Background
War
It is said Napoleon once claimed "An army marches on its stomach." 1 Clearly, his meaning was that, in war, your enemy will submit if you deny him nourishment. Napoleon was on to something - and he created an Empire.
General William Tecumseh Sherman is famous for his "scorched earth" policy during the American Civil War, when he made the infamous March to the Sea - denying sustenance to the remaining soldiers and civilians of the Confederacy. 2 , 2 a
In 1864, Christopher [Kit] Carson destroyed the gardens, crop lands, and orchards of the Navajo in Canyon DeChelly, Arizona, to force them into submission. 3 , 3 a , 3 b In all three scenarios, the antagonist forced his enemy to submit by denying him food and shelter. Napoleon created an empire for France, Sherman crushed the remaining rebel resistance in the Confederacy, and Carson forced the Navajo on their inglorious "Long Walk" to Fort Sumner, New Mexico, after their attempts at waiting out the US Army failed.
The strategy of starving your enemy of food and shelter has a long, successful history. But it does not always work. The U.S. tried this tactic in the war against Vietnam in the 1960s. The implementation of the plan included the use of herbicides. 4 At a certain point in 1969 or 1970, a command decision was made to stop using Agent Orange. (Discussion point - Is denying your enemy shelter and food a good way to fight? What are some upsides and downsides to using herbicides in war? Discuss alternatives and demonstrate understanding using role-plays)
Business
The number of stories of businesses that push the ethics envelope, in a community setting, are legion. Valuing profits over ethics is an old story in business. Retirement investments, dangerous sewage disposal, animal and human abuses, and environmental destruction do not really surprise us when we hear about them - even though they are definitely shocking.
In Minamata, Japan, the town's economic well being rested on, or was at least enhanced by, the presence of Nippon Chisso - a company that had a thriving factory in Minamata starting in 1908 and continuing to this day. Originally a fertilizer factory, it later turned to manufacturing plastics. The ownership and management of the factory were not immediately aware of the degree of danger the waste being dumped into the bay, and disrupting the local population and environment, presented. People - mostly the less well off - were ingesting methyl mercury from the fish they caught. The Minamata Bay became a toxic pool. The fishermen were unable to make it better or even protect themselves and their families. Eventually, Chisso was forced to recognize what was happening and make some restitution. (Discussion point - When a company is responsible for the financial well being of a community, how can they make decisions regarding environmental problems resulting from their work?)
In the two cases mentioned above, there were positive, beneficial aspects and negative consequences to the essential issues. The town and the factory were both making good money in Minamata. At what point did their negligence become irresponsible, or worse? In Vietnam, herbicides were used effectively to clear forests, but not so effectively for protecting troops or discouraging the enemy.
The underlying questions in this unit concern the ethics of using certain tactics and strategies in war or business. The results of using Agent Orange and other herbicides are not even debatable. It did not serve its purpose, period. That's bad, but what's worse is how that the program, Operation Ranch Hand, left behind damaged people on both sides of the conflict and total devastation of a rich, diverse, ecosystem. (Discussion point - Do the intentions of Operation Ranch Hand's planners mitigate the outcome of their plan? If destruction of pristine parkland was thought to be essential for winning a battle, should that destruction take place?)
Tactics in war
In the 1930s, synthetic compounds designed to control plant growth were created to help farmers in eradicating weeds. The chemicals were also found to have military applications. One of the more effective herbicides was called 2,4-D. During WWII, the U.S. Army worked on refining herbicides and came up with one called 2,4,5-T, which was an easier and safer weed killer to handle. In 1960, the U.S. Army used different mixtures of those two compounds to spray crops and jungle land in Vietnam. A stripe, or band, of color painted on the barrels used to store and ship them identified the mixtures. The chemicals were known as Blue, White, Purple, Green, and Pink (based on the colored stripe). Later, to make it clearer that the colors represented a substance and were actually nouns, the press coined new names for these herbicides, "Agent Blue," Agent White," "Agent Purple" etc.
