viet Nam, caused me to become paralyzed and lose the use of all but the partial use of my right arm and hand -- to name just one of the problems caused by my exposure to Agent Orange. Walts0042 15:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too much extra info

The last paragraph of the description section contains lots of irreverent info:

"Diseases associated with dioxin exposure are chloracne, soft tissue sarcomas, Hodgkin's lymphoma, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. A link has also been found to diabetes, in a study by the Institute of Medicine. Diseases with limited evidence of an association with Agent Orange are respiratory cancers, prostate cancer, multiple myeloma, Porphyria cutanea tarda (a type of skin disease), acute and subacute transient peripheral neuropathy, spina bifida, Type 2 diabetes, and acute myelogenous leukemia found only in the second or third generation. Diseases with inadequate or insufficient evidence of an association are hepatobiliary cancers, nasal or nasophargyngeal cancers, bone cancer, female reproductive cancers, renal cancer, testicular cancer, leukemia, spontaneous abortion, birth defects, neonatal or infant death and stillbirths, low birth weight, childhood cancers, abnormal sperm parameters, cognitive neuropsychiatric disorders, ataxia, peripheral nervous system disorders, circulatory disorders, respiratory disorders, skin cancers, urinary and bladder cancer. Diseases with limited or suggestive evidence of no association are gastrointestinal tumors such as stomach cancer, pancreatic cancer, colon cancer, and rectal cancer, and brain tumors."

It basically reads like word vomit (pardon for the harsh words). From what I see, only the disease under "associated" should be included in the page. The other disease only have "limited" evidence, thus should not be included. With the loose association, any substance can also cause the stated diseases with "limited" evidence. ^_^ Jumping cheese Cont@ct 06:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Article Contradicts Another Article

In the opening section of this article, it says that "Agent Orange (as well as Agents Purple, Pink, Blue, White, and Green) contained dioxins..." however, the article for Agent White says "Unlike the more infamous Agent Orange, Agent White did not contain dioxin...". Does anyone have any information from a good source as to whether or not Agent White contains dioxin. If it does, then the Agent White article should be changed accordingly, if not, then please remove it from the list of other defoliants listed on the Agent Orange article. Daniel,levine 01:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page sixteen of this report from the EPA on impact to Alaska fishing of herbicides lists all of the active ingredients. It is not a Dioxide from what I can determine. Correcting the statement. FYI - The active ingredient of Agent White is currently sold under many brand names: Bladex-B, Brush Killer 64, Dicofur, Dormon, Ipaner, Moxon, Netagrone, Pielik, Verton 38, Mota Maskros, Silvaprop 1, Agricorn D, Acme LV4, Croprider, Fernesta, Lawn-Keep, Pennamine D, Plantgard, Tributon, Weed-B-Gon, Weedatul, Agroxone, Weedar, Salvo, Green Cross Weed-No-More 80, Red Devil Dry Weed Killer, Scott's 4XD, Weed-Rhap LV40, Weedone 100, 2,4-Dichloro-phenoxyacetic acid, Tordon* 101. That may be useful to verify the results I found at the FDA. --Trödel 22:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lead paragraph

The lead paragraph needs to be cleaned up and narrowed down to a shorter description. It goes into too much detail for a lead paragraph. --Kalmia 10:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update Amount of Agent Orange the U.S. Used

"The U.S. military sprayed some 11 million gallons of the defoliant over the leafy jungles of southern and central Vietnam from 1962 to 1971 in an effort to expose enemy supply lines, sanctuaries and bases." [2] Based upon this reference, does anyone feel the 'Use in South East Asia (1961-1971)' section should be updated? -- ViaBest 00:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pop culture references

can we add some pop culture references to agent orange? considering there are many songs; television shows and movies that had made reference to it (most recently the film "The Host" took a good shot by having the US military drop "Agent Yellow" on innocent korenas to try to kill off a creature and virus, with the only successful effect being respiratory problems to the civilians). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.166.225.96 (talk) 07:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Picture Date

Is there a reason the picture of Planes cropdusting says the operation went from 1962-71, it appears to contradict the article, as it says the program ran from 1961-71? Robert Beck 20:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serious Problems

I don't know what the deal is with this article, but I have some serious issues with the use of the weasel words here. Agent Orange DOES cause serious health problems. These problems are direct and serious, no matter what the authors of this article think. I highly encourage you to look at the enclosed link [3] and then tell me that Agent Orange "allegedly" causes problems.


I am seriously appalled at this. This article is the worst instance of misinformation and/or propaganda I've ever seen on the Wikipedia. Something must be done about this entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manej1 (talkcontribs) 02:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]


I agree. There doesn't appear to be anything relating to the effects it has on humans, nor the responsibility which has been undertaken to assist those affected. Dailly Rubbings 03:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That's because it doesn't have any effect on humans. Anyone who claims to have serious health problems caused by Agent Orange is either guessing or lying. -- Zsero (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a major Monsanto shareholder or something!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.116.201 (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Health Effects of Agent

There should be information mentioned on the health effects of this chemical. If you are to look up "agent orange" in an image search, there will be many people (high likeness of Vietnamese) who are deformed as a possible effect from the chemical. Someone who is able, please fill in this vital information. Thanks, Dailly Rubbings 03:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

yes indeed. My brother was born with severe birth defects. I find this article totally fabricated as far it can be. He is dead now, peace - and he's not even Vietnamese! Just a note from a veteran's daughter. (Let the truth be known and even if they claim they never knew - not good enough) never again(must be accountable). When it all comes dowm to it we're all human. We who suffer the effect of your wars are not restricted to "a side" And will carry on(like dioxion) well past your presidency, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.36.148 (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on May 23rd

I had to do a vandalism and article tag problem revert. I may have removed one edit that was at least partly editorially valuable and partly not, and that had tag errors. I think I have left the page in the best form it could be for now, and have requested an editorial review from the WikiProject, so that someone more experienced can take a look at this. --Warphammer 06:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Increasingly POV

If there is a Wiki review, note this entry is becoming increasingly POV with numerous opinions entered in place of fact, i.e. that all those exposed will die before age 65.

This article is a disgrace. It took me until the "see also" section to understand why. Depleted Uranium? Thalidomide? Ah, yes, the liberal anti-chemical lobby subverts the encyclopedia yet again. I remember using "agent orange" in the 1980s. It was an agricultural chemical containing 2,4,5-T which was later withdrawn from use because of concerns with dioxin impurities. It was used on millions of farms for decades up until about 1990. No scare stories. No crisis. Real world. As a professional chemical applicator it does not worry me one bit about handling this chemical. There is no need for it now of course, as better, safer chemicals are available. Tom 21:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How are there safer chemicals now available. I thought you just said agent orange was totally safe.

More information about why Agent Orange was used

I think this article needs more info about why these chemicals were used. We can see that it is an herbicide but not much more. I agree that the health and social effects are very important, but I am interested in why Agent Orange was dropped during the war. If there is another entry about this, I must have missed it.


It was used to uncover hiding spots within the dense vegatation.

Some information about the numbers of vietnamese affected?

at the moment there isnt even an estimation of the numbers of vietnames affected in this article or any of the negibouring ones, it really isnt serious to not have any information at all. I leave it to more knowledgable to find accurate information though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.0.70 (talk) 00:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]