Navy knowingly exposed us to toxic chemicals!

For years smoke from the Shinkanpo Incineration Complex (SIC) billowed across the residential area of the U.S. Naval Air Facility (NAF) Atsugi, Japan, carrying with it what the media has often referred to as a witch’s brew of toxic chemicals. The first report I uncovered concerning this toxic poisoning was prepared in 1990 by the Naval Energy and Environmental Support Activity in Port Hueneme, California, at the request of the Fleet Air West Pacific Commander, who voiced concern for the health and safety of personnel who were complaining of respiratory discomfort, nausea and other ailments. The report confirmed the Commanders fears, the incinerator was indeed emitting a complex mixture of toxic chemicals.

The Navy spent millions of dollars over a decade performing numerous ambient air and health studies and over and over again, empirical data confirmed that NAF Atsugi was being polluted with hundreds of chemicals, including dioxins, volatile organic and inorganic chemicals, heavy metals, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), and other toxic compounds. Nevertheless, American families continued to be deployed to the quaint little military base just 40 kilometers southwest of Tokyo, a centrally located and desirable assignment. Unknown to the families, they were being exposed to toxins capable of harming them, and their offspring, for the rest of their lives.

Despite alarming levels of these chemicals, the Navy decided to rely solely on risk communication to protect NAF Atsugi personnel--communication that was wholly inadequate. A review of the US Navy's Human Health Risk Assessment of the NAF Atsugi, Japan, prepared in 2001 by the Committee of Toxicology stated, “There does not seem to have been a coordinated strategy for risk communication.” As a resident of Atsugi from 1995 through 1998, I can attest that these risk communications efforts did, in fact, fail. My husband and I were not provided adequate information that explained the real dangers we and our small children faced during our tour of duty in Japan.

In 1998, the Department of the Navy (DoN) recognized its exposure to liability at NAF Atsugi and instituted a waiver policy for personnel and their dependents. All military personnel and any dependent over the age of 18 were required to sign. The waiver stated, “The Navy is concerned about the potential health risks posed by the Jinkanpo Incinerator” The waiver was one page, very vague, and did not convey any information on the known cancer risks or long-term health consequences posed by the incinerator’s emissions. (At that time the incineration complex was called both Shinkanpo and Jinkanpo. Later it was renamed Envirotech.)

In 2000 the United States Justice Department filed a lawsuit in the Yokohama District Court against Envirotech, the owner of the SIC, seeking an injunction to shut down the incinerator. The petition stated that US personnel were at risk, NAF Atsugi was unable to use a new child development center that had been built in the residential area--an attempt to shield dependent children from dioxin and other toxic substances, and that NAF Atsugi personnel were living in fear of an increased risk of cancer and other chronic illnesses. In the spring of 2001, a few days before the Japanese court was to make a ruling on the case, the Government of Japan paid approximately $42 million dollars to Envirotech, to shut down its incinerator.

Unfortunately, the waiver policy and the legal action that ultimately closed the incinerator occurred too late for my family. Since our return from Atsugi, members of my family have had tumors surgically removed and cancer. The devastation that my family has suffered is overwhelming. For the rest of our lives, we will worry and wonder if my husband’’s cancer will return. We will agonize over every ache and pain and over the health of our children and grandchildren, because the Navy knowingly and negligently exposed us to toxic chemicals.

My family’s cancer experiences made me question the actual risks at NAF Atsugi’s toxic incinerator emissions: Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) I have obtained data, I have met with personnel from the Navy Environmental Health Center (NEHC), and I have corresponded with two admirals at the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery (BUMED).

As a direct result of my inquiries, an epidemiologist with the NEHC is going to perform a limited study that is expected to take approximately one year to complete. The study will only review electronic military health records and states that, "Cases would be identified from the beneficiary population while the member was entitled to healthcare through the military. Once a person is no longer eligible for healthcare through the military, case ascertainment becomes very problematic." Problematic? It is an interesting choice of words for a physician who has an ethical obligation to US military personnel and their families. This statement and the limits placed on the population targeted for the health study reflect a total disregard for the human rights of our service men and women, and their loved ones. Regrettably, for all those assigned to NAF Atsugi, the results of the NEHC study will provide inadequate and incomplete results because of the proposed limitations.