The defoliation program, called Operation Ranch Hand, had three purposes. They were; A. to deny the enemy cover from which they could attack and hurt our soldiers, B. to clear large staging areas so our military could see what was coming, and C. to destroy food crops, which would, hopefully, discourage the enemy and contribute to their decision to give up. 5
The Vietnamese did not lose heart and that misguided mentality (to try and coerce submission through hunger) probably cost the U.S. dearly by denying them the good will of the people. After the U.S. bombed the countryside in an effort to kill the enemy of that countryside, that enemy was as likely to help rebuild the bombed homes, fields, and community buildings as they were to leave. If the plan worked, the U.S. might have won the war. Then they could have written the history and McNamara could be added to the list with General Sherman and Kit Carson. (Discussion point - at what point/s should the U.S. have stopped and reevaluated the herbicide program? Maybe they did, and if so, how did they come to the conclusions they reached?)
It took about 10 years for the U.S. to respond to the disastrous misuse of chemicals in Vietnam. They mostly took care of their own veterans and mostly ignored the injured Vietnamese. Surprisingly, the Vietnamese continue to feel affection for the American people - though they are just a little dubious with regard to the American government. In fact, the Travel/AOL website lists Vietnam as one of the top 10 places to visit that loves Americans! 6
Who is responsible for that? What happened, and what should be done? What should have been done? What have we learned? What activities have we been involved in since then that can demonstrate we have or have not learned from our Vietnam experience? How about our forays into the Middle East and Persia; what about our standing in the international community? These questions will be addressed in this curriculum unit during a daily newspaper check.
Tactics in business
In 1932, when Chisso started making vinyl chloride and acetaldehyde, people didn't know that methyl mercury would be a byproduct, or what methyl mercury would do to people, or how it would behave in the environment. Some people may have known that it was flowing, along with other heavy metals, from the factory into the bay (see diagram 1, below) 7, but if so, it was not considered a problem great enough to do anything about.
Diagram 1
The fishing areas around Minamata were becoming less productive. But it was cheaper for Chisso to pay the fishermen a certain amount for their lost revenue than it was to figure out what caused it and what to do about it. So Chisso "paid indemnity" to the fishermen, who accepted it and considered the payments the right thing to do. The indemnity payments had been part of Chisso's budget since 1925, seven years before they started making acetaldehyde. (Discussion point - why did Chisso give indemnity payments to the fishermen? Discuss options and how this precedent affected changes).
Much later, the facts were realized. Chisso was more interested in saving the factory (with its associated jobs), their profits, and their business reputation than in fixing the problems and helping the victims. Although some of the people in Minamata were horribly hurt, many of the people were not hurt, and those were often afraid of losing their jobs should the factory be deemed responsible for the town's problems. The issue was causing serious rifts in the community.
Who knew what, and when in Minamata, Japan? How should the government and the Chisso company respond? Have other similar companies looked at Chisso's experience and changed their methods of doing business? These questions will be considered in the coming unit.
Agent Orange in Vietnam
Early on in the war, certain specific areas were identified for spraying with herbicides. Different areas considered useful to the enemy for either food or shelter were recognized as appropriate. These areas, in the early days of using herbicides, received only about three-gallons per acre. By early 1965, [Agent] Orange, a combination of equal parts 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T was mixed with diesel fuel or kerosene and became the herbicide of choice. It was especially good at killing broad-leaved and woody vegetation. By 1969, the U.S. was spraying 3.25 million gallons (compared to about 330,000 gallons in 1965). In April of 1970, after spraying 11.2 million gallons, the use of Agent Orange ended. Over 11 percent of South Vietnam's land area was sprayed. That amount accounted for 60 percent of all the herbicides used Vietnam. 8
As early as 1952, Monsanto Chemical Company told the army that 2,4,5-T had toxic substances in it. In 1963, the army ran its own tests and found 2,4,5-T caused an increased risk of some skin conditions including chloracne and respiratory irritations - especially when applied by inexperienced handlers and even more so still when applied in high concentrations. 9
