pred_label
stringclasses 2
values | pred_label_prob
float64 0.5
1
| wiki_prob
float64 0.25
1
| text
stringlengths 70
1.01M
| source
stringlengths 37
43
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
__label__cc
| 0.707917
| 0.292083
|
The Stargazers
Sat24Aug
+ special guests: SISTER SUZIE
+ DJs New album launch for legendary 1980’s Rock ‘n’ Roll – Jump Jive Group.
The Stargazers released their debut single “Groove, Baby, Groove” in 1981 on Epic Records closely followed by the LP “Watch This Space” and further singles “Tossin’ N Turnin” (a cover of the 1960 Bobby Lewis song), Louis Prima’s “Hey Marie” and “Ain’t Nobody Here But Us Chickens” (a cover of the 1946 Louis Jordan song) the following year. The band split in 1983 but reformed in the 1990’s where they released four more albums. Tonight the band will launch their brand new album.
Nearly Dan
Flamin’ Groovies + THE GALILEO 7
Graham Day & The Forefathers
|
cc/2019-30/en_head_0051.json.gz/line0
|
__label__cc
| 0.664694
| 0.335306
|
Mike Patton, Jean-Claude Vannier “Chansons D’Amour” (Official Video)
June 29, 2019 June 29, 2019 ABComments Off on Mike Patton, Jean-Claude Vannier “Chansons D’Amour” (Official Video)
The second single from the September 13th release, Corpse Flower. Pre-order now on 180gram Colored Vinyl, CD Digipak and digital: http://smarturl.it/CorpseFlower Following the recent announcement of the 12-song album Corpse Flower by Mike Patton (Faith No More, Mondo Cane) and renowned French composer Jean-Claude Vannier, a video has been shared for the track “Chansons D’Amour”. Filmed by Eric Livingston
Jean-Claude Vannier comments “When I was a little boy, love songs terrified me, with their stupid Ophelias, faded flowers of melodramatics singers, quavering vocalises of another time, barbaric rituals, screams of impatient sexes, furious and bloody refrains, like in this beautiful and poisonous video. Afterwards, I lived some love stories and it was even worse, all a bazaar puppet show that moved me despite myself, took me hostage and blames me for these crimes that I did not commit”
Director Eric Livingston adds “the melody on Chansons D’ Amour chased me around in the back of my head for a few days after listening. I found it to be a haunting and unapologetically honest version of Vannier’s original piece. When I was given the choice between a few songs to shoot a video accompaniment to, I gravitated towards this one. Mainly, because I knew it would be a challenge for me. To film something that is subtle, yet demands attention.”
A variety of musicians, both in Los Angeles and Paris, took part in the recording of Corpse Flower with the Los Angeles team including Smokey Hormel (Beck, Johnny Cash), Justin Meldal-Johnsen (Beck, Air, Nine Inch Nails) and James Gadson (Beck, Jamie Lidell). The Parisian players are Denys Lable, Bernard Paganotti (Magma), Daniel Ciampolini, Didier Malherbe, Léonard Le Cloarec and the Bécon Palace String Ensemble. The lyrics for “Ballad C.3.3.” are drawn from Oscar Wilde’s “The Ballad of Reading Gaol” poem, which was initially published using the name C.3.3.
Corpse Flower is available now for pre-orders (http://smarturl.it/CorpseFlower), including special embossed versions featuring Kenro Izu’s stunning cover photo. The album will be available on 180gram coloured vinyl, as well as a CD digipak and digitally.
Trans Dads Trystan and Biff Adopted Their Niece and Nephew. Should They Have Received Paid Time Off?
Imani Coppola “Lying To My Therapist” (Official Video)
|
cc/2019-30/en_head_0051.json.gz/line3
|
__label__cc
| 0.699422
| 0.300578
|
Annie Percik
Processing Winchester
Winchester Writers’ Festival is an amazing opportunity.
Hundreds of writers of all types to meet and talk to. Workshops, talks, panels and presentations on all aspects of the craft and the industry. And, most importantly, submitting your work to agents and getting face-to-face feedback.
I did not get an agent at Winchester, but then I wasn’t expecting to. One agent told me he gets 2000 submissions a year and signs maybe four new authors.
What Winchester did for me was to teach me important things about myself and what I want from my writing, which made it an extremely valuable experience.
I saw four agents over two days, and they all gave me detailed and constructive feedback, for which I’m very grateful. But it was also wildly contradictory, which made the whole thing quite baffling.
Still, the opening to my first workshop of the weekend was:
There are no absolutes in publishing.
And most of publishing is wholly subjective.
I learned from sending my first draft out to about fifteen readers that people respond very differently to fiction. If they all highlight the same issue, then you’ve got a problem you need to fix. But if they violently disagree on whether or not particular things work, you’ve got something that at least some people are going to love.
The same thing, of course, applies to agent feedback. Contradictory advice on what ‘needs’ changing or improving suggests that there are some agents out there that will love my novel just as it is, and it’s simply a case of finding the right one.
My last workshop of the weekend reinforced that principle, by repeating the age-old advice - the only way to get published is to persevere. Keep sending your work out until you find that one person who’s going to believe in your novel as much as you do.
But it’s not that simple. Sure, there was one writer at that workshop who said she’d sent her novel out to 300+ agents over the course of five years, and eventually landed a two-book deal from a publisher a couple of weeks ago. I’m amazingly impressed with her staying power, and I’m delighted for her that it eventually paid off. But there was a another writer I met, who got an agent at Winchester last year, but whose book still hadn’t sold to a publisher a year on, so she was back with a different book to try and find a different agent.
Finding an agent is only the first (very difficult) step in a long and complicated process that involves a huge amount of work, revision, patience, self-marketing and conviction. And, even with a publishing deal, there are certainly no guarantees of success.
For those who are prepared to go through that, and put the work in - I salute you and wish you all the luck in the world.
But I have decided that the traditional publishing route is not for me. At least not right now.
I don’t know yet what I’m going to do with my novel. In a few months’ time, I may come back to it, do another pass, maybe send it out to some small independent presses, or bite the bullet and self-publish, just to get it out there in the world. Time will tell.
In the meantime, I’m going to focus on my short fiction, which I love writing, and which I know I can sell. The defining moment of my weekend at Winchester came during Friday’s dinner, when I got an email from a print magazine, saying they want to publish my favourite short story I’ve written in the last couple of years - for more than twice what I’ve been paid for my short fiction before. It made me so happy, and it showed me where my passion and my writing future lies - at least for now. I’m not out to be famous or make lots of money from my writing. I just want to enjoy the process and see my work in print every now and then. And that’s okay.
So, thank you to the Winchester Writers’ Festival for helping me figure out what I want.
Novel,
Read more in...
Weeknotes - S03E28 - The End is Nigh!
The end is definitely in sight for the Colours first draft and I had lots of interesting and useful writing experiences this week.
Debunking Writing Myths
My article about Debunking Writing Myths is included in Palm-Sized Press Vol. 1.
You can get a copy here.
What If It's No Good?
My friend Charlie, who co-runs the Six Month Novel Programme, has a mantra for the writers she helps. When writing a first draft, give yourself permission to be "gloriously craptastic". The most important thing is to get the words down on the page. You can edit later. Because, if you get caught up in doubts, or a desire for unattainable perfection, you’ll never get through it. It’s better to have a flawed thing that exists than a shining masterpiece that only lives in your head.
Weeknotes - S03E27 - Doing the Bare Minimum
Not a huge amount of time, energy or motivation this week, but still some progress. I think sending Artisan off to the publisher last weekend had a knock-on effect on my desire to work hard this week!
Weeknotes - S03E26 - The Waiting Begins Again
Only two writing days this week, but a major milestone passed, as Artisan has now gone back to the publisher!
Weeknotes - S03E25 - It Takes Some Grit
I have a schedule now for completing Colours by my deadline. Two scenes per writing session. Every session so far, I have started by rewriting my schedule to see if I can give myself the excuse of not doing that day’s scenes. Then I have taken myself to task, knuckled down, and actually produced them with very little problem in a very short amount of time. Sometimes, you need a stick.
Hour of Writes
© 2016 Annie Percik | Web design by Domnic Danson, Studio 359
|
cc/2019-30/en_head_0051.json.gz/line8
|
__label__cc
| 0.537156
| 0.462844
|
>> Book Reviews
> add tags
About this document (click for more)
Mirrored with permission from bahai-studies.ca/shoghi-effendi-pilgrims-eye-vol-1/.
Shoghi Effendi through the Pilgrim's Eye by Earl Redman:
by Catherine Nash
published in Journal of Bahá'í Studies
Ottawa: Association for Baha'i Studies North America, 2017
Review of: Shoghi Effendi through the Pilgrim’s Eye – Vol. 1: Building the Administrative Order, 1922–1952
Written by: Earl Redman
Publisher: Oxford, UK: George Ronald (2015)
Review by: Catherine Nash
Review published in: Journal of Bahá'í Studies
There has always been a tension between the enthusiasm versus the veracity of notes written by Haifa-bound pilgrims who shared their memories of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá or Shoghi Effendi. As Shoghi Effendi writes in The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh:
It was chiefly in view of the misleading nature of the reports of the informal conversations of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá with visiting pilgrims, that I have insistently urged the believers of the West to regard such statements as merely personal impressions of the sayings of their Master, and to quote and consider as authentic only such translations as are based upon the authenticated text of His recorded utterances in the original tongue. (5)
Clearly, no matter who is doing the remembering, notes, diaries, and letters written by individual Bahá’ís about their understanding of what ‘Abdu’l-Bahá or Shoghi Effendi might have said are not in any way authoritative. For example, Mary Maxwell compiled notes based on conversations she had with Shoghi Effendi prior to their marriage in 1937. These were shared with believers with the permission of the National Spiritual Assembly, but although they are interesting and useful, even these notes are not authoritative.[1]
However, there is no denying that as we move deeper into the Formative Age of the Bahá’í Dispensation, and as a quotation’s authenticity may be confirmed with a few clicks, the enthusiasm of pilgrims’ notes is a wonderful way to glimpse the zeitgeist of different times in Bahá’í history. While not revealing authoritative statements about Bahá’í teachings or doctrine, they provide a window into the attitudes, preoccupations, demographics, and cultural patterns of the Bahá’í community at specific points in time, as shown particularly through intimate responses and reactions to ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Shoghi Effendi, and other members of the Holy Family.
In the first volume of Shoghi Effendi through the Pilgrim’s Eye, Earl Redman has curated pilgrims’ notes written between 1922 and 1952, providing readers with a captivating collection of impressions from a time of great transition in the Bahá’í Faith from its Heroic Age to its Formative Age. As he comments in the preface, the difference between pilgrims’ notes written during ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s lifetime and those written during the lifetime of Shoghi Effendi shows the full impact of the change of focus of a Bahá’í community shifting from the adoration of a spiritual “father figure” toward the building of a world administrative order alongside their “true brother” (x).
Redman is very careful to clarify that this collection of pilgrims’ notes, limited to those written in or translated into English, is not authoritative. It is, however, enlightening in numerous ways.
By reproducing them as quotations, Redman conveys the emotional reality of each individual’s interactions with the Guardian. The enthusiastic punctuation, “grammatical stumbles,” and creative spellings add to our understanding of the individuality of every writer and offer insight into the effect Shoghi Effendi had on those who met him (xv).
Redman’s commentaries also help draw out the perceptions that formed around the Guardian. His writing is engaging, informal, and immediate. His style is inclusive and lets the reader revel in the diversity represented by these early, mostly Western, believers whose personalities and character shine through their words. Within the first twenty pages of Redman’s book, one encounters the wildly different descriptive styles of wonderful figures in Bahá’í history ranging from John Bosch, Catharine Nourse (then seventeen years old), Saichiro Fujita, and Lady Blomfield.
While Shoghi Effendi through the Pilgrim’s Eye is arranged chronologically, an inviting aspect of the book is that it is possible to open it to any page and become immersed in the world of the Guardian.
Redman’s book is full of gems—moments and details that themselves could become books, research topics, or the starting points for blog posts. There must be photographers who would love the detailed description of the types of cameras Effie Baker took with her when Shoghi Effendi sent her on a mission to photograph historical Bábí sites in Iran. The description of her “No. 1A Kodak with a wide angle lens perfect for landscapes” and her second camera that “used half-sized glass plates as film and were able to focus very close to an object” might mystify those born in the digital era, but the details of Shoghi Effendi’s prescient guidance is fascinating (180).
If this book is read in a linear manner, sometimes the lists of dates and names become lengthy and the narrative flow is stilted. Most of the chapters are only titled with the year or few years they cover. Yet each name mentioned is often a person worthy of his or her own biography, and Redman helps the reader imagine those individuals, with their vastly differing personalities and opinions, all together at the same time, all with the purpose of making a pilgrimage to Haifa and meeting with the Guardian.
To give one example, the chapter titled “1925” is full of information that places disparate events, many of which Bahá’ís might be knowledgeable about, in a time and place together. The chapter begins with Shoghi Effendi’s advice to Jean Stannard that she move to Geneva (where she established the International Bahá’í Bureau). Shortly thereafter, Martha Root joined her, and they hosted a World Esperanto Congress, at which Lidia Zamenhof first learned of the Bahá’í Faith. This brief mention of Miss Zamenhof, who later died in a Nazi concentration camp, tempts the reader to reference not only her biography, but also the more recent biography of Hermann Grossmann that vividly recalls the German Bahá’í community’s struggle to save lives as well as books and archives during the Holocaust.
This chapter continues with notes on visits by Baker, Root, Dhikr’u’llah Khadem, and others. The reader is also reminded that during this year, Shoghi Effendi would have been waiting for Egypt’s reaction to the Muslim Ecclesiastical Court’s decision that the Bahá’í religion was a new religion independent of Islam. Redman explains that while Shoghi Effendi was waiting on this news, the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States and Canada was officially formed. He acknowledges that this accomplishment took much guidance from the Guardian and the results “weren’t quite as Shoghi Effendi might have preferred” (108).
The same chapter concludes with the almost simultaneous passing of Dr. John Esslemont and the arrival of Hasan Balyuzi in Haifa as a young seventeen-year-old. Redman’s inclusion of all this information in one single chapter emphasizes the intensity of those days and the complexities faced by Shoghi Effendi.
The volume ends in 1952, just as Shoghi Effendi announces the beginning of the Ten Year Crusade. Thankfully, Redman has continued diligently with his work and his next book is now available: Shoghi Effendi through the Pilgrim’s Eye: The Ten Year Crusade, 1953–1963.
Nakhjavani, Violette. The Maxwells of Montreal: Middle Years 1923–1939, Late Years 1937–1952. Vol. 2, George Ronald, 2012.
Redman, Earl. Shoghi Effendi through the Pilgrim’s Eye: Building the Administrative Order, 1922–1952. Vol. 1, George Ronald, 2015.
Shoghi Effendi. The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh. 2nd ed., Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1969.
[1] A detailed discussion of both positive and negative community reactions to these notes, as well as correspondence between Maxwell family members, can be found in pages 315–25 of Violette Nakhjavani’s The Maxwells of Montreal: Middle Years 1923–1937, Late Years 1937–1952. This discussion elucidates issues surrounding the use of pilgrims’ notes.
Catherine Nash completed her law degree at the University of Victoria and focuses on advocacy work for vulnerable children and youth.
Back to: Book Reviews
|
cc/2019-30/en_head_0051.json.gz/line15
|
__label__cc
| 0.521249
| 0.478751
|
Agent Orange (Dioxin) and ESOPHAGEAL CANCERS
AND DIGESTIVE SYSTEM CANCERS
AS WELL AS OTHER Toxic Chemicals
ASSOCIATED TO Military Service in Vietnam
this IS A DRAFT AND IS NOT COMPLETE
REVISED ON:
Hard copies will be sent to:
Congressman Christopher Shays -Democrat - Connecticut
Congressman Bernie Sanders - Independent - Vermont
Congressman Lane Evans - Democrat - Illinois
Congressman Christopher Smith - New Jersey Republican
Yes, out of the entire congress these four are the only four that after four years of searching that I can find that actually might give a damn.
This link is posted in support of Veterans widows and those Vietnam Veterans that have developed Esophageal Cancer as well as other "Cancers of the Digestive System."
A group of dedicated wives from California, Michigan, New Jersey, and Wisconsin have chosen to fight the government in this issue, rather than just give up.
I believe it is obvious to the whole world that ESOPHAGEAL CANCER among other forms of "Digestive System Cancers" are significantly higher in those Veterans who served in Vietnam during wartime and were exposed to the "weapons of mass destruction" toxic chemicals (plural) that were used as offensive and defensive weapons.
Many Veterans came home in poor health and one of the medical issues was gastrointestinal problems. Most of us thinking we had issues related to the malaria pills and once removed we would return to our old selves, with no medical issues. This in fact did not happen.
We were diagnosed with all kinds of issues of the gastrointestinal area of medicine while none of it made any sense. Diagnosed with spastic colon, colitis, diverticulitis, Chron's, IBS, Celiac, delayed stomach emptying causing gastroparesis, etc. Most of these were considered hereditary related or old age. Yet, we were young men with no hereditary trail to these disorders. Some had rectal bleeding. Aversion to milk products and heavy red meats when the year before they went; there were no aversions to any food products or drinks and no digestive system issues.
The Australian Veterans that served in III Corps reported the same issues: (1)
"Dermatological, neurological, gastrointestinal, and psychological disorders.
Chloracne, an incurable rash on the face, neck, back, arms and legs, boils, blisters, skin irritation and sensitivity to sunlight.
Loss of sensation and tingling in the fingers and toes, intolerance to cold, damage to the peripheral nervous system. Constant fatigue. Depression, inability to concentrate, nervousness and irritability, insomnia, vertigo, loss of sex drive, recurring headaches, nausea and sudden unexplained weight loss. Red blood rectal bleeding has also been reported.