Last year, I started a blog in hopes of finding former Atsugi residents and any other personnel or family members that might be ill. I receive numerous responses and my fears have been realized. Many former residents are symptomatic with insomnia, numbness and tingling in toes and fingers, tremors, headaches, memory loss, depression, infertility, birth defects and miscarriages. Other are suffering or have died from liver disease, Crohn’s disease, autoimmune disorders, thyroid cancer, breast cancer, bladder cancer, colon cancer, kidney cancer and leukemia.

In short, the Navy continued to assign military personnel and their families to NAF Atsugi long after they were fully aware that the base was being shrouded in toxic chemicals; furthermore, the Navy’s track record regarding the emissions clearly demonstrates a gross lack of concern for the long-term health and welfare of US military personnel and their families. Recognizing this ongoing pattern of negligence, it is apparent that allowing the Navy to conduct its own, unsupervised Atsugi Health Study poses a conflict of interest: There are ethical and professional obligations that require the NEHC to survey a sufficiently large population in order to provide adequate results, but these obligations are not being met.

I believe that the proposed health study is simply “smoke and mirrors” intended to mislead Congress, veterans, military personnel, and their dependents into believing that the Navy is taking the appropriate action to locate, notify and assist those who have life-threatening diseases caused exposure to toxic chemicals at NAF Atsugi. Those who have served our country and their families deserve to be told the truth. The Navy is liable and veterans and their family members deserve notification of the long-term effects of all documented toxic chemicals they were exposed to, as well as health care for diseases caused by that toxic exposure.

It is time for the Navy to follow its core values of Honor, Courage, and Commitment to all those former residents of NAF Atsugi.

If you signed the waiver, I would like to ask you some questions. Please email me.
For more information, please email me at atsugi_incinerator@yahoo.com or see the NAF Atsugi Incinerator Unit Page

This message has been edited. Last edited by: USMCWIFE_SP,

Thanks for you post and information.
Dave Barker

This is so sad. Is there no JUSTICE anywhere in this Land?

We seek justice.

I was station at NAF Atsugi from 1997 -2001. Squardron VAW-115. E2-C Hawk Eye. During my time at Atsugi the air quality was horrendous.

As bad as all of this sounds, I'll offer a counter-point: perhaps the culprit isn't necessarily dioxin itself. It may well be a prominent chemical compound in the mix, but is it necessarily the active one?

I question this because, until the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, I likewise did not question the dioxin/Agent Orange/cancer connection. But Ukrainian president Yushchenko was poisoned by a dose of dioxin much greater than one would expect from casual or even prolonged exposure. Those who poisoned him (the finger points to the Russians) relied upon experimental models using rodents as test subjects, completely ignoring significant physiological differences between rodents and humans.

The dose administered to Yushchenko was massive and certainly damaged his health, but it proved to be something less than the lethal toxin everyone thought it was. He recovered fairly quickly.

This doesn't let dioxin off of the hook completely, but it makes one wonder if it has to react with other chemicals to be lethal over time and what those chemicals are.

Incidentally, Yushchenko's treatment for dioxin poisoning was counter-doses of Olestra, which pretty much flushed out his systems. Go figure....

quote:

This doesn't let dioxin off of the hook completely, but it makes one wonder if it has to react with other chemicals to be lethal over time and what those chemicals are.

I assure you dioxin is not off the hook. I have studied for the past 30 years cause and effect and various approaches used with the poison and my studies still gave the same basic answers, dioxin is a cancer causing poison. Granted there are many other carcinogens, but this one is deadly on its own.

http://extoxnet.orst.edu/faqs/foodcon/dioxin.htm

"Studies with laboratory animals have shown TCDD to be extremely toxic and the most potent carcinogen ever tested under laboratory conditions for some species of animals (1). However, the effects in humans exposed to TCDD have been more difficult to ascertain. Because of this, animal studies have been used as the basis of most risk assessments for dioxins (1).

I added the bold-faced emphasis...see article...

This is not a drill...this impacts all...think about it...

Thanks Brett!

Let me add from my book on Agent Orange "In Search of the Truth For The Vietnam Combat Veteran" Here is a quote from a chapter:
"THE VERDICT IS IN: GUILTY!
Agent Orange went to trial in San Francisco and was found guilty. On May 3, 1989 in the U.S. District Court, the Honorable Thelton E. Henderson held that former Veterans Administration head, Thomas K. Turnage had imposed "an impermissibly demanding test" for determining whether an ailment could be linked to dioxin. A position many of us had stated for over a decade.
The ruling was not appealed by the new Secretary of Veterans Affairs. This has opened the doors for new opportunities for those who have been maimed by this, the deadliest of man made synthetic chemical compounds, TCDD or as we know it Agent Orange. Multiple Thousands of claims nearly 34,000, at that time had been denied over the years."
Repeating "the deadliest of man made synthetic chemical compounds," which I personally believe to be true.

Dioxin kills! Over 246 toxic chemicals polluted NAF Atsugi. The issue is Navy knew this and continued to send and house families in a DIOXIN and TOXIC chemicals polluted area.

Why did they do this and why have the NOT followed the residents health status?

Why and what can I do to help? I have already contacted congress and the NAVY!!!!!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: USMCWIFE_SP,

quote:

I have already contacted congress and the NAVY!!!!!

...and 8 million members on Military.com. Hopefully we can get some of the posting members to pay attention to this situation.

I will cast no stones!
Dave Barker

Dioxin and other chemicals have been used and found in other Military installations, which is still denied as well as it's existence. The reasoning is no records with DOD/VA that are avaliable to be released.

{ex:
35 barrels of dioxin were found at Camp Pendleton in the mid eighties impacted and underneath dirt, leakage and high assessment of exposure to habitat and wild-life. Higher than the norm for cancer causing agents.
Just think possibly 15-20 yrs of corroding metal drums contaminating the areas that had to be cleaned,clean up assessment done by the Southern Naval Engineering Command in S.Diego, approved by DOD., mid eighties
DOD say they have no records. but release of info/ Freedom of Information Act/data/infor. from Camp pendleton shows high concentrations, now why is this?

Camp Pendleton was placed on the FPL list for clean-up hazardous toxins to humans with Tcdd,Dioxin, Deldrin, Aldrin,heptachlor, and other toxins these products were even found in and around the Santa Maria River Basin and area 33,as well as the Del Mar area and the Santa Maria water basin/river is also a water supply that feeds into Oceanside and Camp pendleton.
Clean-up was completed in the mid nineties

hazardous material recently in the news concerning Camp Lejuene with dry cleaninng/cleaning chemicals also in the water system and base land/housing.

The problem not only lies with the VA/Nicholson right now/past and present but as well as DOD lack of records and release of DOCUMENTED material by the Govt concerning containements, testing and inspections.

SEMPER FI

This message has been edited. Last edited by: allez1952,

1990: On-Site Investigation of Incinerator Emissions Impacting on the Naval Air Facility at Atsugi, Japan 7-13 August 1990; This is an official report prepared by Naval Energy and Environmental Support Activity, Department of Navy, Department of Defense

Personal Observations: “We were mentally unprepared for anything this bad”. ……. Based on our experience in les s acute operations we feel strongly that base occupants, residents in the area, the ground water, even the pigs on the co-located farm are being exposed to a brew of toxic chemicals. ……. The emissions appear to be complex mixture of toxic inorganic gases, volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, toxic metals, condense organic compounds and inorganic acids for, partially combusted waste. …….. We believe that dioxin, dibenzofurans, and other highly toxic organic compounds are being formed.

1995: Human Health Preliminary Risk Evaluation of the Jinkanpo Incineration Complex Activities at the Naval Air Facility Atsugi, Japan: Prepared By: Navy Environmental Health Center, NEHC, November 13, 1998

Site 1: (Located parallel to the incinerator, at approximately 150 meters form the incinerator, or the southwest side of Constellation Road by the Golf Course) The total cancer risk at SITE 1 is 1.14 x 10-³, and it was calculated by summing the risks from all detected carcinogens, including those that did not exceed the RBCs…….. Using EPA’s criteria in reference (f), the carcinogens posing a cancer risk greater than 10-4 are benzene (1x17 x 10-4), carbon tetrachloride (2.93 x 10-4), 1,2-dichloroethane, and trichloroethylene (1.0 x 10-4) Site 2: (Located on the south side of the intersection between Towers Avenue and Constellation Road.) The total cancer risk at SITE 2 is 3.79 x 10-³, and it was calculated by summing the risks from all detected carcinogens, including those that did not exceed the RBCs. Using EPA’s criteria in reference (f), the carcinogens posing a cancer risk grater than 10-4 are benzene (3.82 x 10-4), chloroform (2.18 x 10-3), methylene chloride (4.47x10-4), 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD (2.4x10-4) and trichloroethylene (2.6X10-4) Fact: All cancer risks in the 1995 study exceeded the U.S. Cancer Risks of 1 out of every 100,000 persons

1998: Technical Memorandum Screening Level Air Human Health Risk Assessment NAF Atsugi, Japan: Prepared By: Navy Environmental Health Center, NEHC, Nov 13, 1998