Ironically, it was not the 2,4,5-T itself that was dangerous rather, a substance created during the manufacture of it that remained in the final product. This substance's chemical name is 2,3,7,8 tetrachorodibenzo-p-dioxin, or TCDD, "perhaps the most toxic molecule ever synthesized by man." 1 0 Galston reported, in 1979, that concentrations of TCDD as low as 5 parts per trillion (about 1 drop in 4 million gallons) can cause cancer in rats if applied daily. 1 1 TCDD is also a reproductive toxin and likely disrupts the human endocrine and immune system. 1 2 The World Health Organization (WHO) claims dioxin is one of the most toxic chemicals we humans have come up with so far. The WHO calls Dioxins "persistent organic pollutants," and says they are "of concern because of their highly toxic potential." 1 3 They are chemically stable and absorb in fatty tissue for up to eleven years. When distributed in the environment, dioxins accumulate in the food chain, in higher concentrations as the chain goes higher. (See diagram 2, below, for model of bioaccumulation of mercury. The dioxin model would be the same, except it would involve more land animals) 8
Diagram 2
Chronic exposure of animals to dioxins has caused various cancers. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified TCDD as a "known human carcinogen." 1 4 , 1 5 Of course, an important key in this designation is the amount of TCDD/dioxins one is exposed to. The EPA and USDA have a mysterious way of deciding how much exposure is "safe." 1 6 To be sure, dioxins are found in nature and most everyone is exposed to them in some degree. Infants and fetuses are more susceptible to problems than adults, as are people with certain diets (e.g., who consume more fish) due to their culture. People who live in certain areas (e.g., near pulp and paper industries or incineration plants) are also more likely to experience problems. Globally, human exposure to dioxins is mostly through food, mostly meat, dairy, fish and shellfish. 1 7
Knowing how much TCDD exposure people were subjected to or how much of it was inhaled in Vietnam is impossible to tell. The Agent Orange left over after the war averaged about 2 parts per million (ppm). Some of the samples had as much as 140 ppm. 1 8 The amount sprayed in any given place and time - and on any particular people, plants, or animals is impossible to know. What is known is that 11.2 million gallons of Agent Orange was sprayed over 1.4 billion hectares, more than 11 percent of the land area of Vietnam. 1 9 Although the actual amounts sprayed on certain areas are known, it is impossible to know how much reached the ground where it could get in, or on, people. This is important in terms of this unit because it is indicative of the confusion, fear, and deception surrounding the use of Agent Orange and the subsequent effects on people - both U.S. and Vietnamese. (Discussion point - How important is it for the government to know exactly how much toxic herbicide is applied to the land during war? Does it matter if the actual land is "enemy" land or "ally" land with enemies on it?)
Results
Anecdotal evidence that dioxin had contaminated the herbicide, 2,4,5-T, started coming out in 1969, when the Saigon press reported "unexplained birth abnormalities [beginning in 1967]" - which was the same time that use of Agent Orange started taking off. 2 0
Seventy-nine workers at a 2,4,5-T plant in Chesterfield, England developed chloracne (a debilitating skin condition) after an explosion at the plant in 1968, and several died of liver damage. 2 0
In 1971, waste oil was used to spray on roads for dust control in the town of Times Beach, in eastern Missouri. Eventually, it was discovered that the truck used to carry the oil was contaminated with dioxin because it was used earlier to remove clay and water from a plant that manufactured Agent Orange. The material being hauled from that plant contained dioxin. Even after dumping the clay and water out, dioxide residue stayed in the truck and contaminated the used oil. The contaminated oil was responsible for killing animals in town. Finally, fourteen years after the spraying began, the town was evacuated and abandoned. The 2,000 residents were bought out and they moved to other towns. 2 1 , 2 2
In 1978, Maude deVictor, whose job included helping Vietnam veterans with their veteran benefits heard about a former Vietnam soldier who claimed that his cancer, which was terminal, was related to his exposure to Agent Orange. He got her attention and she started talking to other veterans' widows and looking into other veterans' problems. She thought she noticed a pattern and began looking for support from the Veteran's Administration (VA). Instead of getting help, she was met with resistance. 2 3
The Veterans Administration recognized only Chloracne as a consequence of Agent Orange exposure. Veterans Administration employees were told not to enter questions about dioxin with regard to complaints, and they were told never to use the expression "dioxide poisoning" in any reports. One VA official said Agent Orange was "no more toxic than aspirin." 2 4