Respiratory distress, shortness of breath, allergies, tender liver, recurring digestive upset and slowed digestion, vascular lesions, stomach, intestinal kidney and liver pain, and stiffness. Swelling and pain in the joints of the arms and legs."
Many have developed Barrett's Esophagus, which can be a precursor to the cancer. This is from the body's deranged cell system replacing the esophageal tissue with tissue similar to what is found in the small intestines.
The Ranch Hand transcripts for those primarily exposed by skin contact only, stated: (2)
"That digestive system cancers were on the low end of being significant."
Those exposed by "skin contact alone" were on the "low end of being significant." What about the rest of the men called "boots on the ground?" These men in the field and on the remote firebases that would never have been in a toxic chemical clean environment and had totally different methods and rates of exposures and ingestions.
Bearing in mind that any Ranch Hand study comparisons that do not reach double statistical significance mean nothing. This is a government (White House) game played by the Ranch Hand, the VA, and our government.
In other words, in one group there may be 5 and the other group their may be 3. The government says that the statistics do not mean anything as the significance between the two is not a valid increase. Bearing in mind, that both groups are Vietnam Veterans. The difference is the amount of dioxin. I believe the cut off was 10ppt of dioxin alone in considering who was exposed and who was not exposed. When no one knows what other toxic chemicals played a part or what the dose rate of dioxin actually is to cause anything medically; I find this whole 140 million dollar study issue very much slanted and certainly questionable.
Now one would ask; why is it that Veterans exposed to massive amounts of three different toxic chemical herbicides that contained at least six different toxic chemicals can only be affected by some dose rate of dioxin alone, established by this study and not medical science?
This would be a good question for everyone to ask of the following; if all of them were still alive:
Presidents John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. Bush, William Clinton, and George Bush.
Some others that should be questioned on this amazing feat of medical science and wonderment should be the former Secretaries of Defense.
Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, Melvin Laird, Elliot Richardson, James Schlesinger, Donald Rumsfield, Harold Brown, Caspar Weinberger, Frank Carlucci, Richard Cheney, Les Aspin, William Perry, William Choen, and for the second time Donald Rumsfield.
Obviously Mr. Rumsfield should now have some answers to what must be considered a miracle of science and protection of the 19th century that can only be attributable to the Uniform of the United States Military.
Certainly the Secretaries of the VA should have some medical answers to this medical marvel of the uniform of the US military that can double as environmental toxic chemical hazards suits to not only skin exposures but drinking, eating cooked food, and bathing all in which toxic chemical water was used.
Edward Derwinski who used the totally Veteran biased VA committee (VACEH) of former chemical company scientists should know.
Jesse Brown, Togo West, Anthony Principi and the latest of these so called men of integrity Jim Nichols should know how this is all possible - since they make the Veterans biased decisions based on the government contracted NAS/IOM. Yes, that is correct the same government Veterans are seeking death and disablement claims from hired what seems to be a VA friendly National organization that also receives funds from that same government. Just a slight conflict of interest. No different than the government tainted CDC AO study fiasco in the 80's. HR 101-672.
Maybe they can answer why it is that a former Monsanto chemical company scientist was selected to run the VA's AO study. When his prior professional job was to prove there is no damage from dioxin or any other product that Monsanto made and it was like Orange Juice and good for you.
If you Veterans or widow's of Veterans reading this find these facts somewhat VA/Government slanted then join the rest of the Veterans of the nation that use to actually trust our government and do so no more!
In other words, one hell of an expensive study that for all intensive purposes proves nothing except death rates and exoneration of our government! Except it does prove service in Vietnam in a toxic chemical(s) (plural) environment was not good for you in many medical areas; thanks to our own government!
One of my Marines, tired of no VA answers, called one of the Gastrointestinal Disease centers and they told him that they had estimated about 70% came home with some form of gastrointestinal issue. I am trying to re- contact this Marine and get the details of this conversation.
I recall during the period of about five years after returning, while doctors tested me over and over again, that my mother found an article in our home town newspaper. This article was in reference to a news story concerning some doctors at the University of Florida and the study they were conducting to see "why so many Vietnam Veterans were coming home with gastrointestinal issues."
So this medical issue and problem has been "well known" since at least the early 1970's.
Too bad we did not have the Internet back then!
Government/VA Philosophy against veterans
Our own Veterans Administration in its entirety, to include the Secretary of the VA, operates as a White House after White House "budget control" rather than the tell the Veterans and their families the truth for over 40 years or even give Veterans a fair assessment of our toxic chemicals health status.
It is our Congress, rather than support the Veterans for their search for the truth, that remains deaf and blind in order to support these different White Houses and keep the government coffers for other programs.
Yes, that does include your own congressional representative and your two state senators; who state they care about Veterans.
While our own US government/VA studies, have been less than objective and truthful with regard to many medical issues for many reasons to include, politics and money; and the fact that the White House decision philosophy was made decades ago to "not support" the Vietnam Veterans of this nation for obvious "government wrong doing."
"The White House Bureau of the Budget put out a memo to all the agencies of government in essence not to find a correlation between Agent Orange and health affects. Stating that it would be most unfortunate for two reasons:
A) The cost of supporting the Veterans.
B) The court liability to which corporations would be exposed." (3)
At this time in our "toxic chemical legacy," our own White House/government and the chemical companies became an "official tag team of coconspirators."
In fact, Admiral Zumwalt (deceased) appointed as a special assistant to the Secretary of the VA to resolve the toxic chemical issues stated in his report the following:
“Unfortunately, political interference in government sponsored studies associated with Agent Orange has been the norm, not the exception. In fact, there appears to have been a systematic effort to suppress critical data, or alter results to meet preconceived notions of what alleged scientific studies were meant to find” (4)
“Were the faulty conclusions, flawed methodology and noticeable bias of the Advisory Committee (VACEH) an isolated problem, correcting the misdirection would be more manageable. But, experience with other governmental agencies responsible for specifically analyzing and studying the effects of exposure to Agent Orange strongly hints at a discernible pattern, if not “outright governmental collaboration,” to deny compensation to Vietnam Veterans for disabilities associated with exposure to dioxin. (5)
“Unfortunately, as hearings before the Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee on July 11, 1989 revealed, the design, implementation and conclusions of the CDC study were so ill conceived as to suggest that political pressures once again interfered with the kind of professional, unbiased review Congress had sought to obtain.” (6)
Admiral Zumwalt using independent researchers and independent prestigious research centers, and that is the key word "independent", during a three year study as special assistant to the Secretary of the VA concluded the following were "more than likely" associated to exposures to dioxin.
Non-Hodgkin’ s lymphoma, chloracne and other skin disorders, lip cancer, bone cancer, soft tissue sarcoma, birth defects, skin cancer, lung cancer, porphyria cutanea tarda and other liver disorders, Hodgkin’s disease, hematopoietic diseases, multiple myeloma, neurological defects, autoimmune diseases and disorders, liver cancer, nasal/pharyngeal/esophageal cancers, leukemia, malignant melanoma, kidney cancer, testicular cancer, pancreatic cancer, stomach cancer, prostate cancer, colon cancer, brain cancer, psychosocial effects, and gastrointestinal disease are service-connected. (7)
This VA Agent Orange report was promptly classified and stamped, "Not for Release to the Public."
For the record, in 2000 a former Principal Ranch Hand scientists Dr. Richard Albanese, Senior Medical Research Officer, in a government oversight review categorically stated, just as the Admiral indicated above, that for 20 years the government study called Ranch Hand Study had never told the truth in:
"Birth defects, cancers, heart disease, vascular disease, neurological ailments, endocrine disturbances, and hematological difficulties.” (8)
He also charged that "command influence" was being used as well as Air Force management was changing cleared for publication "medical findings and conclusions." (8)
He also asked how any studies could be considered legitimate if the scientists were not considered to have intellectual freedom. (8)
Prior to the use of these "weapons of mass destruction" the process used by the government for Veterans compensations was an "increased risk of incidence" or a "significant increase." Of course all of this changed when our own government turned against Veterans for mistakes made by an arrogant President Johnson and the arrogant Robert McNamara.
Yes, they were warned by over 5,000 of our own US scientists in at least two petitions not to use these toxic chemicals of weapons of mass destruction. Of course they did it anyway because this government treats its Veterans as guinea pigs. (Reference the Project 112 testing and subset testing of SHAD.)
For the record, Veterans tiring of trying to fight this "government legal system" set up for "only Veterans" have mounted a law suit against many individuals in the VA for their direct personal actions, regardless of what politician command the cover-ups or stalling.
These VA individuals are being charged as follows: (9)
"The VA officials named are Susan H. Mather, Neil S. Otchin, Robert J. Epley, and Thomas J. Pamperin. The suit alleges that these people orchestrated or contributed to a cover-up - characterized as "intentional, willful, wanton, and in bad faith" in the complaint - of SHAD and its possible adverse health effects by denying veterans access to information about the tests. "These are people who signed or stamped the letters and denials," lawyer Rosinski said."
"The complaint holds that by not providing timely information to the veterans - the military knew as early as the mid-1980s that at least one substance used was emphatically not harmless, as originally believed - and by continuing to deny veterans access to the full information, the defendants violated the plaintiffs' constitutional right to go to court and file claims. It is by specifically naming defendants that the suit hopes to change things."
This is typical of what our government has done for over 40 years with the VA being the lead federal agency in government denial. Certainly the toxic chemical legacy of our Vietnam Veterans will fall into this above example of "the military knew as early as the mid-1980s that at least one substance used was emphatically not harmless, as originally believed - and by continuing to deny veterans access to the full information... By using the entire power of the United Sates Government and its contracted agencies egregious medical fraud has been committed against the nation's Veterans by our own government.
A more recent example of this medical fraud is our Gulf War Veterans. Many came home sick and dying while our government minimized this fact and our national media totally ignored these facts.
The lead agency for denial was; once again the White House directed VA and its contracted partner the NAS/IOM in representing that the Veteran's death, sickness and disabling disorders, and birth defects regarding our nation's Veterans was "associated to mental stress" in a war that took less than 200 hours and suffered very minimal casualties.
That in itself makes no medical sense.
Yet, here we have on October 14th, 2004 in the New York Times an article that states: (10)
Citing new scientific research on the effects of exposure to low levels of neurotoxins, the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses concludes in its draft report that "a substantial proportion of Gulf War veterans are ill with multisymptom conditions not explained by wartime stress or psychiatric illness."
A federal panel of medical experts studying illnesses among veterans of the 1991 war in the Persian Gulf has broken with several earlier studies and concluded that many suffer from neurological damage caused by exposure to toxic chemicals, rejecting past findings that the ailments resulted mostly from wartime stress.
All the chemicals cited in the new study belong to a group called acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, which can cause a range of symptoms including pain, fatigue, diarrhea and cognitive impairment.
Yet, for over a decade the VA and the NAS/IOM had concluded this ridiculous scenario that stress was the sole causation. Nice cover up for the DOD and our government.
Also bearing in mind that the original study group reported to President Bill Clinton in 1996 that "current scientific evidence does not support a causal link" between the veterans' symptoms and chemical exposures in the Persian Gulf.
Instead, the earlier group said, stress "is likely to be an important contributing factor to the broad range of physical and psychological illnesses currently being reported by gulf war veterans."
Some 697,000 American troops were sent to the Persian Gulf at the end of 1990 to drive the Iraqi forces of President Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. Thirteen years after the war ended many veterans still complain of persistent fatigue, headaches, joint pain, numbness, diarrhea and other health problems. Sounds oh so familiar to the Vietnam Veterans.
In fact, the law to mandate this new study was passed in 1998 yet it was not acted on until 2002. Four more years of government/VA stalling.
Out of the 697,000 troops, 16% are conservatively estimated to be effected by this so called stress syndrome with significant similar symptoms in 2004. Many have already succumbed to this "stress syndrome."
In any deployment such as this only about 10-14% of the deployment is actual combat troops. So that means that all of the combat troops are either dead or dying from this so called stress syndrome. This also includes the same rate for our allies troops that were also deployed.
This is how the United States Government actually treats its veterans; including our congress. What you see on TV on CSPAN in the senate and the house, is a mirage and is a total facade as they recite the praises for the military men and women. It is all a big academy award winning show.
In other words, there is no "increased risk of incidence" or "significant increase" for Veterans and especially Vietnam Veterans.
This only exists in the world of civilians and the world of civilian constitutional law. It can no longer exist in the government created "Veterans World of VA Law," which is outside the constitution of the United States.
Government Actions
For over 20 years our government denied any causations of medical issues related to the toxic chemicals. To stop the onslaught of legitimate claims for death and disablement that developed after irrefutable evidence was being brought forward of the overwhelming medical issues the Veterans were developing our government then:
Set up an entire legal system that only applies to Veterans and is outside the constitution and constitutional law for the rest of the nation.
Rather than increased "risk of incidence" or "significant increase" our government and the VA then mandated "cause and effect" results.
After a court found that this "cause and effect" was impossible; given the numbers of toxic chemicals and the variety of exposures and was too stringent in favor of the government. The Secretary of the VA, while not challenging the court ruling, then wrote the CFR to only include the chemical formula for dioxin only, with a mandated statistical significant increase and a p-factor of 0.05 attached to it.
Note: A p-factor of 0.05 is the worlds scientific standard for proving there is no doubt or there is little chance the differences found were associated by chance alone.
Congress, in a total ruse, then passed the Dioxin Act of 1984. This had to be one of the biggest lies every put out by our Congress. This act gave the "benefit of the doubt" to the Veterans in this unknown toxic chemical legacy. Totally disregarded by the VA and the Secretary of the VA for over 21 additional years over the previous 20 years of denial of everything. With our own VA the lead denial federal agency, as directed by the White House.
By default because of these actions by the Secretary of the VA, supported by our own government there can be no toxic chemical associations to just "Service in Vietnam" in a toxic chemical environment. Only those medical issues found to a linear dose rate to dioxin alone can be associated out of the many many toxic chemicals used. Even many of these that are actually found are not being brought forward because the government scientists indicate they cannot find any overt disease that qualifies to a 100 year old ICD code. They find a damaging process related to dioxin but because they are unfamiliar and cannot explain what this unknown toxic chemical is doing in this damaging process; it then falls by the way side and once again is not reported to the medical community or the nation's Veterans.
In addition, many medical issues found in study comparisons between cohorts that reach a 50% increase or even higher are not considered significant in the eyes of our government for Veterans and their families. These issues do not even make the reports, so our nations doctors are even unaware of these significant medical findings in Vietnam Veterans. This is because while they show a significant increase they do not show a dose response to only dioxin. Remember, the VA created a new philosophy and requirement that there will be no associations based on "Service in Vietnam in a toxic chemical environment."
While the Secretary of the VA did make one exception and that is for female Veterans that had offspring with birth defects. To exclude the male Veterans that had the very same birth defects and at the very same rate; the VA then did not tie this association for female Veterans to a dioxin only but only to "Service in Vietnam." So the VA has made a exception to the dioxin only rule. Remember that! A totally different legal standard was used and the precedence was set.
Outside of our Vietnam Toxic Chemical Legacy this "Service in whatever campaign" does exist.
Remember the New York Times article regarding the Gulf War.
The VA Secretary himself through a spokesperson stated: (10)
"I'm looking forward to studying the committee's report and working with them to ensure adequate research funding to find answers to these perplexing medical issues," he said. He said the department was already providing disability benefits for some veterans who have developed amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or Lou Gehrig's disease, based on studies finding that the veterans have nearly double the risk of the disease as veterans who did not go to the Persian Gulf do.
Since all government studies for Vietnam Veterans have been corrupted and no study is allowed to only compare those that served versus those that did not serve with the additional government/VA mandate of finding a linear dioxin dose response. (See History) Even if the risk ratio is at 5 or greater it makes no difference to the collaborating government/VA. For the Vietnam Veterans there is no greater risk as stated above by the VA Secretary. Only government corruption and tyranny awaits them to a single end point linear dioxin dose response.
Referencing the Korean study that did not compare like cohorts but those that served versus those that did not serve. The data is very damning. Yet, our congress does nothing. (18)
If you look at the BVA cases in every instance you will see that the VA counselors make the statement, "that the Secretary of the VA has not determined an association to ESOPHAGEAL CANCER and Agent Orange." This is the legal term they use to deny you and as you will see in the History below there has never been a government study on Agent Orange. So that in itself, is nothing but VA counselor lies.
Then we have the statements of the decisions as follows:
DECISION OF THE BOARD
"The Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board), in accordance with the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 7104 (West 1991 & Supp. 1997), has reviewed and considered all of the evidence and material of record in the veteran's claims file. Based on its review of the "relevant evidence" in this matter, and for the following reasons and bases, it is the decision of the Board that the appellant has not met the initial burden of
submitting evidence sufficient to justify a belief by a "fair and impartial individual" that the claim of entitlement to service connection for the cause of death is well-grounded."
This is the "government fox" watching the government hen house (government mistake coffers) for the White House and the Congress.
"Fair and impartial" has got to be a joke. About as fair and forthcoming as the government studies have been. (See History section.)
There in lies the problem - The VA, following the march orders of the White House, can limit the issues to only one part of a toxic chemical compound. Then our congress turns around and gives the sole power to the Secretary of the VA to do anything he wants regarding Veterans on behalf of the White House, criminal or not. Then to keep anyone from challenging the VA our congress than sets up a legal system that is biased against Veterans and not under any rule of law or subject to any other courts review.
Congress has clearly precluded any judicial review of any Veterans Administration determinations as set forth in 38 U. S. C. paragraph 211a:
…"the decision of the administrator on any question of law or fact under any law administered by the Veterans Administration providing benefits for Veterans…shall be final and conclusive and no other court of the United States shall have power or jurisdiction to review any decision by an action in the nature of mandamus or otherwise."
A nice total government tyrannical package rolled into one by a collaborative government protecting "itself" for wrongdoing.
As I was reading this to my sister-in-law she exclaimed, "that sounds like communism!"
When any government agency says "Agent Orange" that is a lie and they really only mean dioxin. No, repeat NO, government study has studied the effects of Agent Orange. The government has mandated that all "herbicide studies" be reduced to "dioxin only" which was only one part of the herbicide Agent Orange and Agent Orange was only one of the 15 different formulas of herbicides used with multiple toxic chemicals used.
While the two main other herbicides used were Agent Blue and Agent White each with their own set of toxic medical issues from both acute and chronic exposures.
In fact, while the government states Agent Orange was the most widely used; the most widely used toxic chemical was 2,4-D used in both Agents Orange and White.
It is noted for the record, that all government studies were mandated to those exposed by skin contact alone.
It is noted for the record, that methods of ingestion of toxic chemicals plays a role in what will develop, how it will develop, and when it will develop.
It is noted for the record, that in some areas such as the Quang Tri area in Quang Tri Province that herbicide tapes show more Agent Blue used than Agent Orange.
It is also noted for the record, that most areas of Vietnam were indeed sprayed with all three major toxic chemicals.
It is also noted for the record, that in 1969 as the medical issues were rising and being noted as toxic chemical associated. The State Department, under Jim Baker, got involved in the investigations. After trips to Vietnam the state department report concluded that Agent Orange in its entirety with dioxin; was not a real threat. However, they stated there was some major concerns and issues about Agent Blue since it contained arsenic acid.
Yet, here we Veterans and families are; 40 years later, with the VA, directed by the White House, with every issue associated or non-associated to what they say is Agent Orange, when they really only mean dioxin alone. In spite of the many other toxic chemicals that obviously, according to the VA and the government contracted National Academy of Science, cannot harm Veterans for some magical medical fact.
If you were going to hang your hat on denial and protecting the government coffers from government mistakes and had your own independent omnipotent legal system. Would you not select the most unknown toxic chemical?
Especially, if you knew that the other toxic chemicals had already been characterized as to acute and chronic exposures for decades. Or that your partner in crime, Dow Chemical, and their toxic chemical compound called "Picloram" was DOW proprietary.
In addition, you knew that our own EPA, as the many Veterans' deaths, disabilities, and medical issues were manifesting as toxic chemical issues, in 1985 in order for DOW to re-qualify "Picloram" had demanded they reduce the hexachlorobenzene to less than 200 parts per million and that the nitrosamine be reduced.
Picloram now has less than 100 parts per million and no (zero) nitrosamine. There is no telling what the toxic chemical swill had in it as far as toxic chemical levels when used on Veterans and the terrain for over 10 years.
If you knew that in 1990 Doctor Daniel Teitelbaum, a noted toxicologist stated:
“What I do think...may bear on the Agent Orange issue, is the fact that in review of Dow’s 2,4-D documentation I found that there are significant concentrations of potentially carcinogenic materials present in 2,4-D "which have never been made known to the EPA, FDA, or to any other agency." Thus, in addition to the problem of the TCDD which, more likely than not, was present in the 2,4,5--T component of Agent Orange, the finding of "other dioxins" and closely related "furans and xanthones" in the 2,4--D formulation was of compelling interest to me.” (8)
The bottom line is; we more than likely have other forms of dioxins other than TCDD in the Agent Orange herbicide. Agent Orange was a 50/50 mixture of 2,4,5-T and the DOW 2,4-D referenced by Doctor Teitelbaum. With the additional issues included of closely related furans and xanthones in 2,4-D. This also creates a synergy effect with more than one toxic chemical in the same formula. This can increase the potency of the chemicals as far as 1600 times what each one would be separately. This is especially true if two are further apart on the chemical property scale.
In addition 2,4-D was used a separate herbicide under the nomenclature of Agent White.
Some researchers are saying they actually mixed Agent Orange and Agent Blue together to spray. I cannot verify that but if they did, it is a wonder any one is left alive.
Again, logically you would select the most unknown single toxic chemical that no one knows what it does, how it does it, and has never been characterized; in order to protect the government and the White House. Then you would demand a linear dose response when there is no proof of a linear dose response or that this single toxin will even have a linear dose response. Especially, since you have your own corrupt legal system given to you by the congress; you can now deny any study or animal study you want or even statistical increase data.
Remember the CFR used in VA denials only lists the chemical formula for TCDD.
Technical/Medical
Nitrosamine contained in Agent White (12)
“Nitrosamines are another type of carcinogenic chemicals that are known to cause cancers and other medical problems.
Exposure to high concentrations of nitrosamines is associated with increased mortality from cancers of the esophagus, oral cavity, and pharynx (throat).
When used in pesticides or herbicides it may cause DNA damage and cell death.”
Cacodylic acid (dimethyl arsenic acid) which was called Agent Blue (13)
Agent Blue: This was a code name for cacodylic acid (dimethyl arsenic acid) that was used from 1965 to 1970.
Agent Blue produces a spectrum of acute toxic symptoms that includes gastrointestinal disorders, eye irritation, and dermatitis. Studies in experimental systems have indicated that it has the potential for mutagenicity, clastogenicity (chromosome damages), and teratogenicity.
Carcinogenicity has not been tested adequately, but it should be noted that other inorganic arsenic compounds have been associated with liver, lung, skin, and stomach cancers.
It is highly toxic by inhalation, ingestion and through skin contact. It may cause irreversible effects and death. It may act as a teratogen or carcinogen; or skin, eye and respiratory irritant.
Garlic type odor of breath and feces, and metallic taste in the mouth.
Adverse GI effects predominate with vomiting, abdominal pain and rice-water, or bloody diarrhea.
GI effects may also include inflammation, vesicle formation, and eventual sloughing (shedding) of the *mucosa in the mouth, pharynx, and esophagus.
*Note: Mucosa is moist tissue that lines particular organs and body cavities throughout the body, including your nose, mouth, lungs, pharynx, esophagus, and gastrointestinal tract.
Central nervous system effects that are common include: headache, dizziness, drowsiness, and confusion.
Symptoms may progress to include muscle weakness, spasms, hypothermia, lethargy, delirium, coma, and convulsions.
Renal injury manifests as proteinuria, hematuria, glycosuria, oliguria, and shows up in the urine. In severe poisoning cases, acute tubular necrosis results.
Cardiovascular effects include shock, cyanosis, and cardiac arrhythmia.
Elevated liver enzymes and jaundice may manifest causing liver damage.
Injury to blood-forming tissues may cause anemia, leucopenia, and thrombocytopenia.
Chronic exposure may lead to:
Muscle weakness, fatigue, anorexia, weight loss.
Hyperpigmentation, hyperkeratosis.
Peripheral neuropathy, paresthesia, paresis, and ataxia.
Inability to coordinate voluntary muscular movements.
Subcutaneous edema in face, eyelids, and ankles.
Stomatitis, white striations across the nails (Mees lines) and sometimes loss of nails or hair.
Liver toxicity as indicated by hepatomegaly, jaundice, and cirrhosis.
Renal toxicity leading to oliguria, proteinuria, and hematuria.
EKG abnormalities and peripheral vascular disease.
Hematologic abnormalities.
Cancer.
Dioxin itself
While our own EPA in the 70's and 80's operated as a direct White House collaborative operative in our toxic chemical legacy issue. It seems that in 1992 they did get at least some integrity back.
Starting with what the EPA called their "Dioxin Reassessment" study in 1992. Which for all intensive purposes parallel a report that was done in 1979 by one of the EPA scientists who actually did have some integrity. For some "unknown and unexplained rationale" this report was shelved by the EPA in 1979 and not released.
Another hero EPA scientists during this time found that many of the chemical company studies being presented in actual court cases were fraudulent and corrupted. When she made this known to the EPA enforcement, her reward was to be punished and set aside by the EPA, operating as a White House and VA pawn.
Remember, the entire US Government using collaboration was denying any and all medical issues up until 1990, some 23 years while Vietnam Veterans died and became disabled. Denied any and all serious side effects from our toxic chemical legacy and exposures.
In reviewing the EPA reassessments in 1992, 1994, and 1996 the emergence of EPA dioxin expert Dr. Linda Birnbaum is a ray of hope for all Veterans. Although, there seems to be some end fighting going on between the less than truthful Ranch Hand studies and their studies that are slanted towards "government exoneration" as opposed to scientific facts and the new EPA dioxin expert at the EPA.
Very similar to the CDC that sold their "scientific soul" to our White House in the 80's. (14)
I find it very interesting and questionable when I do review a Ranch Hand report and find zero references to any EPA findings and OTA study findings. Also, I have seen references that there does seemed to be some disparity between the two entities. In reviewing both the EPA reassessments and the Ranch Hand scientific transcripts, not the published and crafted reports, I find many of the same issues being discussed and found. While the Ranch Hand then "exonerates the findings" the EPA expands on the issues.
How long before the White House or the new EPA Director at behest of the president who appointed him puts the clamps on Dr. Birnbaum is the question.
One issue that the EPA discusses in their reassessment is the immunotoxicity of dioxin.
That the threshold for immunotoxicity is 100 times less than that of a cancer. And that for some disorders created by dioxin there does not seemed to be a threshold. So much for the Ranch Hand study linear dose response only government/VA mandated study constraint.
One would also wonder if the threshold for immunotoxicity is 100 times less than that of cancer then where are the immunotoxicity issues listed on our VA and NAS/IOM hit parade. You cannot have one without the other, except at the VA.
I think most people are aware that cancer develops. It is not some magical medical moment you have cancer. It is a series of cell derangements and maturations that end up being a malignant cancer. This process can stop at any time for whatever reason leaving you with many other debilitating issues and even death from the autoimmune diseases that are created. Including other disorders such as medical conditions that may be in-between two cancers that are listed on our VA and NAS/IOM hit parade. These would be in the form of many issues and symptoms such as amyloydosis or many deranged antibody issues that are created, or even some form of connective tissue disorders.
The EPA discusses the lack of an immune system and the creation of an attacking immune system and that you can actually have both.
“Effects on the liver: There are some differences in different species but, in general, you see enlargement of the liver, you see accumulation of fat in the liver. In some tissue, you have hyperplasia, which is a proliferation of cells. The tissue actually gets bigger from having more cells, and this occurs in the lining of the gastro-intestinal tract, it occurs in the lining of the urinary tract, and it occurs in the bile duct, which comes from the liver.
In other kinds of cells, instead of getting hyperplasia, which is an inappropriate proliferation of cells, you get squamous metaplasia, which is an inappropriate differentiation of cells.
It is not that an eye turns into an ear, but in fact, one type of cell turns into another type of cell. It starts behaving like that cell. So, one of the classic kinds of symptomatology that we see in humans, is metaplasia of the meibomian glands of the eye. Now, meibomian glands are little glands at the base of your eyelid that secrete very small amounts of fluid. With exposure to dioxins, these actually change and start producing waxy exudates on your eye that makes vision very difficult and this is a complaint of people who have had very high levels of dioxin exposure. They also complain of problems with hearing. There are glands that line your ear canal, which are called the ceruminous glands and these undergo an inappropriate differentiation and start producing earwax. These are not the normal glands that produce normal earwax.” (15)
Now that last paragraph is some scary stuff to think that dioxin can create these issues for external organs and glands and think what this poison is doing to your internal organs.
So the bottom line is the "dioxin damaging process that is created," not the end item ICD code that not everyone will reach, based on many many variants. To include there is no ICD code for total body system disruption caused by toxic chemicals that have never been identified as to some sort of syndrome.
What Dr. Birnbaum described is about as close as you come to a body's response to some form of antigen or virus. While the dioxin itself does not appear to create an antigenic response the damage it creates from cell derangement and hormone and enzyme changes does parallel a body response to a virus. Very similar to the Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), or AIDS virus, or even Hepatitis C virus.
All of these, including the cancers we have listed on our VA and NAS/IOM hit parade all seemed to be associated with B and T cell issues.
In talking to the NAS/IOM I posed this theory that it seemed dioxin was creating a body response similar to that of a virus such as Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), or AIDS virus, or even Hepatitis C virus. The immediate response, with no hesitation, from the NAS/IOM was, "There is no proof of that." Almost as if they indeed know that this is a very likely scenario but do not want to confess that fact.
In 2003 the Korean Agent Orange Immunotoxicological seven year Impact study that was not as anti-veteran and constrained as our own government studies found Immune-Modulation: (16)
"Overall, this study suggests that military service in Vietnam and/or Agent Orange Exposure disturbs the immune-homeostasis resulting in dysregulation of B and T cell activities."
Found disturbed in this study were.
IFN gamma
TNF alpha
IL4:IFN gamma ratio
Once again this describes a reaction similar to that of an exposure to a virus which can set off many issues including any predisposition by genetics. Which would now mean that anything associated to this damaging processes should more than likely be associated, especially if trends are found whether there is a linear dose response found to dioxin only or not.
Example: You can have the genetics for celiac-sprue all your life and never have a problem. You may have the Human Leukocyte Antigen (HLA) genes specifically linked to celiac disease of DR3, DQ2 and DQ8. But only when you have the immune system issue or virus like response created by dioxin will this disease manifest. Normally associated with T-cell involvement.
In my novice research, I found many issues on our VA and NAS/IOM hit parade that are already associated with the EBV in many medical publications. In addition, I found most of the issues associated and those issues that we know are prevalent among our Veterans that probably "should be associated" were also involved with B and T cell issues derangement and dysregulation.
Many of the immune system cancers and nasal/pharyngeal cancers are associated to an immune system response from the EBV.
In one study I found "EBV INFECTION OF ESOPHAGEAL CANCER TISSUE AS DETERMINED BY PCR"
Their study indicated - Conclusion: Tentatively, there appears to be a correlation between EBV infection of esophageal tissue and abnormalities of the esophagus.
"The percentages of EBV positive samples amongst the esophagitis (42.3%), esophagus squamous cell carcinomas (42.8%) and esophageal aden carcinomas (42.8%) were rather high. If these results are borne out in further investigations, they suggest a possible role of the EBV virus in the etiology of esophageal diseases. The fact that a large percent of non-cancerous esophagitis samples were positive suggests the virus may play a role in the early stages of abnormalities of the esophagus,...
This is highly suggestive of EBV involvement in Esophageal cancers.
One of the issues associated with Barrett's Esophagus and the development of esophageal cancers is GERD.
I previously reported above, all the gastrointestinal issues reported to include gastroparesis which seems to be related to possible delayed stomach emptying or increased stomach acid production.
We already know that many many Veterans suffer from peripheral neuropathy. This was found to a linear dose response in the Ranch Hand studies as a stand alone and then not brought forward; and of course the NAS/IOM still denies this peripheral nerve damage.
In fact in the 2002 update the NAS/IOM had this to say:
The 2002 update concluded that there is inadequate or insufficient evidence to determine whether an association exists between the chemicals studied and chronic persistent peripheral neuropathy. In relation to acute and subacute transient peripheral neuropathy, the NAS concluded that there was limited or suggestive evidence of an association between chemical exposure and the disease, as stated in the update 1996 report. Update 2002 also indicated that if TCDD were associated with the development of transient acute and subacute peripheral neuropathy, the disorder would become evident shortly after exposure.
The NAS was unaware of any evidence that new cases developing long after service in Vietnam that could be attributed to herbicide exposure in Vietnam.
This is because the NAS/IOM operates under government constraints and goes more blind every two years, as it is time to put out their slanted and biased findings. Just as our congress does every election cycle in stating they support Veterans. All of it fictitious and sickening.
The Korean Agent Orange Impact study found this very painful nerve damage as a stand alone prevalent and relevant to Agent Orange at a p-value of 0.039 and related to service in Vietnam at a p-value of 0.0042. Of course, our VA and the NAS/IOM still deny this involvement.
The point is, you cannot have all this peripheral nerve damage without involvement in the autonomic nerves or even the central nervous system itself. I would seriously doubt, using any logic at all, that dioxin involvement already proven scientifically and mathematically in peripheral nerve damages is that specific to only affect part of the nervous system.
Autonomic nervous system would be involved with delayed stomach emptying and also insulin timing/glucose, which we also know is a big issue among Vietnam Veterans.
Regardless, if it was the involvement of B and T cells as some form of virus like response from the dioxin or autonomic nerve damage causing gastroparesis it is all associated with Service in Vietnam to multiple toxic chemical exposures.
In addition the VA and NAS/IOM state they are not looking for "cause and effect." In fact, I challenged the NAS/IOM on this fact and they categorically denied this fact.
While the Ranch Hand demands a liner dose response, which by default means you are looking for some form of "cause and effect" or at least to some level of cause and effect. By mandating this constraint many medical issues from Military Service in Vietnam that are "indeed found significant" go unreported; as planned by the entire government.
Remember in my previous discussions that prior to our toxic chemical legacy our government based Veterans compensations on "increased risk of incidence" or "significant increase" regardless of cause and effect, especially in an unknown issue as we had 40 years ago in types of toxic chemicals and the different forms of ingestions.
Logically, even "medical trends" such as showing up in those that served from Australia, New Zealand, Korea, US Forces should be looked at with great concern as an "increased risk of incidence."
Unfortunately, this has not happened by our government scientists and those scientists at the NAS/IOM who are contracted by our government with apparently some built in constraints; or the NAS/IOM is totally biased against Veterans as the committee they replaced. Just as that committee that operated from 1979 to 1991 that was disbanded in disgrace after review of their totally biased processes , the VACEH.
It seems the NAS/IOM itself is more tied to a VA mandated and controlled process than real scientific trends and medical issues.
Included in this comparison should be those medical issues from Times Beach, Mo where the government bought up a whole town for less exposures than most Veterans saw while at the same time they were denying Veterans any and all dioxin issues. Or the Love Canal, New York manifestations, or the Seveso, Italy dioxin incident.
Which if you compare the amount of toxic chemicals released in pounds and the amount of TCDD in Italy it is about 2% of what my gun park saw along the DMZ, not counting the drift from other firebases within the drift rate of about 11 miles. Yet, this area of Italy was declared a disaster area by national and international standards.
The Seveso, Italy dioxin accident has been characterized as a "National disaster." The actual 2,4,5-T release was estimated to be 100 grams (3.52 oz) to 20 kg (44.09 lbs) of dioxin was released into the air along with the estimated only 3,000 kg (6,613.9 pounds) of chemical that was released. The furthest contamination distance was 6 km (3.7 miles) to the south.
This absolutely pales in comparison to just the Rockpile FSB minimum of 506,000 pounds within 4.8 miles. (Not including the other firebase overlaps, the drift rates from the DMZ burm, tank spraying, tanker spraying, helicopter spraying, the additional toxic chemical poundage of Agents White and Blue.)
In fact, the Seveso Italy area was the perfect place to study these "increased risk of incidences" because of the way the exposure levels were broken out by exposure zones. Almost as if you would have a built in dose rate evaluation.
In reviewing the following peer reviewed article on, "The Seveso Studies on Early and Long-Term Effects of Dioxin Exposure: A Review" I found many issues that Veterans have been submitting for and being turned down by our anti-Veteran Veterans Administration. Many of which were found in our allies as well as US troops. Many were found in the Ranch Hand transcripts and then not bought forward into the medical community.
I indicate "peer reviewed" because the NAS/IOM will not look at anything that has not been stalled for at least seven years in some peer review. Even though the Ranch Hand reports are peer reviewed and published in medical journals you can build a medical journal on dioxin exposures on what they are not reporting; as they seemed to "craft for publication" as opposed to medical science.
I will not go into the many things found significant in mortality and disease that we Veterans have been saying was associated and suffering from while the government stalls using the VA and the NAS/IOM.
What I did find that was interesting was obstructive air way diseases COPD, which the Ranch Hand found some of that. I was thinking why did the Koreans in their honest evaluation, that did not select by MOS only; not find this issue. Then realized that this is one medical area they did not evaluate. Had they done so; I can assure you they would not only have found it; but published the "unmodified results."
However, esophageal cancer mortality was one of them in the Seveso, Italy incident; especially in males. With a Risk Ratio (RR) of 1.8 and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of 1.1-2.4. (17)
In fact the study concluded: (It should be noted that this was only a 15-year after the fact study.)
Increases in rectal cancers and increases in selected digestive digestive sites (liver and others).
It was theorized by some of the Ranch Hand scientists that one of the rationales as to why the Ranch Handers themselves were not showing more cancers was because of the non-cancerous mortality from ischemic heart and vascular disease mortality. The men were not living long enough to show the increase in cancers. (2) Now that is a comforting thought for all our Vietnam Veterans left alive.
This seems to be very possibly a trend in the Seveso, Italy dioxin exposure also.
In a court document the following was submitted in evidence by Doctor Cate Jenkins of the EPA: (19)
Many Vietnam veterans have experienced more than one of the adverse health effects associated with dioxin. Such a coincidence of injuries increases the probability that the common casual factor of the multiple injuries was dioxin rather than two or more coincidental factors. In addition, a variety of human population exposed to dioxin have experienced these health effects (Vietnam veterans, farmers, forestry workers, residential populations in Missouri and Italy, and chemical production workers in the U.S. and other countries), thus establishing a firm basis for concluding that dioxin, and not some other unique factor related to service in Vietnam, was responsible for these health effects. Further, many Vietnam veterans and other populations exposed to dioxin have experienced dose-related increased rates of these adverse health effects, proving strong epidemiological evidence that the effects were caused by, not merely associated with, dioxin. In all cases, animals have experienced these same health effects when dioxin is administered in a controlled laboratory setting, thus providing a plausible biological basis for the health effects observed in humans.
The effects demonstrated by these new studies to be significantly associated with dioxin exposures include elevated cancers of all sites combined (representing a general carcinogenic effect of dioxin), as well as cancers of specific sites, namely: soft tissue sarcomas; non-Hodgkin's lymphoma; Hodgkin's disease; leukemias, lymphomas, and other hematologic cancers; respiratory system cancer; skin cancer; testicular cancer; and cancers of the brain, stomach, colon, rectum, prostate, hepatobiliary tract, pancreas, and kidney. One adverse effect in addition to cancer significantly associated with dioxin is organic nerve damage, including peripheral as well as central nervous system damage, and the severe consequences of central nervous system damage, such as suicide and fatal accidents, depression, anxiety, and other neuropsychological problems. Other adverse effects significantly associated with dioxin include reproductive abnormalities; immunological abnormalities; dermatologic abnormalities; hepatoxic effects; gastrointestinal ulcer; cardiovascular disorders; metabolic disorders such as porphyria cutanea tarda, thyroid dysfunction, diabetes, and altered lipid metabolism; and lung and thorax abnormalities.
Specific digestive system cancers:
Stomach:
Dow Chemical Corporation Studies of Chlorophenol Production Workers. (19)
The 1989 Dow Chemical Corporation analysis of employees exposed to dioxin found elevated stomach cancer deaths. When Dow directly compared "exposed" and "unexposed" workers, "exposed" workers were found to have statistically significant higher rates of stomach cancer.
NIOSH Study of Maine Paper Mill Workers (19)
The June 1991 NIOSH study of paper mill workers in Maine found elevated stomach cancer deaths, although this elevation was not significant. The odds ratio for dying of stomach cancer, however, was found to increase in a statistically significant manner with increasing duration of employment at the paper mill, thus establishing a dose-response casual relationship between work at the paper mill and increased gastric cancer.
Significant Earlier Studies Showing Elevated Stomach Cancer (19)
Earlier studies have demonstrated statistically significant excesses of stomach cancer in populations exposed to dioxin. Three deaths from stomach cancer (0.6 expected) were found among workers exposed to a trichlorophenol process accident (p = 0.024 - 0.034).
An investigation of railway workers exposed to phenoxyacetic acid herbicides found an excess of stomach cancer deaths (odds ratio = 6.1; p< 0.05), for over 10 years latency from exposure.
Seveso, Italy 15 year mortality study shows stomach cancer incidence as high as RR = 1.3 and confidence interval (CI) .7-2.7. (17)
American Journal of Epidemiology reports on Seveso, Italy 20 year study reports an increase in all cancers. Stomach cancer was increased in the second decade. In the 10–14-year period, digestive cancer mortality was elevated, and stomach and liver cancer showed statistically significant increases. (20)
Rectal:
In 1985, the Danish Cancer Society published a study examining the incidence of cancer in persons employed in manufacture of phenoxyacetic acid herbicides before 1982. <32> Cancer cases were identified for 3,390 males and 1,069 females. The highest observed statistically significant elevated risk was soft tissue sarcomas among males employed in any department at the two factories (relative risk = 2.72; 95% C.I. = 0.88 - 6.34). The two Danish factories included in the study used limited amounts of 2,4,5-T production took place, the predominant product being 4-chloro-ortho-cresol. In addition to elevated soft tissue sarcomas, this study also identified excess risk of lung, rectal, and cervical cancers. (19)
American Journal of Epidemiology reports on Seveso, Italy 20 year study reports an increase in all cancers with rectal cancer RR=2.4, 95% CI = 1.2, 4.6. (20) Deaths from rectal cancer were elevated, with a nearly twofold increase in zone B. (20)
All of these trends and factual data add up to one of three things:
One - Esophageal cancer as well as gastrointestinal cancers are associated to dioxin exposure.
Two - Esophageal cancer as well as gastrointestinal cancers are associated to Military Service In Vietnam; regardless of cause and effect or which one of the toxic chemicals caused the cancer.
Three - Esophageal cancer as well as gastrointestinal cancers are associated to Military Service In Vietnam.
This is especially true if it is Barrett's Esophagus or Esophageal Cancer that begins in cells that line internal organs. This is called "adenocarcinoma" and is not normally associated with drinking or smoking but from stomach acid or other forms of gastrointestinal stress. Or, as I have pointed out a dioxin or other toxic chemicals in Agent White or Agent Blue caused dysregulation of B and/or T cell activities identified by the Korean Study. (16) No different than an exposure to the Epstein Barr Virus which is associated to this form of cancer in nasal/oral cavity, pharynx (throat), and Esophageal cancers.
This rare form of cancers of this type should be associated to military service in Vietnam in toxic chemical environment; regardless of what specific body or internal organ site.
In the Addendum, I review two cases that were approved as individual cases of Esophageal Cancer.
In the disapproved cases the majority of the BVA disapproval decisions are based on
the fact the Veteran did not have the cancer in the service or didn't come down with within a year
from discharge.
We are after all talking about the long term effects of these toxic chemicals (plural). DUH!
There is probably not even one toxic chemical that will cause a diagnosed cancer inside of one year from time of exposure. To take that much you would probably be dead already.
But when you have own legal system set up, granted by the congress then any dumb White House excuse for Veteran's denial will suffice. Not only suffice, but it is absolutely unchallengeable no matter how illegal it or dumb the decision.
Unless you consider the corrupt US Court of Appeals for Veterans as some sort of challenge. Over 17,000 cases heard and 13 positive decisions in favor of the Veteran or his widow.
This to the normal person would seem just a tad bit questionable. That is unless you serve in the United States Congress.
(1) Open letter to the Australian Government by Veteran Gary McMahon
(2) Ranch Hand Official Transcripts (Not the government redacted published reports)
(3) Taped interview by Moon Callison with Admiral Zumwalt on July 26th 1999 discussing his role in the Department of Veterans Affairs Report “Classified Confidential Status 1, not for Publication and Release to the General Public.” A report regarding adverse health affects from exposure to Agent Orange; Dated May 5 1990. (America’s Defense Monitor (ADM's) Moon Callison interviews the former Chief of Naval Operations, for "Environmental Impact of War").
(4) Department of Veterans Affairs Report “Classified Confidential Status 1, not for Publication and Release to the General Public.” A report regarding adverse health affects from exposure to Agent Orange; Dated May 5 1990, page 37.
(5) Department of Veterans Affairs Report “Classified Confidential Status 1, not for Publication and Release to the General Public.” A report regarding adverse health affects from exposure to Agent Orange; Dated May 5 1990, page 23 and page 24.
(7) Department of Veterans Affairs Report “Classified Confidential Status 1, not for Publication and Release to the General Public.” A report regarding adverse health affects from exposure to Agent Orange; Dated May 5, 1990
(8) March of 2000, House of Representatives, Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs, and International Relations, Committee on Government Reform, Washington, DC, ; Oversight review of the Ranch Hand Study.
(9) Vietnam Veterans of America statement regarding the law suit against VA individuals.
(10) New York Times article titled, "Chemicals Sickened '91 Gulf War Veterans, Latest Study Finds." October 14, 2004.
(11) Letter from Daniel Teitelbaum, M.D., P.C. to Admiral E.R. Zumwalt, Jr. (April 18, 1990).
12) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
(13) Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisoning, 5th edition, U.S. EPA, Chapter 14.
(14) House Report HR 101-672.
(15) Re-Evaluation of Dioxin; A Presentation by Linda Birnbaum, Director Environmental Toxicology Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); To the 102nd Meeting of the Great Lakes Water Quality Board, Chicago, Illinois.
(16) Immunotoxicological Effects of Agent Orange Exposures to the Vietnam War Korean Veterans accepted May 28, 2003. Industrial Health 2003, 41, 158-166
(17) Sort-Long Term Morbidity and Mortality in the Population Exposed to Dioxin after the "Seveso Accident - Industrial Health 2003, 41, 127-138
(18) Impact of Agent Orange Exposures among Korean Vietnam Veterans accepted May 28, 2003, Industrial Health 41, 149-157
(19) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SHIRLEY IVY, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of DONALD IVY, et al.
Plaintiffs, CV-89-03361 (E.D.N.Y.) (JBW) v. [B-89-0059-CA (E.D.TEX.)] DIAMOND SHAMROCK CHEMICALS COMPANY, et al. SEP 3, 1991
(20) American Journal of Epidemiology Vol. 153, No. 11 : 1031-1044 (Health Effects of Dioxin Exposure: A 20-Year Mortality Study)
Comparison of data to sample cases of Esophageal Cancers that were approved by the VA on an individual basis associated to dioxin alone.
Citation Nr: 9914625
Decision Date: 05/24/99 Archive Date: 06/07/99
DOCKET NO. 98-01 854
On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Boise, Idaho
1. Entitlement to service connection for esophageal cancer for purposes of accrued benefits.
2. Entitlement to service connection for metastasized liver and lymph node cancer for purposes of accrued benefits.
3. Entitlement to service connection for the cause of the veteran's death.
Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
K. Conner, Associate Counsel
The veteran had active service from June 1969 to July 1973.
This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a September 1997 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Boise Regional Office (RO). This matter was previously before the Board in October 1998, at which time the issue of service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) for purposes of accrued benefits was denied. The issues of service connection for esophageal, liver and lymph node cancer for purposes of accrued benefits and the cause of the veteran's death were remanded for additional development of the evidence.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. All relevant evidence necessary for an equitable disposition of the appellant's appeal has been obtained by the RO.
2. Based on his service in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era and his military occupational specialty (field radio operator), the veteran was exposed to herbicidal
agents in service, including Agent Orange.
3. The record contains clinical evidence showing that the veteran's esophageal cancer, which metastasized to his liver and lymph nodes, was incurred as a result of exposure to Agent Orange in service.
4. The cause of the veteran's death was esophageal carcinoma with liver metastasis.
2. Based on his service they have concluded that the veteran, in this case a Marine, was exposed to herbicidal agents, including Agent Orange. So this court is allowed to use the undefined term "herbicidal agents" rather than state the facts of Agents Orange, White, and Blue. Knowing this Veteran was a Marine and knowing where the Marines operated within Vietnam itself; it is a fact of record this Marine was exposed to copious amounts all three major herbicides of Agents Orange, White, and Blue.
One would have to wonder why Agent White was not mentioned specifically since in Technical/Medical above it is clearly found the toxic chemicals used in the herbicide Agent White are noted for causing increased mortality from cancers of the esophagus, oral cavity, and pharynx (throat).
One would have to wonder why Agent Blue was not mentioned specifically since in Technical/Medical above it is clearly found the toxic chemicals used in the herbicide Agent Blue are noted for causing - GI effects may also include inflammation, vesicle formation, and eventual sloughing (shedding) of the mucosa in the mouth, pharynx, and esophagus.
3. The record indicates clinical evidence showing that the veteran's esophageal cancer, which metastasized to his liver and lymph nodes, was incurred as a result of exposure to Agent Orange in service.
This conclusion is moot at best, even though it was a positive outcome for the Veteran's Widow.
You can have clinical evidence that the esophageal cancer was associated to only Agent Orange. How is this medically possible?
We do have the Seveso, Italy study findings that show a increase risk of of Esophageal Cancers at RR = 1.8 but to state that there is medical evidence to only Agent Orange when they really mean "only Dioxin" is a scientific feat that no other scientists in the world have been able to accomplish.
More to the point; what should have been stated:
Based on the scientific findings from Seveso, Italy and based on the known chronic and acute exposure medical outcomes already established decades ago from the other toxic chemicals the Marine was also exposed to, should have concluded:
That the Marines Esophageal Cancer was "more likely as not" caused by his exposures to the "multiple toxic chemicals" during his wartime service in the toxic chemical environment in the Republic of Vietnam.
This should be the conclusion for any Vietnam Veteran that develops Barrett's Esophagus and/or Esophageal Cancer and should be automatically "Service Connected."
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Affording the appellant the benefit of the doubt, the veteran's esophageal, liver, and lymph node cancer was incurred in active service and accrued benefits, based on service connection for esophageal, liver, and lymph node cancer, are payable. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 5107, 5121 (West
1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.310, 3.1000 (1998).
2. A disability incurred in service caused or contributed substantially or materially to the veteran's death. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1310, 5107(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.312 (1998).
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
I. Factual Background
The post-service medical evidence shows that in November 1996, the veteran sought treatment for severe epigastric pain which he indicated had been present for the past month. He reported a history of peptic ulcer disease and reflux, as well as a family history of gastric cancer (maternal
grandmother), but denied symptoms of heartburn in the past three years. A barium swallow test was performed and revealed a tumor at the gastroesophageal junction. The veteran was hospitalized later that month for an esophagogastroduodenoscopy with biopsy, which revealed a malignant tumor of the distal esophagus.
The examiner indicated that, with the veteran's history of reflux, "one might raise the question of a short segment Barrett's that has developed adenocarcinoma but there is no gross evidence of Barrett's esophagus." Shortly thereafter, a CT scan of the lower chest and upper abdomen showed metastatic spread to the liver as well as probably the celiac nodes.
The VA examiner states there is no gross evidence of Barrett's esophagus.
After reviewing many many cases in this "so called legal system" set up for the Veterans as some kind of reward by our congress; the anti-veteran bias is so obvious in reviewing these cases. Any VA examiner can make descriptive statements like, "no gross evidence of Barrett's esophagus", then this is now by default considered fact of absolutely no (zero) evidence of any association to Barrett's Esophagus.
In support of her claim, the appellant submitted a December 1997 letter from one of the veteran's treating physicians.
In his letter, the physician indicated that the veteran "did not have any significant risk factors for esophageal cancer" as he was not a smoker or a drinker and he had not had a past
history of peptic ulcer disease or chronic reflex or dyspepsia.
"There was no family history of esophageal or stomach cancer. Of interest is that [the veteran] did partake in the Vietnam conflict and states that he was exposed to Agent Orange."
The physician indicated that, while he was not an expert in cancer, he had consulted with a private hematologist/oncologist who felt that the veteran's cancer was very rare, given his lack of definable risk factors. As such, he indicated that, "I question if there might be some relationship between [the veteran's] aggressive cancer and his past exposure to Agent Orange."
Also submitted by the appellant was a January 1999 letter from another private physician, a specialist in gastroenterology, who indicated that the etiology of the veteran's adenocarcinoma was not classically defined, although he did have long existing reflux symptoms.
He noted that the appellant had some concern that the veteran's Agent Orange exposure may have played a role in the development of his esophageal cancer. In that regard, he noted that, since there were no available data that Agent Orange can or cannot cause esophageal cancer, it was possible that the veteran's esophageal cancer was at least as likely as not related to his exposure to Agent Orange in service, rather than to any other cause.
Three issues:
While that statement was only true during that time period. The long term mortality Seveso, Italy study does conclude that significant increased mortality from Esophageal Cancer and a relationship of dioxin exposures, does indeed exist.
Thanks to our government and especially the "Veterans Administration" this Marine, more than likely, had no idea of the other toxic chemicals which he was exposed. I have found this true in discussing the toxic chemicals with both Army and Marine Veterans. Many who were on the same Marine gun park I was on; and they have not a clue as to the different toxic chemicals they were exposed.
Once again, thanks to our government and especially the "Veterans Administration" this Marine, more than likely, had no idea of the other toxic chemicals which he was exposed. Therefore, he had no way of conveying to his practicing civilian medical doctor of the total toxic chemicals he was exposed. In addition, the practicing civilian medical doctor would have no idea on his own thanks to the medical information void created by the Veterans Administration, based on White House philosophy. I have found this true in discussing the toxic chemicals with my own civilian doctor that he had no clue to the other toxic chemicals associated.
In a February 1999 medical opinion, a VA physician indicated that longstanding gastroesophageal reflux disease with progression into dysplasia and adenocarcinoma was well recognized. He noted that while multiple cancers and sarcomas were now accepted by VA as related to Agent Orange
exposure, esophageal cancers with metastases to the regional nodes and liver was not currently accepted by VA as etiologically related. He noted that while a feasibility study related to a research initiative had been completed, the study of long-term health effects due to Agent Orange would not be released until the end of the year 2001. As such, he indicated that "at present adenocarcinoma while
related to longstanding gastroesophageal reflux disease is not accepted in its etiology as related to agent orange exposure at this time."
Once again, thanks to our government and especially the "Veterans Administration" even our practicing VA physicians do not have any knowledge of the other toxic chemicals or at least they feign they do not.
In several instances, I mentioned the other toxic chemicals to my VA physicians and clinical specialists and they indicated they have never heard of these other herbicides; nor what was in them. In fact, when I mentioned Agent Blue and the toxic chemicals the retort was; MY GOD, that is toxic chemical that is noted for its "neurotoxicity effects."
II. Law and Regulations
To establish service connection for the cause of the veteran's death, the evidence must show that a disability incurred in or aggravated by service either caused or contributed substantially or materially to cause death. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1310; 38 C.F.R. § 3.312 (1998). For a service- connected disability to be the cause of death, it must singly, or with some other condition, be the immediate or underlying cause, or be etiologically related. For a service-connected disability to constitute a contributory cause, it is not sufficient to show that it casually shared in producing death, but rather it must be shown that there
was a causal connection. Id.
Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by wartime service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110. Additionally, service connection may be granted for disability which is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disease or injury. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310 (1998). Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d) (1998).
A veteran who, during active military, naval, or air service, served in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era, and has a disease listed at 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e), shall be presumed to have been exposed during such service to a herbicide agent, unless there is affirmative evidence to establish that the veteran was not exposed to any such agent during that service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii) (1998).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has recently held that under the plain language of 38 U.S.C. § 1116(a)(3) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii), the incurrence element of a well-grounded claim is not satisfied where the veteran has not developed a condition enumerated in either 38 U.S.C. § 1116(a) or 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). In other words, both service in the Republic of Vietnam during the designated time period and the establishment of one of the listed diseases is required in order to establish entitlement to the in-service presumption of exposure to an herbicide agent. McCartt v. West, 12 Vet. App. 164 (1999).
In this case, although the veteran's primary cancer, esophageal cancer, is not one of the cancers listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e), the Board nonetheless concludes that the evidence shows that he was likely exposed to Agent Orange in service. First, it is observed that his DD Form 214 shows that he served in the U.S. Marine Corps in Vietnam during the Vietnam era. He was awarded numerous decorations, including the Vietnam Gallantry Cross and Combat Action Ribbon. Moreover, and most probative, his military occupational specialty was field radio operator. Given the nature of his military occupational specialty and his service in Vietnam during the Vietnam era, the Board finds that he was likely
exposed to Agent Orange in service. See also 38 U.S.C.A. § 1154(b) (providing that with combat veterans, VA shall accept as sufficient proof of service-connection satisfactory lay or other evidence of service incurrence, if consistent with the circumstances, conditions, or hardships of such service).
If a veteran was exposed to a herbicide agent during active military, naval, or air service, the following diseases shall be service-connected if the requirements of 38 U.S.C.A. § 1116, 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii) are met, even though there is no record of such disease during service, provided further
that the rebuttable presumption provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 1113; 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(d) are also satisfied: chloracne or other acneform diseases consistent with chloracne, Hodgkin's disease, multiple myeloma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, acute and subacute peripheral neuropathy, porphyria cutanea tarda,
prostate cancer, respiratory cancers (cancer of the lung, bronchus, larynx, or trachea), and certain specified soft-tissue sarcomas. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) (1998).
The Secretary has also determined that there is no positive association between exposure to herbicides and any other condition for which he has not specifically determined a presumption of service connection is warranted. See Disease Not Associated With Exposure to Certain Herbicide Agents, 59 Fed. Reg. 341-46 (Jan. 4, 1994).
In a recent opinion, the VA General Counsel held that presumptive service connection may not be established under 38 U.S.C. § 1116 and 38 CFR § 3.307(a) for a cancer listed in 38 CFR 3.309(e) as being associated with herbicide exposure, if the cancer developed as the result of metastasis of a
cancer which is not associated with herbicide exposure. VA O.G.C. Prec. Op. No. 18-97, 62 Fed. Reg. 37,954 (1997); see also Darby v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 243, 245 (1997). Evidence sufficient to support the conclusion that a cancer listed in section 3.309(e) resulted from metastasis of a cancer not
associated with herbicide exposure will constitute "affirmative evidence" to rebut the presumption of service connection for the purposed of 38 U.S.C. § 1113(a) and 38 CFR § 3.307(d). Id. The Board is bound by this opinion. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7104.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) has determined that the Veteran's Dioxin and Radiation Exposure Compensation Standards (Radiation Compensation) Act, Pub. L. No. 98-542, § 5, 98 Stat. 2725, 2727-29 (1984) does not preclude a veteran
from establishing service connection with proof of actual direct causation. Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The rationale employed in Combee also applies to claims based on exposure to Agent Orange. Brock v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 155 (1997).
The standard of proof to be applied in decisions on claims for VA benefits is set forth in 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b). Under that provision, a claimant is entitled to the "benefit of doubt" when there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence. The preponderance of the evidence must be
against the claim for benefits to be denied. When a claimant seeks benefits and the evidence is in relative equipoise, the law requires that the claimant prevail. See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990).
III. Analysis
Initially, it is noted that at the time of his death, the veteran had a pending claim of service connection for esophageal cancer with liver and lymph node metastases. As a matter of law, veteran's claims do not survive their deaths. Vda de Landicho v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 42, 47 (1994).
However, the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5121 "set forth a procedure for a qualified survivor to carry on, to the limited extent provided for therein, a deceased veteran's claim for VA benefits by submitting an application for accrued benefits within one year after the veteran's death." Vda. de Landicho, 7 Vet. App. at 47. Specifically, section 5121 provides that periodic monetary benefits to which a veteran was entitled on the basis of evidence in the file at date of death, and due and unpaid for a period of not more than one year prior to death, may be paid to the living person first listed as follows: (1) His spouse, (2) his children (in equal shares), (3) his dependent parents (in equal shares). 38 U.S.C.A. § 5121.
In this case, the appellant's claim for accrued benefits was received at the RO in August 1997, within one year of the veteran's death. As such, the Board will address the merits of the claims of service connection for esophageal cancer with liver and lymph node metastases for purposes of accrued
As set forth above, because esophageal carcinoma is not among the diseases listed at 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e), the appellant is not entitled to the legal presumption that this disorder is etiologically related to exposure to herbicide agents in service. However, that fact does not preclude her from establishing service connection with proof of actual, direct causation. See Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039 (Fed.Cir.
1994); Brock v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 155 (1997).
In that regard, the Board notes that she has submitted opinions from two physicians who tend to link the veteran's esophageal cancer to his exposure to Agent Orange in service. In a December 1997 statement, a physician indicated that "there might be some relationship between [the veteran's]
aggressive cancer and his past exposure to Agent Orange." In a January 1999 opinion, another physician indicated that it was possible that the veteran's esophageal cancer was at
least as likely as not related to his exposure to Agent Orange in service, as opposed to any other cause.
On the other hand, the record also contains a February 1999 opinion from a VA examiner to the effect that adenocarcinoma of the esophagus, while related to longstanding gastroesophageal reflux disease, is not currently accepted by VA in its etiology as related to Agent Orange exposure.
On the basis of this competent medical evidence, the Board finds that the positive evidence in favor of allowance is at least equal to the negative evidence against an allowance. Therefore, with an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding the merits of her claim, the
appellant must be accorded the benefit of the doubt. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b); Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 53-56 (1990). Thus, service connection for esophageal cancer for accrued benefits purposes is granted. Inasmuch as the Board has determined that service connection is appropriate for esophageal cancer, service connection for metastasized liver and lymph node cancer is likewise warranted on a secondary basis. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a). Accordingly, in light of the Board's decision to grant service connection for these disabilities, and given the cause of his death as listed on his death certificate, it is clear that service connection for the cause of the veteran's death is now warranted. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1310; 38 C.F.R. § 3.312 (1998).
Service connection for esophageal cancer with liver and lymph node metastases (for purposes of accrued benefits) is granted.
Service connection for the cause of the veteran's death is granted.
J.F. GOUGH
Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals
DOCKET NO. 04-17 060 ) DATE
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in San Diego,
Entitlement to service connection for adenocarcinoma of the
esophagus.
Appellant represented by: California Department of
J. Connolly Jevtich, Counsel
The veteran served on active duty from January 1967 to
This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the
Board) on appeal from an April 1998 rating decision of the
San Diego, California, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
Regional Office (RO)
1. The veteran had service in the Republic of Vietnam during
the Vietnam era and is presumed to have been exposed to Agent
Orange during that time.
2. The veteran's adenocarcinoma of the esophagus is related
to service.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Adenocarcinoma of the esophagus was incurred during active
service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§
3.303, 3.304 (2003).
There has been a significant change in the law during the
pendency of this appeal with the enactment of the Veterans
Claims Assistance Act (VCAA). 38 U.S.C.A. § 5100, 5102,
5103, 5103A, 5106, 5107, 5126 (West 2002). To implement the
provisions of the law, the VA promulgated regulations at 38
C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326(a)). The amendments
became effective November 9, 2000, except for the amendment
to 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(b) which became effective August 29,
2001. Except for the amendment to 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a), the
second sentence of 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c), and 38 C.F.R. §
3.159(c)(4)(iii), VA stated that "the provisions of this rule
merely implement the VCAA and do not provide any rights other
than those provided in the VCAA." 66 Fed. Reg. 45,629.
Accordingly, in general where the record demonstrates that
the statutory mandates have been satisfied, the regulatory
provisions likewise are satisfied. The Act and implementing
regulations eliminate the concept of a well-grounded claim,
redefine the obligations of VA with respect to the duty to
assist, and supersede the decision of the United States Court
of Appeals for Veterans Claims in Morton v. West, 12 Vet.
App. 477 (1999), withdrawn sub nom. Morton v. Gober, 14 Vet.
App. 174 (per curiam order) (holding that VA cannot assist in
the development of a claim that is not well grounded).
First, VA has a duty to notify the veteran and his
representative, if represented, of any information and
evidence needed to substantiate and complete a claim. 38
U.S.C.A. §§ 5102, 5103. Second, VA has a duty to assist the
veteran in obtaining evidence necessary to substantiate the
claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A. The Board is, at this time,
granting the veteran's claim; thus any deficiencies in this
case as to VCAA are harmless and nonprejudicial.
Service connection may be granted for disability resulting
from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service.
38 U.S.C.A. § 1110. For the showing of chronic disease in
service there is required a combination of manifestations
sufficient to identify the disease entity and sufficient
observation to establish chronicity at the time, as
distinguished from merely isolated findings or a diagnosis
including the word "chronic." Continuity of symptomatology
is required where the condition noted during service is not,
in fact, shown to be chronic or where the diagnosis of
chronicity may be legitimately questioned. When the fact of
chronicity in service is not adequately supported, then a
showing of continuity after discharge is required to support
the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) (2003).
A chronic, tropical, or prisoner-of-war related disease, or a
disease associated with exposure to certain herbicide agents,
listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 will be considered to have been
incurred in service under the circumstances outlined in this
section even though there is no evidence of such disease
during the period of service. No condition other than the
ones listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a) will be considered
chronic. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1116; 38 C.F.R. §
3.307(a).
A veteran who, during active military, naval, or air service,
served in the Republic of Vietnam during the period beginning
on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7, 1975 shall be
presumed to have been exposed during such service to an
herbicide agent, unless there is affirmative evidence to
establish that the veteran was not exposed to any such agent
during that service. The last date on which such a veteran
shall be presumed to have been exposed to an herbicide agent
shall be the last date on which he or she served in the
Republic of Vietnam during the period beginning on January 9,
1962, and ending on May 7, 1975. "Service in the Republic of
Vietnam" includes service in the waters offshore and service
in other locations if the conditions of service involved duty
or visitation in the Republic of Vietnam. 38 U.S.C.A. §
1116(f); 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii).
If a veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active
military, naval, or air service, the following diseases shall
be service-connected if the requirements of 38 U.S.C.A. §
1116, 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii) are met, even though there
is no record of such disease during service, provided further
that the rebuttable presumption provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. §
1113; 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(d) are also satisfied: chloracne or
other acneform diseases consistent with chloracne, Hodgkin's
disease, multiple myeloma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, acute and
subacute peripheral neuropathy, porphyria cutanea tarda,
prostate cancer, respiratory cancers (cancer of the lung,
bronchus, larynx, or trachea), soft-tissue sarcomas (other
than osteosarcoma, chondrosarcoma, Kaposi's sarcoma, or
mesothelioma), diabetes, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia.
38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e).
Further, VA regulation provides that with chronic disease
shown as such in service (or within the presumptive period
under 38 C.F.R. § 3.307) so as to permit a finding of service
connection, subsequent manifestations of the same chronic
disease at any later date, however remote, are service
connected, unless clearly attributable to intercurrent
causes. For the showing of chronic disease in service there
is required a combination of manifestations sufficient to
identify the disease entity, and sufficient observation to
establish chronicity at the time, as distinguished from
merely isolated findings or a diagnosis including the word
"chronic." When the disease identity is established
(leprosy, tuberculosis, multiple sclerosis, etc.), there is
no requirement of evidentiary showing of continuity.
Continuity of symptomatology is required only where the
condition noted during service (or in the presumptive period)
is not, in fact, shown to be chronic or where the diagnosis
of chronicity may be legitimately questioned. When the fact
of chronicity in service is not adequately supported, then a
the claim. 38 C.F.R. 3.303(b).
Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed
after service when all the evidence establishes that the
disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d);
Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
A claim for service connection requires competent evidence of
a current disability; proof as to incurrence or aggravation
of a disease or injury in service, as provided by either lay
or medical evidence, as the situation dictates; and competent
evidence as to a nexus between the in-service injury or
disease and the current disability. Cohen v. Brown, 10 Vet.
App. 128, 137 (1997); Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
has determined that a claimant is not precluded from
establishing service connection with proof of direct
causation. Combee; Ramey v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 40, 44
(1996), aff'd sub nom. Ramey v. Gober, 120 F.3d 1239 (Fed.
Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 1171 (1998). See also
Brock v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 155, 160-61 (1997).
October 1970. His service record confirms service in
Vietnam. Thus, exposure to Agent Orange is presumed. It is
further noted that the veteran served in combat and is
entitled to consideration of 38 U.S.C.A. § 1154(b).
The veteran was initially diagnosed as having esophageal
cancer in October 2002.
The veteran maintains that his esophageal cancer is a result
of exposure to Agent Orange during his service in Vietnam.
Esophageal cancer/adenocarcinoma of the esophagus is not one
diseases listed at 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). Thus, the Board
will consider if direct service connection is warranted.
In support of his claim, the veteran has submitted two
letters from his private treating physician, J. W., who is a
diplomate in internal medicine, medical oncology, and
hematology, as well as a March 2004 letter of another private
treating physician, Dr. D. B., another of his treating
physicians who is an oncologist specialist.
In the first letter of Dr. J. W., dated in January 2003. Dr.
J. W. stated that the veteran had been under his care for
esophageal cancer since November 2002. He indicated that the
veteran had no known risk factors for the development of his
neoplasm beyond his exposure to Agent Orange during service.
In support of his opinion, Dr. J. W. submitted medical
literature which addressed the health effects of dioxin
exposure in a 20-year mortality study. In reviewing this
literature, the physician found that there was an increased
relative risk of "other digestive cancers." Although the
study did not list these other types of cancers, he concluded
that the study factored out stomach, cancer, colon, rectum,
hepabillary, liver, and pancreatic cancer. The Board notes
that in viewing the study, these types of cancers were listed
under the heading of "digestive cancers" and were listed
individually. Also listed under "digestive cancers" was a
category entitled "other digestive." Dr. J. W. opined that
this other category, after factoring out the enumerated
cancers, left only esophageal and small bowel neoplasms
unaccounted for; thus, they were the cancers in the catchall
category. Dr. J. W. stated that he had not been able to find
a specific reference to adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and
Agent Orange due to the relatively rare occurrence of this
cancer as compared to breast, lung, colon, and rectal
cancers. However, with the referenced medical literature and
the lack of a specific study, it was his opinion that there
was an association between esophageal cancer and Agent
Orange. He stated that it was his belief that Agent Orange
was at least a factor or possibly the cause of the veteran's
esophageal cancer.
In his second letter, dated in March 2003, Dr. J. W. expanded
on his earlier letter and addressed the veteran's documented
history of cigarette smoking and any etiological relationship
to his development of esophageal cancer. Dr. J. W. stated
that there was a strong association with tobacco use and
alcohol use and the development of squamous cell cancer of
the esophagus, however, not with adenocarcinoma, which is the
type of cancer from which the veteran suffers. Dr. J. W.
stated that in patients with Barrett's esophagus, there might
be an increased risk with tobacco, but the veteran did not
have a preexisting history of Barrett's esophagus. In sum,
the physician indicates that as the veteran did not have a
preexisting history of Barrett's esophagus, since most cases
do not have smoking as a risk factor, and because of the
Agent Orange components have been shown to increase
adenocarcinoma of the digestive tract, the physician felt
that it was likely that the veteran's exposure to Agent
Orange was a risk factor or causative factor in his
In April 2003, the veteran was afforded a VA examination.
The examiner reviewed the veteran's history and took note of
his past exposure to Agent Orange as well as tobacco use.
The examiner indicated that he had read literature with
regard to Agent Orange exposure. The examiner also indicated
that carcinoma of the esophagus, adeno or squamous, was not
listed as one of the Agent Orange diseases. However, the
examiner stated that in reviewing the article referenced by
Dr. J. W., there was discussion about the rate possibility of
cancers of the esophagus. Usually cancers of the esophagus
are squamous cell carcinoma and related to smoking and
alcohol use, rarely is the carcinoma adenocarcinoma of the
esophagus, which is often related to Barrett's esophagitis
which is due to reflux. The examiner noted that the veteran
did not seem to have reflux. The examiner indicated that the
article did say that gastrointestinal cancers are rare and
esophagus cancer is very rare. The examiner stated that the
Agent Orange protocol says that carcinoma of the esophagus is
not an accepted diagnosis from Agent Orange, it seemed as
likely as not that this carcinoma of the esophagus could be
related to Agent Orange.
In July 2003, the veteran's case was referred to the Under
Secretary for Health. The Chief Public Health and
Environment Hazards Officer provided a statement. She noted
that the veteran had served in Vietnam in 1969 and 1970. She
stated that he subsequently was diagnosed with adenocarcinoma
of the esophagus arising in the milieu of Barrett's esophagus
in 2002. She related that the most recent general Institute
of Medicine (IOM) national Academy of Sciences report of
herbicides used in Vietnam did not specifically address the
question of possible association between exposure to
herbicides and specifically esophageal cancer. She stated
that this indicated that the information obtained from their
extensive review of all available scientific and medical
literature, to include the medical literature cited above,
did not permit the IOM to assign this disorder to one of its
specific categories. Moreover, the IOM committee reviewed
the article cited by Dr. J. W., and apparently esophageal
carcinoma is not included with "other digestive" cancers in
that paper's analysis. The VA physician indicated that a lot
of weight was being given to the IOM findings on the health
effects from exposure to herbicides in Vietnam. Therefore,
at this time, she could not say that it was likely or at
least as likely as not that esophageal cancer was the result
of exposure to herbicides used in Vietnam.
In March 2004, Dr. D. B., stated that prior to his diagnosis
of adenocarcinoma of the esophagus, the veteran did not have
a history of gastrointestinal problems including
regurgitation, heartburn, nausea, vomiting, or early satiety.
Dr. D. B. noted that the veteran had a history of exposure to
Agent Orange. He stated that the veteran had very little of
the typical symptoms associated with the development of
adenocarcinoma of the esophagus such as reflux symptoms,
indigestion, and only presented with late symptoms of
dysphasia. The physician opined that it seemed reasonable
that his esophageal adenocarcinoma related to his past Agent
Orange exposure. The physician explained that while the
veteran had a history of tobacco use, this exposure was a
significant risk factor for squamous cell carcinoma of the
esophagus, not adenocarcinoma of the esophagus; thus, it was
unlikely that his social habits had any relation to the
development of adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. Dr. D. B.
concluded that the veteran had known Agent Orange exposure.
Agent Orange exposure was related to adenocarcinoma of the
digestive tract. The veteran had none of the usual/typical
risk factors of adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. He stated
that it was reasonable to conclude that his Agent Orange
exposure greatly increased his risk of developing
adenocarcinoma of the esophagus.
The Board disagrees with the AOJ's assessment in this case.
While the AOJ states that the doctors did not adequately
discuss or evaluate the veteran's other risk factors in
developing his cancer, the Board finds that this is not the
case. The private oncologists and the VA examiner who
examined the veteran did in fact consider the veteran's risk
factors and discussed them in each report. It was noted by
all three physicians that the veteran had a history of
smoking, but since he had adenocarcinoma and not squamous
cell carcinoma, this was not felt to be an etiological
factor. In addition, Barrett's esophagus was specifically
ruled out. Thus, the veteran's various risk factors were
adequately explored.
Court has stated that service connection can be granted on a
direct basis, not just a presumptive basis. As such, other
diseases, besides those deemed by VA to be presumptive
diseases may be service-connected. In order for them to be
service-connected, there must be competent evidence
establishing a nexus to service. The fact that a condition
is not a presumptive disease is not relevant.
In this case, Dr. J. W. made such an assessment and opined
that the medical literature that he submitted did support his
conclusion. Dr. J. W. discussed his supporting medical
literature. In reviewing this literature, the physician
found that there was an increased relative risk of "other
digestive cancers." He addressed the fact that the study
did not specifically list adenocarcinoma of the esophagus.
However, he concluded that since the study factored out
stomach, cancer, colon, rectum, hepabillary, liver, and
pancreatic cancer, the "other digestive" category included
esophageal and small bowel neoplasms. Dr. J. W. is an expert
in oncology. He is competent to make that assessment. His
opinion is confirmed by Dr. D. B. and the VA examiner.
The VA examiner addressed the fact that the article did say
that gastrointestinal cancers are rare and esophagus cancer
is very rare. Likewise, Dr. J. W. stated that the veteran's
type of cancer was rare as compared to breast, lung, colon,
and rectal cancers. Dr. D. B., who did not appear to rely on
the referenced study, opined that the veteran had none of the
usual/typical risk factors of adenocarcinoma of the
esophagus. In essence, he indicated that the veteran's sole
risk factor was his Agent Orange exposure.
Thus, the Board does not agree with the AOJ with regard to
those arguments. The Board finds that the three supporting
medical opinions are competent and supported by medical
literature. The two private physicians are the veteran's
treating oncologists and are specialists in their field of
medicine. In addition, the VA examiner also had an
opportunity to examine the veteran. They are all in
agreement that the veteran's Agent Orange exposure played a
role in his development of adenocarcinoma of the esophagus.
They have supported their opinions, as noted above. However,
a question remains as to whether those positive opinions are
outweighed by the negative opinion of the Chief Public Health
and Environment Hazards Officer.
In reviewing this opinion, the Board notes that the Chief
Public Health and Environment Hazards Officer's opinion is
also competent. However, in this particular case, her
opinion is outweighed. First of all, she stated that the
veteran had been diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the
esophagus arising in the milieu of Barrett's esophagus in
2002. The veteran's adenocarcinoma of the esophagus has not
been found to have any relationship to Barrett's esophagus
and has been deemed by the treating oncologists to be without
similar symptoms. The treating oncologists discussed such in
detail. The veteran has not had the typical symptoms, his
symptoms are not those of Barrett's esophagus or having
similarity to such. Second, she stated that the most recent
IOM report did not specifically address the question of
possible association between exposure to herbicides and
specifically esophageal cancer. She indicated that the
reason was that their extensive review of all available
scientific and medical literature, to include the cited
medical literature, did not permit the IOM to assign this
disorder to one of its specific categories. The Board has
recognized that esophageal cancer is not in fact a
presumptive disorder. However, the treating oncologists and
the VA examiner have indicated that the veteran's specific
type of cancer is so rare that there are insufficient
studies. This is not discounted by the Chief Public Health
and Environment Hazards Officer. As noted, she stated that
the most recent IOM report did not specifically address the
herbicides and specifically esophageal cancer. However, it
was her opinion that such an omission amounted to that
disease having been ruled out as being associated by the IOM
committee as being associated with dioxin exposure. The
three other physicians raise the possibility that the
omission does not amount to an exclusion, but rather is based
on the rare occurrences of this type of cancer and lack of
studies in that regard. It was pointed out that while it is
not among the recognized types of cancers, the veteran's
cancer is very unusual and atypical. The three other
physicians felt that in this particular case, the fact that
there was not a specific study on esophageal cancer was not
determinative. It did not mean that there was no
relationship between adenocarcinoma and Agent Orange
exposure.
In sum, the Chief Public Health and Environment Hazards
Officer stated that she could not say that it was likely or
at least as likely as not that esophageal cancer was the
result of exposure to herbicides used in Vietnam. However,
the Board finds it significant to note that she was requested
to state whether it was likely, as likely as not, or
unlikely, that the veteran's esophageal cancer was related to
Agent Orange. While, she indicated that she could not say
that it was likely or at least as likely as not that
esophageal cancer was the result of exposure to herbicides
used in Vietnam, she did not state that it was unlikely or
rule out that possibility. She basically indicated that it
was not currently recognized by IOM and that prevented her
from stating that it was likely or at least as likely as not
that esophageal cancer was the result of exposure to
herbicides used in Vietnam. Conversely, the three other
physicians opined that it was as likely as not that the
veteran's esophageal cancer was the result of exposure to
herbicides used in Vietnam.
The Board finds that the three positive opinions outweigh the
negative opinion. The three positive opinions are based on
expert knowledge in oncology, personal knowledge of the
veteran's history, examination and treatment of the veteran,
and supporting medical literature as reviewed and explained
in the medical reports. They discuss the unusual and rare
nature of the veteran's cancer. They rule out the other
possible risk factors for this cancer. They correctly note
that the veteran had Agent Orange exposure. They conclude
that Agent Orange exposure is an etiological factor. The
negative opinion appears to rest entirely on the fact that
esophageal cancer has not been determined to be a presumptive
disorder by the IOM. None of the veteran's specific
symptoms, unusual circumstances of his cancer, or accurate
factors were discussed. Nothing specific to the veteran's
case was referenced except for the fact that he served in
Vietnam and that he had esophageal cancer. The only other
specific reference was an analogy to Barrett's esophagus,
which the veteran has not had. In light of the foregoing,
the Board accords less probative weight to this opinion.
The evidence supports the claim of service connection for
adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. Accordingly, service
connection is warranted for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus.
Service connection is granted for adenocarcinoma of the
H. N. SCHWARTZ
Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals
YOUR RIGHTS TO APPEAL OUR DECISION
The attached decision by the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) is
the final decision for all issues addressed in the "Order" section of the
decision. The Board may also choose to remand an issue or issues to the
local VA office for additional development. If the Board did this in your
case, then a "Remand" section follows the "Order." However, you cannot
appeal an issue remanded to the local VA office because a remand is not a
final decision. The advice below on how to appeal a claim applies only to
issues that were allowed, denied, or dismissed in the "Order."
If you are satisfied with the outcome of your appeal, you do not need to do
anything. We will return your file to your local VA office to implement
the BVA's decision. However, if you are not satisfied with the Board's
decision on any or all of the issues allowed, denied, or dismissed, you
have the following options, which are listed in no particular order of
? Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
(Court)
? File with the Board a motion for reconsideration of this decision
? File with the Board a motion to vacate this decision
? File with the Board a motion for revision of this decision based on
clear and unmistakable error.
Although it would not affect this BVA decision, you may choose to also:
? Reopen your claim at the local VA office by submitting new and
material evidence.
There is no time limit for filing a motion for reconsideration, a motion to
vacate, or a motion for revision based on clear and unmistakable error with
the Board, or a claim to reopen at the local VA office. None of these
things is mutually exclusive - you can do all five things at the same time
if you wish. However, if you file a Notice of Appeal with the Court and a
motion with the Board at the same time, this may delay your case because of
jurisdictional conflicts. If you file a Notice of Appeal with the Court
before you file a motion with the BVA, the BVA will not be able to consider
your motion without the Court's permission.
How long do I have to start my appeal to the Court? You have 120 days from
the date this decision was mailed to you (as shown on the first page of
this decision) to file a Notice of Appeal with the United States Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims. If you also want to file a motion for
reconsideration or a motion to vacate, you will still have time to appeal
to the Court. As long as you file your motion(s) with the Board within 120
days of the date this decision was mailed to you, you will then have
another 120 days from the date the BVA decides the motion for
reconsideration or the motion to vacate to appeal to the Court. You should
know that even if you have a representative, as discussed below, it is your
responsibility to make sure that your appeal to Court is filed on time.
How do I appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims?
Send your Notice of Appeal to the Court at:
Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
625 Indiana Avenue, NW, Suite 900
You can get information about the Notice of Appeal, the procedure for
filing a Notice of Appeal, the filing fee (or a motion to waive the filing
fee if payment would cause financial hardship), and other matters covered
by the Court's rules directly from the Court. You can also get this
information from the Court's web site on the Internet at
www.vetapp.uscourts.gov, and you can download forms directly from that
website. The Court's facsimile number is (202) 501-5848.
To ensure full protection of your right of appeal to the Court, you must
file your Notice of Appeal with the Court, not with the Board, or any other
VA office.
How do I file a motion for reconsideration? You can file a motion asking
the BVA to reconsider any part of this decision by writing a letter to the
BVA stating why you believe that the BVA committed an obvious error of fact
or law in this decision, or stating that new and material military service
records have been discovered that apply to your appeal. If the BVA has
decided more than one issue, be sure to tell us which issue(s) you want
reconsidered. Send your letter to:
Director, Management and Administration (014)
Board of Veterans' Appeals
(RS)
Remember, the Board places no time limit on filing a motion for
reconsideration, and you can do this at any time. However, if you also plan
to appeal this decision to the Court, you must file your motion within 120
days from the date of this decision.
How do I file a motion to vacate? You can file a motion asking the BVA to
vacate any part of this decision by writing a letter to the BVA stating why
you believe you were denied due process of law during your appeal. For
example, you were denied your right to representation through action or
inaction by VA personnel, you were not provided a Statement of the Case or
Supplemental Statement of the Case, or you did not get a personal hearing
that you requested. You can also file a motion to vacate any part of this
decision on the basis that the Board allowed benefits based on false or
fraudulent evidence. Send this motion to the address above for the
Director, Management and Administration, at the Board. Remember, the Board
places no time limit on filing a motion to vacate, and you can do this at
any time. However, if you also plan to appeal this decision to the Court,
you must file your motion within 120 days from the date of this decision.
How do I file a motion to revise the Board's decision on the basis of clear
and unmistakable error? You can file a motion asking that the Board revise
this decision if you believe that the decision is based on "clear and
unmistakable error" (CUE). Send this motion to the address above for the
Director, Management and Administration, at the Board. You should be
careful when preparing such a motion because it must meet specific
requirements, and the Board will not review a final decision on this basis
more than once. You should carefully review the Board's Rules of Practice
on CUE, 38 C.F.R. 20.1400 -- 20.1411, and seek help from a qualified
representative before filing such a motion. See discussion on
representation below. Remember, the Board places no time limit on filing a
CUE review motion, and you can do this at any time.
How do I reopen my claim? You can ask your local VA office to reopen your
claim by simply sending them a statement indicating that you want to reopen
your claim. However, to be successful in reopening your claim, you must
submit new and material evidence to that office. See 38 C.F.R. 3.156(a).
Can someone represent me in my appeal? Yes. You can always represent
yourself in any claim before VA, including the BVA, but you can also
appoint someone to represent you. An accredited representative of a
recognized service organization may represent you free of charge. VA
approves these organizations to help veterans, service members, and
dependents prepare their claims and present them to VA. An accredited
representative works for the service organization and knows how to prepare
and present claims. You can find a listing of these organizations on the
Internet at: www.va.gov/vso. You can also choose to be represented by a
private attorney or by an "agent." (An agent is a person who is not a
lawyer, but is specially accredited by VA.)
If you want someone to represent you before the Court, rather than before
VA, then you can get information on how to do so by writing directly to the
Court. Upon request, the Court will provide you with a state-by-state
listing of persons admitted to practice before the Court who have indicated
their availability to represent appellants. This information is also
provided on the Court's website at www.vetapp.uscourts.gov.
Do I have to pay an attorney or agent to represent me? Except for a claim
involving a home or small business VA loan under Chapter 37 of title 38,
United States Code, attorneys or agents cannot charge you a fee or accept
payment for services they provide before the date BVA makes a final
decision on your appeal. If you hire an attorney or accredited agent within
1 year of a final BVA decision, then the attorney or agent is allowed to
charge you a fee for representing you before VA in most situations. An
attorney can also charge you for representing you before the Court. VA
cannot pay fees of attorneys or agents.
Fee for VA home and small business loan cases: An attorney or agent may
charge you a reasonable fee for services involving a VA home loan or small
business loan. For more information, read section 5904, title 38, United
States Code.
In all cases, a copy of any fee agreement between you and an attorney or
accredited agent must be sent to:
Office of the Senior Deputy Vice Chairman (012)
The Board may decide, on its own, to review a fee agreement for
reasonableness, or you or your attorney or agent can file a motion asking
the Board to do so. Send such a motion to the address above for the Office
of the Senior Deputy Vice Chairman at the Board.
Charles Kelley
DMZ Veteran 67-68
SP5Kelley2nd94th@aol.com
|
cc/2019-30/en_head_0051.json.gz/line18
|
__label__cc
| 0.594597
| 0.405403
|
Kid Icarus: Of Myths and Monsters
A game by Nintendo and Tose for GB, originally released in 1991.
The original Kid Icarus and Metroid games share a common history. Both were developed by Gunpei Yokoi, father of the GameBoy (as well as the Game and Watch, VirtualBoy, and the WonderSwan). They shared the same game engine and both had scores composed by Hip Tanaka. Each of them had a followup on the original GameBoy, which were also developed by Yokoi, and again they shared the same game engine.
But while Metroid went on to become one of Nintendo’s pillar franchises, it took them nearly 20 years to release another game in the Kid Icarus series. In the meantime, Pit’s only other appearance was in the Smash Bros. series.
Also, unlike Metroid II: Return of Samus, Kid Icarus: Of Myths and Monsters was never released in Japan. However, the original Famicom Disk System game was popular enough to be re-released on the GBA as part of the Famicom Mini series… but only in Japan. In spite of, or perhaps because of, the ongoing absence of this franchise during the next few console generations, Pit has retained a place in the hearts of gamers around the world.
From the instruction manual:
The Tale of Kid Icarus
Let us return to he past, a long long time ago, in an age when the Gods and Man lived together in harmony. At that time, there was a kingdom called “Angel Land” which was founded by the Goddess Palutena. Angel Land was a place where the sun was always shining and the people peacefully raised their crops. It was a good and happy place and a smile never left the face of Palutena as she watched over the country from The Sky Palace. But, one day her smile was wiped away as a result of a dream. A terrible dream, which seemed so real and was much more horrible than her worst nightmare. Calling a soothsayer to her, she asked him to unravel the dream and foretell what was to pass.
Seemingly in pain, the soothsayer began to speak, “Angel Land will be attacked. Attacked by an invasion of demons from another world. Terrible demons by the name of O…Or…Orcos!”
Upon uttering this name, the soothsayer was struck speechless, as voiceless as a stone.
Palutena immediately summoned Pit, the leader of the Icarus Army. The personal body-guards of Palutena, the Icarus Army was responsible for guarding the peace in Angel Land and none took their job lightly. Upon arriving, Pit was asked to have a seat, a liberty not usually given by a Goddess. Looking directly into his eyes, Palutena began, “Pit! Thank you for coming. I have a task for you,” she then told him of her dream and of the soothsayer.
“Pit, this dream will come to pass. And I believe that it will happen in the not-too-distant future. I trust you, but, you must tell no one else! News of these terrible demons will cast our peaceful Angel Land into chaos. I bid you now to begin training so that you may gain special magical power. I am placing all of my hopes and the fate of Angel Land on you Pit. You must be the one to battle the demons.” Sitting back in her chair, Palutena continued, “Since the days of old, Angel Land has possessed The Three Sacred Treasures. These treasures, when worn, will give the wearer the special magical powers to battle any demon. Yet alas, poor Pit you do not yet have sufficient power to wear these Three Sacred Treasures.”
So Pit, with the help of Palutena, devised a mission so that he might attain the power he needed to wear The Three Sacred Treasures. This mission was threefold: To battle his way up the Under World Tower, storm the Over World, and conquer the dizzying heights of the Sky World Tower. Only then would Pit have sufficient power to enter The Sky Palace and wear The Three Sacred Treasures.
To keep The Three Sacred Treasures safe in case Angel Land was attacked while Pit was away on his mission, Palutena sealed them and sent one to each of the Fortress Guardians. She knew that once they had their hands on The Three Sacred Treasures, the Fortress Guardians would not give them up again without a fight. After Pit’s mission of training was complete, and he had gained the ability to use the Three Sacred Treasures, the job to defend Angel Land from the Orcos would be his.
With this plan in mind, Palutena then dispatched Pit to the darkest depths of the Under Would (sic) Tower.
You must help Pit on his life-or-death mission to collect The Three Sacred Treasures and return them quickly to the Sky Palace before the Orcos can overrun the land.
Just what are the Orcos?!!!!!
The game makes no mention of Pit’s other adventures, in which Palutena helped Pit to escape his prison in the Underworld, regain The Three Sacred Treasures, and defeat Medusa.
Press SELECT to switch between arrows and hammers
On paper, the GameBoy version doesn’t appear to be much different from the NES original, especially given that the structure is practically identical. In each game, Pit is tasked with fighting through the vertically-oriented Underworld, the horizontally-oriented Overworld, and then the vertically-oriented Skyworld. At the end of each of these worlds is a fortress, made of interconnected rooms linked with doors and ladders, and Pit must find his way through the rooms to reach the boss at the end. Each boss carries one of The Three Sacred Treasures in a sealed casket. And once all of the bosses have been defeated, Pit journeys to the Sky Palace and uses The Three Sacred Treasures to navigate the level and defeat the final boss.
Looking at it in this way, this game seems like little more than a GameBoy port of the original game… and in many ways it is. Pit uses the same weapons, encounters the same rooms, and powers up in roughly the same manner as he did in the original game. However, numerous minor changes have been made throughout, which add up to a final product that is substantially different from its predecessor.
NES GB
The biggest change is apparent from the moment you start playing the game, and that has to do with the screen resolution on the GameBoy. To preserve the level of detail from the original game, and the size of the levels, the action is “zoomed in” so that the sprites take up a larger percentage of the screen. This was a common practice in dealing with the reduced resolution of the original GameBoy system, and often resulted in merely a cosmetic change, rather than one that directly affected gameplay (outside of the more restricted view, of course). Here, however, this is a complete game-changer.
In the original Kid Icarus, you started the game by ascending a vertical shaft. The shaft was exactly one screen wide and ensured that all players would tackle the environment in roughly the same way. In this game, the environment is about 50% larger than the screen, meaning that if you were to make a straight ascent, you could potentially miss a door, a health restorative, or a pickup. Suddenly, the game becomes much more exploration-based, which fits well with the RPG conventions of both games.
The screen still wraps horizontally, so you will continue to loop around the environment if you move to the left or right, but often doors are purposely hidden so that you might not see them if you take the most direct route, and some can only be entered by bypassing them, and then coming back around to them from behind.
This holds true for the horizontally-oriented Overworld as well, meaning that there is essentially a “high road” and a “low road” in these areas. Since gravity tends to keep players on the lower part of the level, a lot of doors are hidden in the upper sections, often off the top of the screen from your regular view. Careful use of your jump and glide mechanics can keep you in the upper sections for large stretches of the levels.
Gameplay in the fortress levels is affected by this as well, since the rooms are no longer single static screens. With a static screen, you could walk into a room and instantly survey all of its dangers and platforms, as well as see which of the 4 walls had an exit. With a scrolling screen, you don’t know exactly what’s ahead without charging in and seeing for yourself. So, you may walk in and see a pair of Eggplant Wizards on the 2 nearest platforms. Do you brave an encounter with them and try to run to the far side of the room? Is there a door over there? There’s almost certainly another Eggplant Wizard waiting for you. It adds an element of tension, especially if you come into the top of the room and wonder if it’s safe to drop down. There could be enemies or a pit of lava waiting for you at the bottom.
To counteract the limited view area, players can look around by pressing the START button, and then moving the D-pad in any direction (except in fortress levels), which will allow you to view your immediate surroundings. Unfortunately, the START button is also the method by which you access your inventory screen, so you press it once to pause and look around, press it again to check your inventory, and press it a third time to resume gameplay. It’s nice to have a “look” function, but it certainly slows the act of pausing and unpausing the game.
The second major design change – which has an enormous effect on gameplay – is the fact that you can now scroll the screen in any direction. Not only does this further emphasize exploration as a means of progression, but it also drastically changes the balance of the game. During the vertical sections of the original game, you were constantly at war with the scroll box, as each jump you made brought a bottomless pit up with you, which would kill you instantly if you fell off the screen. No more. Dropping down just means that you lose a bit of your vertical progress, and as mentioned, this is sometimes the means by which you can find hidden items or doors.
Minor changes to enemy spawning and movement patterns have a substantial effect on gameplay as well. For one, snakes (called Shemum in the first game) used to spawn in evenly-spaced waves of 4. they would descend upon you from above, dropping down the platforms and turning to face your position on the X-axis each time they landed. After you defeated several waves of them (or moved out of their spawning area) they would stop appearing. Later, in the fortress levels, you would find pots mounted to the ceilings which would also drop snakes, but these pots would drop them infinitely, dropping another set of 4 every time you walked under the pot.
In this game, the snakes retain their same rules of movement, but now they all appear from infinitely-generating pots, even outside of the fortress levels. Because of the game’s RPG elements – namely that you can level up and gain money (in the form of hearts) – these infinitely-spawning enemies give players the chance to do some grinding. Just walk under a pot, pick off the 4 snakes that drop, grab the hearts they leave behind, and repeat until you reach your maximum number of hearts at 999. This allows you to buy as many health restoratives and other items as you may need early in the game, and reduces the risk of being underpowered or losing all of your health. Hearts appear in the same denominations as the original game, with a small heart worth 1, a half heart worth 5, and a big heart worth 10.
Also, snake pots can now be aligned vertically, one over the other, suspended from different platforms. So, it is possible to wander under the lower pot, and have 2 snakes drop from the lower pot, and 2 from the upper. The pots will not generate more snakes until all of the snakes are killed and their hearts are collected (or disappear), or until the snakes fall off the bottom of the screen. Since snakes will turn toward your position on the X-axis when they land, you can opt to lure them toward you, or potentially lure them into falling off the bottom of the screen.
Most of the other enemies in the game are limited in number, and will only spawn until you have defeated all that are available, or until you leave their spawning range. But here too, some rule changes regarding enemy waves have a large impact on the gameplay. In both games, flying enemies appear in waves of 4, moving about the top of the screen, and then descending. However, since the gameplay area now exceeds the width of the screen, dropping enemies no longer come straight for Pit, but often move off the side of the screen, and fall down below the platform he is standing on. So, you’ve essentially gone from a situation where most enemies will eventually seek you out and become a danger, to one where you may have to go through extra effort just to get in front of an enemy so you can kill it for its hearts… and points.
Each enemy you kill is worth a certain number of points. While the player’s score is hidden during gameplay, it is displayed at the end of each level, and the total number of points determines when Pit will reach his next level. Pit gains a new block on his health meter each time he levels up, for a maximum of 5. Killing a large number of enemies is also the key to gaining more powerful arrows that cause additional damage to enemies (see Sacred Chamber section below), so that’s yet another reason to kill as many enemies as you can.
Like the first game, there are doors spread throughout the environments, and there are several kinds of rooms to be found behind them. While these are mostly exact duplicates of the rooms from the original NES game, there are several new items that change how you can access them.
First off, this game introduces keys. Keys can be purchased in shops for a fairly high price, but they allow you to do something you’ve never been able to do before: re-enter a locked room. You see, every time you leave a room, the door locks behind you. But if you have a key, you can re-enter any room you like. Their expense keeps you from just re-opening doors willy-nilly, but they can come in handy in certain instances, and they can be stockpiled.
There’s also a second type of key known as Palutena’s key. It is larger and more ornate than a standard key, and it has the ability to open any door in the level as often as you like. This powerful key doesn’t come easy though… you can only get one if you’ve entered every room in the entire level, and its location is hidden. So, not only do you have to find every door, but once you do, you still have to find the key to re-open the doors. Given the number of infinitely-spawning enemies and the ease of harvesting resources, you may find this key to be more trouble to attain that the value you’d get from using it. Still, it gives you license to re-explore the area and gather valuable resources before continuing to the next level. There is one key per non-fortress level, and they do not carry over from level to level.
Finally, the biggest change that has been made to accessing rooms is that some of the doors are hidden. As mentioned above, doors can go unseen depending on how you navigate the environment, and some take a bit of creative screen-scrolling to get to, but others aren’t visible to at all. These doors can only be revealed by using hammers.
That’s right, hammers now have a use outside of fortress levels. In the original game, hammers (called mallets in that game) were only useful for breaking open statues and freeing imprisoned centurions to aid you during the boss battle. That does not occur at all in this game. Yes, there are still centurion statues, but now they generally contain health restoratives. And, there are certain regular-looking blocks that can be destroyed as well, revealing hidden passages or doors.
You can use hammers infinitely to hit enemies, but each time you break a statue or a block, one of your hammers will disappear. You’ll also be automatically reverted back to your arrows after breaking an object, so you’ll need to keep hitting the SELECT button to switch back to your hammers if you need to break more blocks. Since a door is 2 blocks high, you’ll need to break at least 2 of them to get to through, but sometimes you’ll have to break a stack of 4 or 5. Often these hidden doors reveal Hot Spring Chambers, offering you full health restoration.
Since centurion statues are spread liberally throughout the game, both in regular levels and fortresses, having a large supply of hammers on-hand (they’re cheap!) means that you have regular access to health restoratives. Once again, this helps to temper the overall difficulty and reduces the chances of you finding yourself back at the beginning of the level with naught but one unit of life and your short-range arrows.
You can purchase hammers in shops or – as in the first game – grabbing a harp will turn all enemies into hammers for a short time. The hammers will fall slowly toward the ground, falling directly from the enemies’ original positions, or clumped together in groups of 4 you manage to scroll an off-screen enemy wave into the play area. Gather them up, because they’re basically your ticket to free health later in the game.
Feathers (previously known as Angel’s Feathers) make a return as well, only now they have a somewhat different function. In the original game, feathers were your protection against instant death from bottomless pits. If you fell off the bottom of the screen, and you had a feather in your inventory (they could be stockpiled), you would rise up for a few seconds, flapping your wings. This would give you an opportunity to return to a safe platform and land, and you could even manually flap your wings Joust-style by tapping the JUMP button.
In this game, feathers are used immediately upon being picked up, and there are no bottomless pits to avoid. Instead, the feather simply provides Pit a few seconds of free flight, allowing him to bypass enemies, lava, or other obstacles, and to potentially fly up to an otherwise inaccessible door. As before, tapping the JUMP button allows you to control the rate of your ascent.
Of note is the fact that Pit now has the ability to glide, even without the use of a feather. By tapping the JUMP button in midair, Pit can slow his descent. This makes lining up landings on narrow platforms considerably less difficult, and allows you to make longer jumps than you could previously. Combined with the variable jump height, Pit becomes a much more easily maneuverable character.
Health restoratives are more prevalent in this game than the original:
Water of Life (Goblet) – restores a little bit health immediately. This is a new addition to the series. Unlike the original game where restoratives could only be found in the levels or purchased from shops, Water of Life goblets can sometimes appear as enemy drops, and appear frequently as a result of breaking centurion statues with your hammers.
Water of Life (Chalice) – restores 1 full unit of health immediately
Water of Life (Bottle) – restores 1 full unit of health; this is a stored item that is used automatically when your health reaches zero
Water Barrel – allows Pit to carry up to 8 Water of Life bottles at once; you can only have 1 barrel
There are certain items that can only be found in fortress levels:
Map – In the first game, rather than a map, you had a Check Sheet. It didn’t actually show you all of the rooms in the fortress; it only showed you where you were and where you had been (and that was only if you had the pencil and the torch). Now the map functions more like you’d expect, working in the same way as the map from the original The Legend of Zelda game, showing you the layout of the rooms, although you’ll need some additional items to track your movement. You still don’t get to see where the fortress boss is on the map, so you’ll have to explore until you find him.
The torch shows your position on the map and the pencil shows the rooms that you've already visited.
The map, torch, and pencil are usually found within the first few rooms of the fortress, and you must break open centurion statues to reveal them. Torches and pencils can also be purchased at a fortress shop, if you’re not able to find them on your own. However, fortress design is a bit more linear this time around, and it isn’t until the 3rd fortress that you really start encountering long meandering paths. The first 2 fortresses are pretty straightforward room-to-room romps from the entrance to the boss, with a small number of side rooms to be found.
There’s one last regular item to discuss – which is a very odd item given the mythological nature of the game – and that’s the credit card. While the credit card also appeared in the original game, it worked differently than it does here. In the first game, you could buy whatever you wanted on credit, but you couldn’t make any more purchases until you had paid back your debt. Any earned hearts went toward reducing the amount owed. In this game, the credit card basically allows you to grab 1 free item from the Black Market. You don’t have to pay the money back, and the credit card is used up until you can find another. The Black Marketeer will accept this as payment and recommend that next time you pay using hearts, but otherwise the credit card is free money. Not a great lesson for the kiddies.
The game offers 3 special items to help you tackle the levels. Each of these must be gained by passing the trial in the Sacred Training Center (see below), and each can only be equipped once you have enough “strength” (i.e. once you have leveled up and raised your health meter). If your health drops too low, you will temporarily lose the ability to use the item until your health has been restored. This means that the game will actually become more difficult the more damaged you are.
The Fire Arrow adds a ball of fire which spins around your arrows, greatly increasing the width of Pit’s attack range. The fireballs don’t hurt enemies as much as the arrows themselves, but it does at least let you cause some additional damage, and it’s good for sweeping out low-powered enemies. It can only be used if Pit has at least 2 blocks of health.