Non Carcinogenic Risks: The child residential scenarios have high hazard indices than with the adult residential or industrial scenarios. ……. Particulate matter less that 10 microns (PM10) is responsible for the majority of the hazard index for each location. 1, 2-dichloropane and acetaldehyde also contribute to the hazard indices at some locations. RfDs were available for only 4 of the 24 COCs so the non carcinogenic risks are underestimated.
Carcinogenic Risks: The carcinogenic risks for every exposure scenario are greater than the regulatory benchmark of 1E-06………….. Dioxin/Furans are responsible for the majority (57-95%) of the carcinogenic risks. Other primary constituents that contribute significantly to the carcinogenic risks include arsenic, cadmium, and benzene. Inhalation carcinogenic slope factors were available for only 12 of the 24 COCs, which may result in an underestimation of the carcinogenic risks.

Fact: Atsugi residents were exposed to over 240 Chemicals

2001: Pioneer Final NAF Atsugi, Japan Human Health Risk Assessment

“For the purposes of the evaluation, inhalation risks were calculated at each location assuming a 24-hour per day, 350 day per year residential exposure. The plausible upper bound hazard index for children and adults are approximately 121 and 43, respectively. The plausible upper bound cancer risk for children and adults, for a 3-year exposure, are approximately 2.1E-04, and 7.3E-04, respectively.”

2007: Proposed Atsugi Health Study
“A retrospective health study of people who resided at NAF Atsugi during the operation of the incinerator could be conducted as a preliminary study to determine if there were unexpected changes in disease incidence in the exposed population. The study would be limited to cancers and illnesses associated with the chemicals measured at Atsugi. Cases would be identified from the beneficiary population while the member was entitled to healthcare through the military. Once a person is no longer eligible for healthcare through the military, case ascertainment becomes very problematic.”

Problematic? I would like to see the Navy stand up and face those of use who are suffering from the lost of a child, cancer, autoimmune diseases, birth defects in our children, in debt because of medical bills, or denied VA coverage and tell them that it is problematic to perform a health study that will include them in the populace because the do not want to spend the money or invest the time in a health study that would truly reflect the long term health effects of all of us that were exposed.

quote:

Problematic? I would like to see the Navy stand up and face those of use who are suffering from the lost of a child, cancer, autoimmune diseases, birth defects in our children, in debt because of medical bills, or denied VA coverage and tell them that it is problematic to perform a health study that will include them in the populace because the do not want to spend the money or invest the time in a health study that would truly reflect the long term health effects of all of us that were exposed.

I would suggest the phrase "see the Navy stand up" be amended to read "see the Government stand up" as that is the DoD's responsibility. Again we have a non veteran as Secretary of Defense, so we have someone who has never been affected by the perils of military and naval service.
However you are exactly correct on the DIOXIN issue.

NEWS ARTICLE!!!
ACCOUNTABILITY AT ATSUGI
Is this a poisonous cover-up?

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fe20070627sh.html
or
www.vawatchdog.org
click on Toxic Japan

Contact Shelly Parulis at atsugi_incinerator@yahoo.com for more information.

Larry Scott is one of, if not, my favorite writers. He is on top of VA issues consistantly.

Actually, Stephen Hesse wrote the story. Mr. Scott graciously added it to www.vawatchdog.org

That shows we can all work together for the common good!

I have been contacted by council from the House Committee on Energy and Commerce committee, and if looks like an investigation will be taking place regarding this issue!!

Please contact me if you were assigned to NAF Atsugi from 1980 – 2001 and if you have any knowledge of an environmental clean up or any data that you would like to share.

atsugi_incinerator@yahoo.com

Thank you,
Shelly Parulis

Board: Agent Orange likely was used in Okinawa



Kyodo
Posted : Sunday Jul 8, 2007 14:54:35 EDT

MANILA — The U.S. Board of Veterans’ Appeals found in 1998 that the hazardous chemical defoliant Agent Orange was most likely used in Okinawa, and ruled in favor of a former U.S. service member who sought compensation for prostate cancer he blamed on his work there in the early 1960s, according to a board ruling uncovered by Kyodo News.

The discovery comes as the Defense Department has still to confirm whether Agent Orange was stored or used in Okinawa during the Vietnam War that ended in 1975.

In its ruling, issued on Jan. 13, 1998, the board concluded that “credible evidence sustains a reasonable probability that the veteran was exposed to dioxins while serving in Okinawa.”

The board further said it was granting him service-connected disability compensation “for prostrate cancer as being the result of Agent Orange exposure” while in Okinawa between 1960 and 1961.

It found “entirely believable” his testimony about the U.S. military’s mixing, storage and even use of Agent Orange in Okinawa at a time when Japan’s southernmost prefecture was still under the control of the United States, which used it as a strategic transport hub during the Vietnam War.

Agent Orange, a herbicide mixture containing the highly toxic substance dioxin, was sprayed by U.S. military aircraft over the southern portion of Vietnam from 1961 to 1971 to clear jungles and deny cover to communist fighters.

It has since been blamed for numerous health problems, including various types of cancer and birth defects.

The former service member, who worked as a motor transport operator on Okinawa Island but had never been to Vietnam, said in his testimony that while Agent Orange was mainly used to defoliate trees and shrubbery in lush war zones like Vietnam, “in Okinawa, we had other uses for it, particularly near base camp perimeters.”

He said herbicides thought to include Agent Orange were sprayed from trucks or backpacks along roadsides, used for landscaping and also taken to the densely forested northern part of Okinawa Island to clear foliage to facilitate war game maneuvers there.

Subtropical Okinawa’s heavy rainfall, he said, created a demand for non-water-soluble defoliants such as Agent Orange that would not just wash away with the next rain. “The thing that bothers me the most is that we were not told or warned about the hazards of the herbicides that we were handling, nor were we issued any protective clothing,” he testified.

As recently as November 2004, the Defense Department stated that it has been unable to find any records of Agent Orange being used or stored on Okinawa Island during the Vietnam War era.

The statement came in response to queries made in July 2004 by then U.S. Rep. Lane Evans, a ranking Democrat on the House of Representatives Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, who wrote to then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld requesting any information on the use or storage of Agent Orange on Okinawa.

“I am particularly interested in ascertaining when and where Agent Orange and similar herbicides were stored on Okinawa and whether or not there was any usage of herbicides or reports of spillage from drum corrosion or any other event which potentially involved exposure of service members to these herbicides,” he wrote, according to a copy of the letter.

That was replied to by Gen. Richard Myers, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who told Evans in November 2004 that “records contain no information linking use or storage of Agent Orange or other herbicides in Okinawa.”

Myers further said there was “no record of any spills, accidental or otherwise, of Agent Orange. Therefore, there are no recorded occupational exposures of service members in Okinawa to Agent Orange or similar herbicides.”

The Board of Veterans’ Appeals ruling said that while the U.S military had been “generally unable to document the use of herbicides in Okinawa,” experts who attempted to verify specific dioxin exposure there “do not negate that possibility.”

The former service member, it said, “was indeed where he said he was, at a time when military build-up from a support standpoint was considerable, doing a job which was entirely consistent with the mixing and other transport of herbicides, and at a time when these were both used and warnings not necessarily given, as he stated, since the hazards were not fully understood.”

Hundreds more former U.S. service members who were stationed in Okinawa during the Vietnam War have lodged medical compensation claims with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, citing Agent Orange exposure, according to information viewable online in the archives of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals.

But most cases have either been denied or sent for review on the grounds of insufficient evidence linking their illnesses to Agent Orange exposure.

The various documents surface at a time when Washington and Tokyo are realigning the U.S. military presence in Japan following years of protests from Okinawans who have long complained about crime, noise and crowding associated with U.S. bases on the island since the end of World War II in 1945.

U.S. bases occupy about 20 percent of Okinawa’s land area and have also been viewed as being a large part of the island’s environmental problems.

In 1969, a leak of the deadly nerve agent VX on Okinawa injured 23 U.S. service members and one American civilian, sparking a furor among Japanese as the chemical weapons had been kept secret from Japan. They were subsequently removed.

Under the realignment, about 4,000 hectares of the 7,800-hectare U.S. jungle warfare training area in northern Okinawa, mentioned as a place where Agent Orange was sprayed, are due to be handed back to Japan.

Kunitoshi Sakurai, president of Okinawa University who specializes in environmental engineering, expressed concern over the possibility of residual dioxin there, pointing out that the northern area is the source of most of Okinawa’s water supply.

Dioxin, Sakurai noted, does “not dissolve in nature” and would still be present even more than 40 years after use of Agent Orange.

“The Okinawa government does not know whether Agent Orange was used in the base,” he said, lamenting, “It’s difficult to know what is going on inside a military base.”