Between 1961 and 1973, 2.7 million U.S. soldiers served in Vietnam. Approximately 58,000 died. In the same time frame, there is no definitive number of Vietnamese casualties, but the accepted number is approximately between one million and two million. Many Vietnamese were not fighting, and as happens in war, they were innocent victims of their surroundings. The use of Agent Orange affected soldiers in a lot of ways. Agent Orange also had amazing and troubling effects on the civilians of Vietnam. Some of those troubles, resulting from exposure to Agent Orange, include non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, soft tissue sarcoma, Hodgkin's disease, multiple myeloma, respiratory cancers, prostate cancer, type II diabetes, and leukemia. Long-term exposure has been linked to impaired immune systems and affects "developing nervous systems, the endocrine system and reproductive functions." 2 5 , 2 6
In 1978, the VA set up a registry for veterans who were concerned about exposure to Agent Orange. Over 315,000 Vietnam Vets have registered and completed an examination. Interestingly, The VA does not test veteran's bodies for dioxin levels or try to verify their proximity to the spraying. The Veterans Administration presumes Agent Orange exposure for all vets who ask. There is an assumption that everyone has some dioxin in them and they just can't tell where it came from. It is also notable that many veterans want to be examined (even though they feel fine) - just to be sure. (Discussion point - Should the government give everyone who asks benefits relating to dioxin exposure, even if they were not exposed? Why would the Veterans Administration resist tracking exposure?)
The companies that manufactured and sold the Agent Orange to the government settled a law suit, out of court, for $ 180 million, giving some plaintiffs as much as a few thousand dollars each. Later, the U.S. veterans won a legislative battle for compensation and they currently "receive $ 1.52 billion per year in benefits." 2 7
See also, appendix A, with compensation package.
Agent Orange and the Vietnamese
Meanwhile, between 2.5 and 4.8 million people in Vietnam were exposed, to Agent Orange where 11.2 million gallons were sprayed between 1965 and 1970. The Vietnamese are having the same problems as the US soldiers. The Vietnamese victims actually have it worse because they have remained in the polluted environment long after the U.S. pulled out. Those people ate plants and animals that were exposed, and in turn concentrated even more of the chemicals in their bodies.
The Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange also sued Dow and Monsanto, the manufacturers. The case was dismissed by the US District Judge who concluded, that "Agent Orange did not constitute a poison weapon prohibited by the Hague Convention of 1907." 2 8 When the U.S. veterans settled, the courts told the chemical companies that their liability was over. The appeals by Vietnamese were denied, and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case. In their filings, the chemical companies admitted, "The harm alleged by the victims was foreseeable although not intended." Cohn argues, if it was foreseen, than proceeding is [at least implicit] intent. 2 7
Dioxin is a persistent chemical, the nature is such that when the chemical is eaten by animals it is stored in that animal's fatty tissue and transferred to the next animal that eats THAT animal. Since the water that plants use to grow and that animals use to drink was contaminated, the food chain was infected right from the beginning. Fish are prime examples of how persistent chemicals work in the food chain. The little fish eat algae and microscopic animals, larger fish eat those little fish, and still larger fish eat those fish and so on. Eventually humans and larger animals eat the biggest of fish that have several layers of dioxins stored inside of them. (See diagram 2, above) In addition to dioxins stored in animals' fatty tissue, some of the forests that were sprayed in Vietnam have been devastated. If they are able to grow back, it is estimated that it will take 50 - 200 years! 2 7 The loss of the forest environment has led to the extinction of certain animals which has disrupted the associated communities that depend on them. Without the plants to hold the soil, erosion has clogged rivers and chemicals like dioxin have washed down, contaminating the water. Since the ground is polluted and denuded, the environment is forever changed. Dioxin's, legacy lives on long after the life it affected is gone.
These chemicals cause diseases and birth defects. Children and grandchildren of the people exposed to Agent Orange have physical deformities and mental and physical disabilities. They have compromised immunity systems that subject them to diseases and shortened life spans.
Cohn 2 7 says that a study commissioned by the US government in 1963 showed that Agent Orange "produced significant deformities in unborn offspring in laboratory animals" and that a leak of that study in 1969 led to the discontinuation of the use of Agent Orange in 1970. 2 9
Comments: