We are in the midst of the 148th anniversary of Sherman's march to the sea.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Food was still the main input for supporting armies during the Civil War, so the "ten times the industrial base" part was not quite as important as it might seem. As far as I know, Confederate soldiers weren't fighting without guns or anything.

Ships for the blockade, rail transport to move the food, ammunition, etc. CSA units were using smoothbores long after Yankee units had all gone to rifled muskets. CSA cavalry units were short of carbines. The majority of CSA artillery relied on captured Yankee guns - the CSA cannon foundries were mostly limited to light horse artillery, and not enough iron. A large amount of CSA musket supply in the east in the first two years was a result of the generosity of Yankee "leaders" like ol' Johnny Pope and "General Commisary" Nathaniel Banks.

The Yankees had material advantages in little things like a million saws to corduroy the roads, and big things like locomotives and railroad track (of which the south had no manufacturing capacity. The industrial base was a huge advantage, because without it, there was no effective means for long-term sustainment of armies in the field. The Yankees after 1862 never had to retreat in winter to shorten their supply lines.

[MRT144]

FACT: If you served in Vietnam and got cancer later in life, it was agent orange! QED!

So you're claiming that Agent Orange is not harmful to human health?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Michael, just because your brother got some rare cancer doesn't mean agent orange did it. Being sprayed by agent orange even six times shouldn't be a high enough concentration of dioxins to be dangerous and in any case the stuff breaks down in direct sunlight. Agent Orange doesn't even have very much dioxin in it anyway. The concentrations present per square meter of spraying area was pretty small.

Three rare cancers at once, each of which is about 10^5 more common in real Orange exposed vets (not some REMF who went to a firebase for a day to drop off supplies). As of 1994, the only instances in which concurrent development of these specific cancers had been documented were in Orange exposed vets.

Also, six times directly oversprayed is a lot - it requires significant mobility and sustained presence in forward areas which were recently defoliated, as is consistent with several of 1st Aviation Brigade's independent ASH Companies. So it's six times raining on you, and weeks living in the freshly sprayed environment, with rotor wash constantly kicking up dust. That's different than the air force pukes loading drums and spraying from fixed wing aircraft.

There are a bunch of dioxin and dioxin related compounts - well over 100. They don't all break down in the same manner, and while a majority are in fact, non-toxic, toxicity and carcinogenicity are well established in many, and in the intermediate compounds formed on oxidation of several.

Also, your speculation as to why Dow settled was wrong. They spent millions of dollars and years fighting the litigation, and caved only when they knew they couldn't block certain discovery. $180MM was worth a lot more in those days, too. This wasn't a "give 'em money to go away" settlement, this was a "how much do we give up to have a chance to stay alive as a company?" settlement.

[MichaeltheGreat]

FACT: If you served in Vietnam and got cancer later in life, it was agent orange! QED!

I wouldn't piss on your straw man if it was on fire.

[SlowwHand]

And it is.

[regexcellent]

Three rare cancers at once, each of which is about 10^5 more common in real Orange exposed vets (not some REMF who went to a firebase for a day to drop off supplies). As of 1994, the only instances in which concurrent development of these specific cancers had been documented were in Orange exposed vets.

There has never actually been a study which concluded to a statistically significant degree that Agent Orange caused elevated rates of cancer among soldiers in Vietnam.

Also, six times directly oversprayed is a lot - it requires significant mobility and sustained presence in forward areas which were recently defoliated, as is consistent with several of 1st Aviation Brigade's independent ASH Companies. So it's six times raining on you, and weeks living in the freshly sprayed environment, with rotor wash constantly kicking up dust. That's different than the air force pukes loading drums and spraying from fixed wing aircraft.

The air force pukes actually drank Agent Orange as part of a hazing ritual. Some drank as much as a couple gallons of it. When Agent Orange is on the ground the dangerous dioxins in it break down within about 24-48 hours.

Also, your speculation as to why Dow settled was wrong. They spent millions of dollars and years fighting the litigation, and caved only when they knew they couldn't block certain discovery. $180MM was worth a lot more in those days, too. This wasn't a "give 'em money to go away" settlement, this was a "how much do we give up to have a chance to stay alive as a company?" settlement.

That means nothing. It was a jury trial. My dad was on a jury once. It was a relatively small claim involving a woman who bought a bad car from a used car dealership. Half the jury was of the mind that the woman was black, and you know what black people are like, while the other half was of the mind that the defendant was a used car salesman, and you know what used car salesmen are like. Juries consist of people who are too stupid to get out of jury duty. What do you think the jury is going to decide when one side presents a bunch of veterans and their families crying about how they've been wronged, and the other side presents boring facts and figures?

[Hauldren Collider]

So you're claiming that Agent Orange is not harmful to human health?

That's a much stronger claim than the one I'm making. I am reasonably confident that it isn't good for your health and I'm certain there is some toxic dose of it. What I am claiming is that there is no solid evidence linking Agent Orange to cancer or birth defects.

This is a very specific claim. I am not claiming that it isn't harmful. I am also not claiming that it doesn't cause cancer or birth defects. What I am claiming is that no one has convincingly rejected the null hypothesis that it does not cause cancer or birth defects.

[regexcellent]

That is, to cancer or birth defects among Vietnam vets or their children.

[DaShi]

They are immune to Agent Orange.

[MichaeltheGreat]

There has never actually been a study which concluded to a statistically significant degree that Agent Orange caused elevated rates of cancer among soldiers in Vietnam.

And by definition, there never can be, for a ton of reasons irrelevant to the core issue. You're looking years after the fact, at fragmentary data on troop locations and movements and spray durations. So determining exactly which troops were exposed when and how often, under what circumstances, is impossible on a large scale without adequate funding (and a successful FOIA request which would raise substantial privacy issues) to obtain and go throught tens of millions of pages of personnel and unit records and cross-matching them. Otherwise, you just go to a generalized "one size fits all" approach that includes a squid on a 3 day R&R binge and game of "avoid the white mice" in Cholon, a REMF in III Corps HQ area or MACV-SOG, or some MP at LBJ. Then when you have someone who was, or claimed to be, exposed to Orange, you can't isolate for things like the fact the FNG was downwind when he burned out honey buckets. So anyone who wants to conclude there's no statistical correlation can find all sorts of ways to make any real correlation fade into background noise.

The air force pukes actually drank Agent Orange as part of a hazing ritual. Some drank as much as a couple gallons of it. When Agent Orange is on the ground the dangerous dioxins in it break down within about 24-48 hours.

Which goes to show how stupid Air Force pukes can be (sorry, Sloww ), but it's irrelevant. Dioxins don't metabolize and they don't absorb through the intenstines, so the stuff just pisses right out of you. Breakdown rates of dioxins can be weeks - it depends on how idealized the conditions are, and several oxidize to intermediate compounds which are nasty in their own right.

That means nothing. It was a jury trial. My dad was on a jury once. It was a relatively small claim involving a woman who bought a bad car from a used car dealership. Half the jury was of the mind that the woman was black, and you know what black people are like, while the other half was of the mind that the defendant was a used car salesman, and you know what used car salesmen are like. Juries consist of people who are too stupid to get out of jury duty. What do you think the jury is going to decide when one side presents a bunch of veterans and their families crying about how they've been wronged, and the other side presents boring facts and figures?

Yep, you're an authority there on trials. Your dad served on a jury on a two-bit used car claim, and from that you can generalize about complex cases, class actions, and federal tiral procedure. First, in a trial of that magnitude, litigators hire jury psychologists and give actual scrutiny to the voir dire process, as do federal judges. Second, one side wouldn't present a bunch of veterans and their families - all of that is handled by motions in limine, which can take months, without even touching any other aspect of the case. Probative vs. prejudicial value objections were lodged on virtually every veteran, and scope of permissible testimony was narrowed on every veteran witness. Trying to get percipient witnesses to testify beyond the scope is a beautiful way to get your case reamed, pre-verdict, post-verdict and on appeal. All you're doing right now is showing your complete cluelessness - it doesn't even rise to the level of ignorance, and your "I've got a cute fashionable ideology and I can't be bothered by facts" bias. If you're even old enough to vote, were you a Bachmann voter by any chance?

Third, maybe, with your vast knowledge, you can expound on how Rule 50 would come into play? Maybe with your vast trial and federal law and motion experience you can edlucidate for us? I spent ten years involved in Agent Orange issues, and every time I take a **** I forget more than you'll ever "learn" off of wikipedia or newsmax or poorpickedondow.com or wherever you go. I've also successfully conducted 7 figure trials on complex business matters involving expert witnesses and complex evidentiary issues, at both federal and state level, so your little rants about how juries and trials work are just barely amusing.

[MichaeltheGreat]

There has never actually been a study which concluded to a statistically significant degree that Agent Orange caused elevated rates of cancer among soldiers in Vietnam.

And by definition, there never can be, for a ton of reasons irrelevant to the core issue. You're looking years after the fact, at fragmentary data on troop locations and movements and spray durations. So determining exactly which troops were exposed when and how often, under what circumstances, is impossible on a large scale without adequate funding (and a successful FOIA request which would raise substantial privacy issues) to obtain and go throught tens of millions of pages of personnel and unit records and cross-matching them. Otherwise, you just go to a generalized "one size fits all" approach that includes a squid on a 3 day R&R binge and game of "avoid the white mice" in Cholon, a REMF in III Corps HQ area or MACV-SOG, or some MP at LBJ. Then when you have someone who was, or claimed to be, exposed to Orange, you can't isolate for things like the fact the FNG was downwind when he burned out honey buckets. So anyone who wants to conclude there's no statistical correlation can find all sorts of ways to make any real correlation fade into background noise.

The air force pukes actually drank Agent Orange as part of a hazing ritual. Some drank as much as a couple gallons of it. When Agent Orange is on the ground the dangerous dioxins in it break down within about 24-48 hours.

Which goes to show how stupid Air Force pukes can be (sorry, Sloww ), but it's irrelevant. Dioxins don't metabolize quickly and they don't absorb through the intestines at significant rates if you just chug the stuff, so it just pisses right out of you. Breakdown rates of dioxins can be weeks - it depends on how idealized the conditions are, and several oxidize to intermediate compounds which are nasty in their own right.

That means nothing. It was a jury trial. My dad was on a jury once. It was a relatively small claim involving a woman who bought a bad car from a used car dealership. Half the jury was of the mind that the woman was black, and you know what black people are like, while the other half was of the mind that the defendant was a used car salesman, and you know what used car salesmen are like. Juries consist of people who are too stupid to get out of jury duty. What do you think the jury is going to decide when one side presents a bunch of veterans and their families crying about how they've been wronged, and the other side presents boring facts and figures?

Yep, you're an authority there on trials. Your dad served on a jury on a two-bit used car claim, and from that you can generalize about complex cases, class actions, and federal tiral procedure. First, in a trial of that magnitude, litigators hire jury psychologists and give actual scrutiny to the voir dire process, as do federal judges. Second, one side wouldn't present a bunch of veterans and their families - all of that is handled by motions in limine, which can take months, without even touching any other aspect of the case. Probative vs. prejudicial value objections were lodged on virtually every veteran, and scope of permissible testimony was narrowed on every veteran witness. Trying to get percipient witnesses to testify beyond the scope is a beautiful way to get your case reamed, pre-verdict, post-verdict and on appeal. All you're doing right now is showing your complete cluelessness - it doesn't even rise to the level of ignorance, and your "I've got a cute fashionable ideology and I can't be bothered by facts" bias. If you're even old enough to vote, were you a Bachmann voter by any chance?

Third, maybe, with your vast knowledge, you can expound on how Rule 50 would come into play? Maybe with your vast trial and federal law and motion experience you can edlucidate for us? I spent ten years involved in Agent Orange issues, and every time I take a **** I forget more than you'll ever "learn" off of wikipedia or newsmax or poorpickedondow.com or wherever you go. I've also successfully conducted 7 figure trials on complex business matters involving expert witnesses and complex evidentiary issues, at both federal and state level, so your little rants about how juries and trials work are just barely amusing.

[SlowwHand]

I see no reason to elaborate. Are we done here?

[Hauldren Collider]

Michael, you suck at statistics. That's all I have to say. Until you learn up a bit, you're going to keep being insistently, confidently wrong.

Slowwhand, just like you have to crawl before you can walk, you'll have to learn to read before you can learn math.

[SlowwHand]

You have to have experience with something before your opinion matters.

[Kuciwalker]

There is a huge amount of scientific and medical journal literature on the subject.

However, the literature is inconclusive, particularly on the specific question of whether the concentrations of TCDD in contaminated Agent Orange were sufficient to cause the diseases attributed to it. Much of it is also suspect - either because it was politically motivated (this goes for both sides) or (more seriously) because medical research in general is in a sorry state and is statistically crippled.

Agent Orange killed my brother - I got to watch him fight three extremely rare, concurrently developing, rapidly metastasizing cancers all originated in the testes area.

I am sorry for your loss - that sounds like a particularly awful situation to go through, for him and for you - but this is no more evidence than Jenny McCarthy has against the MMR vaccine.

Three rare cancers at once, each of which is about 10^5 more common in real Orange exposed vets (not some REMF who went to a firebase for a day to drop off supplies). As of 1994, the only instances in which concurrent development of these specific cancers had been documented were in Orange exposed vets.

I'll admit that I'm not familiar with this, but it isn't convincing on its own. There are a large number of rare diseases, so any small population might be expected to have a wildly disproportionate incidence of some of them. There's also the general "maybe there was some other exposure that was well-correlated with Agent Orange" etc. that you allude to earlier.

The diseases attributed to Agent Orange are also much more diverse than this - birth defects, etc. - so even if Agent Orange did cause elevated incidence of a few rare cancers, it is almost certainly not guilty of most of its charges.