The Long Bow (Sacred Bow in the original game) allows Pit to fire his arrows from one side of the screen to the other. As with standard arrows, you’re limited to one shot on the screen at a time, so this does decrease your firing rate somewhat, but arrows move quickly so this is rarely an issue. This special item requires at least 3 blocks of health to use.
A pair of Protective Crystals revolves around Pit, causing damage to anything they hit, and offering Pit some additional protection. To use this item, Pit must have at least 4 blocks of health.
There is a major change to how you can use the Fire Arrow, Long Bow, and Protective Crystals. Namely, you can now use these items in fortress levels, against bosses, and even in the final Sky Palace level. In the first game, the powerups were disabled during these sections, which made things a bit more difficult. This change makes it substantially more easy to navigate fortress levels, since you can hit your targets more easily, and you can hit enemies – and bosses – from across the room.
As in the original game, Pit is on a quest to find The Three Sacred Treasures. Although this time, rather than escaping from the Underworld and fighting his way to the Sky Palace, he has purposely entered the Underworld so that he can fight and build up his strength and earn the ability to wear The Three Sacred Treasures. Each boss he defeats reveals a casket, which Pit keeps in his inventory until he reaches the Sky Palace. There, he opens the caskets and equips the treasures… provided that he has completed his mission.
You see, before you can enter the Sky Palce, you’ll meet up with Palutena in a cutscene. She will determine how well you’ve done on your mission to become a hero. According to the instruction manual: “If Palutena recognizes that [Pit’s] mission was successful enough, she will allow him to wear the Three Sacred Treasures. However, Pit will not be allowed to wear all three of The Three Sacred Treasures if he has not been successful enough in his mission.”
This works similarly to the Sacred Chambers (see below) where Zeus evaluates your hero-ness and determines whether or not to reward you with more powerful arrows, and again the manual is purposely oblique as to how you go about doing this. Palutena will drop each of The Three Sacred Treasures down from the ceiling, one at a time. If your stats are high enough, she’ll drop all 3 of them. Otherwise, you won’t get them all, making the final level and boss fight more difficult.
Oh, and after she gives you the treasures, Orcos breaks in, turns her to stone, and abducts her.
Two of the treasures are identical to the ones that appeared in the first game, but one is new:
The Wings of Pegasus essentially operate like the feather, giving you infinite flight. The difference here is that there is no time limit, and you can fly through the entire Sky Palace level with them.
The Light Arrow travels all the way across the screen and allows you to kill most enemies in a single shot. Obviously this weapon cancels out the effects of your Long Bow, but your fireballs will still appear around these arrows, provided your health is high enough.
And the last is the Silver Armor. In the original game, you gained armor at the beginning of the Sky Palace level, although its presence was never explained. Instead, the other treasure was a Mirror Shield, which deflected Medusa’s gaze during the final boss fight. Since Medusa does not appear in this game, the Mirror Shield had no purpose. And so, you have Silver Armor, which protects you and cuts enemy damage in half.
According to the instruction manual, “When Pit wears all of The Three Sacred Treasures he becomes Amazing Pit.” Amazing!
Aside from leveling up your character, and gaining new weapons and abilities, there is one other piece of the design that strongly enforces the RPG elements of this game… and that’s the many rooms you will encounter along your journey. You can enter a room by passing through an open door (or unlocking a closed door with a key).
Treasure Chambers
As in the first game, the Treasure Chamber is a room with 8 pots. Each of them can be broken, and it will cost you 5 hearts for each one you break. Inside are hearts or hammers, but one of the pots contains the God of Poverty. If you break open the pot with the God of Poverty, the game ends and all of the remaining pots disappear.
Here again, a change was made to the rules of this game that drastically alter how it is played. In the original game, you could break as many pots as you wanted, but the game ended as soon as you picked up the treasure that was left behind. If you uncovered the God of Poverty, you were immediately kicked out of the room and were not allowed to collect anything. So, you spent 5 hearts to break each pot, but risked losing everything you had revealed up to that point, making it quite possible to come away with fewer hearts than you had when you entered. The tension in the game came from placing your greed and/or desperation up against luck, and seeing which fared better.
In Kid Icarus: Of Myths and Monsters, the game does not end when you grab an item; it only ends when you find the God of Poverty. And even then, you can still go back and pick up all of the hearts and hammers you’ve revealed. As such, you always leave with more than you came in with, and finding the God of Poverty only limits the number of pots you can break; it doesn’t get you booted out of the room empty-handed. The result is that the Treasure Chambers have almost none of the risk-reward factor as they did in the original game.
If you manage to break all of the pots in the right order (as in the first game, there is a pattern), then you will uncover a rare item, such as a Water of Life bottle, a credit card, or a key.
Bat Chamber
This is functionally similar to the Enemy’s Lair in the original game, except that the only enemy type here is bats. The bats fly around in a pattern, and the trick is to find a safe spot to start picking them off, revealing half hearts and health-restoring goblets as you do. In your first encounter, these rooms may pose a bit of a threat, but the pattern of the bats is always the same. And once you get the Fire Arrow, Long Bow, and Protective Crystals, they become very easy. (In the original game, the Protective Crystals did not cause damage to the enemies in these rooms, but they work just fine here.) Bat Chambers appear in only the scrolling levels; they do not appear in fortress levels.
Here a shopkeeper will present you with 3 items, and below each is the price. Jump up and touch one of the items to buy it. These can include Water of Life (in bottle and chalice forms), hammers, and keys. In fortress levels, you can also purchase a torch or a pencil here, if you’re not able to find them on your own.
After you make a purchase, a new set of goods will be displayed. Or, if you press DOWN on the D-pad, the shopkeeper will cycle through the available items. Even without doing this, the items will cycle through after every few seconds.
The Black Marketeer has some more valuable items for sale, such as the barrel, which allows you to store up to 8 Water of Life bottles. He has some of the items that are carried in regular stores as well, but at a higher price. Like the original game, there is a trick that allows you to threaten him, and – depending on your stats – he’ll either lower his prices or raise them.
Of note is that the Black Market is the only place where you can use a credit card. Also, if you’ve had your Fire Arrow, Long Bow, or Protective Crystals stolen by a Sticky Talon (see BCE section below), you can buy them back on the Black Market. This occurred in the original game as well, but the prices for getting your weapons back here is significantly lower than it was in the first game.
The Black Market does not restock its items after you make a purchase. So, if you’re trying to buy back your stolen weapons, you can only purchase them one at a time (or you can re-earn them in a Sacred Training Center).
Sacred Chamber
Depending on Pit’s stats when he arrives at the Sacred Chamber, he’ll either be told that he must train harder, or he’ll be rewarded with Power Arrows from Zeus. Oddly, Zeus is wearing a halo, which seems neither fitting with his fashion sense nor his religious beliefs. In the original game, these rewards were bestowed upon Pit by a “friendly god”, who had robes but no halo.
Whether or not you are rewarded is determined by the number of enemies you’ve killed, items collected, rooms discovered, and damage taken. Each arrow adds to your overall strength, and your arrows will gain the ability to penetrate lower-powered enemies as you grow stronger. You can get up to 8 Power Arrows during the course of the game.
Sacred Training Center
Zeus is back, and this time he’s not just handing out rewards for good behavior; he’s punishing you with spinning monoliths from the skies! Unlike the monoliths from Xevious, these can be destroyed.
You don’t have to destroy a particular number; you just have to survive for a certain amount of time. This can be pretty tough early in the game when you have only 1 unit of health, but it becomes easier as you go along. If it’s too tough, you can duck back out of the room, and this time you won’t be verbally berated for doing so.
Your reward for surviving the challenge is your choice of the Fire Arrow, Long Bow, or Protective Crystals. Be aware, however, that you need to have a certain amount of health to use each of them, so it’s best to collect them in the order listed. If you manage to make it to the Sky Palace without collecting all of the treasures (or having them stolen by BCE Sticky Talons), you can easily pass the Sacred Training Center challenges by simply flying to the top of the room and waiting until the challenge ends.
These rooms didn’t exist in the original game. Here, a man named Don gives you hints, often revealing clues as to the whereabouts of Hot Spring Chambers hidden in the levels. Don wears a hat with earflaps, and has an uncomfortably large beard.
Hot Spring Chamber
Hot Spring Chambers are far more prevalent in this game than they were in the original. They appear throughout the game, both in standard scrolling levels and in fortress levels. They can also be revealed by using a hammer to break open blocks in certain areas to reveal a hidden door.
Jumping into the hot spring slowly refills your health. Sometimes you’ll find an empty room with a hot spring, but other times you’ll find guardians protecting the spring. In the standard scrolling levels, the guardian is a series of heads that fall down from the ceiling and begin to stack up into a totem pole in front of you, firing projectiles horizontally. You can pick them off one-by-one if you choose, but you can also jump between them and into the hot spring, which will make all of them disappear.
In the fortress levels, you will sometimes encounter a very small spring in the corner of an otherwise enemy-filled room, so you may need to fight off some spear-wielding guards or Eggplant Wizards before you can safely bathe in the rejuvenating spring.
Other times, you will encounter a single Eggplant Wizard near a full-size spring. So, while you may not be concerned with losing a bit of health in a room where you can refill it to its max, you do have to contend with the possibility of becoming infected with eggplantism. In which case, you can still heal, but you’ll need to seek out a hospital to be cured.
The hospital is the one place where you can get turned back into your angelic form after being transmogrified into a bipedal eggplant. The hospital is staffed solely with nurses who are trained to cure your of your eggplant affliction. The room will be empty otherwise, because if you’re not a walking eggplant, they don’t have time for you. Hospitals appear in fortress levels only, which is the only place where you will find Eggplant Wizards… so it’s a symbiotic relationship, really.
As in the first game, you’ll deal with a variety of platforms on your quest. Most of them are solid on all sides, but others – such as clouds, ice, and thin platforms – can be jumped through from underneath. And, ducking on these platforms will drop you back down. Fortunately, this time around, instant death does not await you at the bottom of each screen, so accidentally dropping through a platform will not generally be cause for cursing the name of Zeus.
This game also introduces a save system. Technically, the Japanese original offered game saves, because the game was released on the Famicom Disk System. In the U.S., however, players of the original NES game had to deal with lengthy passwords. At the end of each stage, the player will be given the option to walk to the left and enter the save menu, or walk to the right to continue without saving.
This certainly makes continuing easier. However, be aware that if you resume a game from a continue – even if you didn’t die – you will be reduced back down to 1 unit of health. So, even if you’re fully powered up, with Fire Arrows, a Long Bow, and Protective Crystals, shutting off the system will return you to your original weakling self until you can earn or purchase enough health restoratives.
In the first game, this made some sense, since you only received a password upon death. But here you’re essentially being punished for not having the time to play more levels in a single sitting. This can be frustrating if you’ve worked to make it to a fortress with all of your items intact, only to save your game, and return later with none of them. Granted the overall difficulty level makes it easier to regain this lost health, but it still it’s still a bit unfair. The game also provides you with 3 continues, which is an odd design choice given that you have the option to save your game at the end of each level and restore it as often as you wish.
There are a couple of wacky new enemies, this time around. For one, as you climb the Sky World Tower, you’ll frequently pass half-moon shapes in the background, each with smiling faces. Later in the level, you’ll encounter Linus, a full moon with fangs who will actually attack Pit.
The enemy with the most humorous premise is Pythagoras. According to the instruction manual, Pythagoras is “a lively old man who throws equilateral triangles.” Sadly, his illustration shows him holding triangles, but none of them are equilateral. And in the game, he tosses right-angle triangles at you. So one wonders why they would go through all the trouble to say that the triangles are equilateral, when they clearly are not. Moreover, what is Pythagoras even doing as an enemy in the first place?
The famous Komayto enemy makes a return, but he has been redesigned. In the first game, this creature strongly resembled a Metroid, and the instruction manual even described it as “A mysterious floating creature. Nobody knows where it came from. One theory has it that it came from a planet other than Earth.” Here, it’s still described as a mysterious floating creature that resembles a jellyfish, but the Metroid connection is no longer apparent.
In the first game, one of the BCE’s we discussed was the Grim Reaper, and his Reapettes. In that game, the Reaper would walk along a platform, pausing from time to time to look behind him. If he spotted you, he summoned forth a wave of 4 Reapettes, with some cacophonic music to accompany them. The reason why these fights were tough is that this was an infinite cycle, and the Reaper was temporarily invincible while his hood was pulled back.
Not any more; the Reaper can now be damaged at any time, whether he sees you or not. Just keep firing arrows at the him while the Reapettes come down, and you can easily destroy him without fear of additional attacks. And since he will run in your direction when he discovers you, this just places him closer to the business end of your bow. Sadly, the newly-neutered Reaper’s tune has been changed to something much less impressive. Death has a hard life.
Eggplant Wizard But we do still have Eggplant Wizards, and they’re just as bastardly as ever. As mentioned above, they can now appear in Hot Spring Chambers, and they can also appear in sets of 3 instead of the pairs from the original game. Since you can’t see the entire room due to the screen size, you may find eggplants flying at you from offscreen! Since thrown eggplants fly in high arcs, it’s easy to walk into one’s trajectory without being aware of it.
Getting hit turns you into an eggplant, and you'll be unable to use your arrows during this time. Interestingly, you can still use your hammers to attack enemies, so you're not entirely defenseless, but hammers are considerably weaker than arrows.
However, this game does something a bit differently with the eggplant-infected Pit… There are now some passages that Pit is too tall to fit through normally. But, if he has been turned into an eggplant, he can walk right through them. Often, this leads Pit to a hospital, but it also means that Pit cannot use this as his return path after he is cured, so he is forced to find another route. And, in the final fortress level, it’s actually not possible to get to the end of the level without being turned into an eggplant first!
So… um… thank you, Eggplant Wizard!
Sticky Talon In the first game, there was an enemy known as Pluton that could steal your special items (Fire Arrow, Long Bow, and/or Protective Crystals). They were invincible, and each time one of them touched you, one of your weapons would disappear, and it could only be regained by purchasing it in the Black Market (at a very steep price), or by re-earning it in a Sacred Training Center. Avoidance was the only possibility.
Here, this function is given to a sunglasses-wearing bird called the Sticky Talon. Like Pluton, these appear in small groups and head for you with thievery on their minds. However, their BQ (Bastard Quotient) isn’t quite as high as Pluton’s. For one, they can be destroyed by your arrows, so you’ve got a chance to pick them off before they can even get to you. And secondly, if one of your weapons does get stolen, the price to get it back is about half of what it was in the first game, so the penalty isn’t nearly as high. Still, no one likes other people touching their stuff, and no one has the right to touch you in your bathing suit area.
Boss rooms are slightly different from the other rooms in the fortress levels, in that they are exactly 1 screen wide, as opposed to scrolling horizontally. However, they are still just as tall, so bosses can move up off the top of the screen, forcing you to jump up to meet them or wait until they come back down if you want to deal some damage.
Under World: Minotaur
The Minotaur is a bit tough for a first boss. He can toss a stream of 5 skulls (!!) up in the air, followed by another set of 5 shortly thereafter, alternating between short- and long-distance attacks. The gap between these volleys is just large enough for you to squeeze through.
The Minotaur will also periodically disappear, turning into a fireball, and floating around the room. This form is fairly easy to avoid, but you have to be careful because he will rematerialize into his former bullish self at a random spot in the room, potentially on the spot where you’re standing. The location where he appears has nothing to do with the location of the fireball when it disappears.
There are several platforms in the room, and a limit to the places where he can show up. If he appears on the upper platforms, you can simply stand beneath him and dodge all of his attacks. If he appears on the lower platforms, you’ll need to do some active dodging, while taking every opportunity you can to fill his snout with arrows.
He takes a ton of hits to kill, especially given that Pit can’t have received many Power Arrows at this point in the game. Once you finally bring him down, he’ll drop a casket containing one of The Three Sacred Treasures.
Over World: Skull Wing
The skull wing is a skull, with wings. He flies slowly around the room, occasionally dropping a fireball that spreads out into 3 flame spouts when it hits the ground. If you have the Long Bow at this point, you can easily avoid these fireballs and hit him from a distance.
If you stay on the ground level, most of the dropped fireballs will detonate on the platforms above you, and the only other attack available to the boss is to fly directly into you for melee damage. However, he’s a slow enemy, and generally won’t follow you into corners, which means that you don’t need to be terribly aggressive to take him down.
Once you make him part of your 80's metal album cover, you’ll receive another sealed casket.
Sky World: Fire Serpent
The Fire Serpent flies around the room, occasionally tossing 3 fireballs at you in spread-shot formation. The serpent’s body is made up of a series of fireballs, which can sometimes make it difficult to discern between his body and the projectiles that he’s firing at you. It doesn’t help that there’s quite a lot of flicker happening during this battle as well, making projectiles momentarily disappear and reappear.
His head is his only weak point, which is a fairly small target. Extinguish his life force to reveal the last of the sealed caskets.
Sky Palace: Orcos
Your path through the Sky Palace is one long, continuous level culminating in a boss fight. There are tons of enemies in this area, as well as a huge number of hidden passages and doors, many of which lead to Hot Spring Chambers. So, as long as you’ve brought enough hammers, there’s no reason why you shouldn’t be able to make it to the last boss with something close to full health.
You’ll have infinite flight through this area, so getting through requires a slightly different skill set than you may be used to, since you’ll need to repeatedly tap the JUMP button to ascend, while using the SHOOT button to put arrows into anything that moves. Pressing DOWN on the D-pad will also allow you to make a quick descent and help you to dodge enemy attacks.
In your fight against Orcos, you’ll face off against his 2 forms. The first is fairly straightforward. Orcos flies around the room, occasionally stopping to fire a spread of 3 fireballs at you, and he’ll try to fly at you for some melee damage as well. Dodge Orcos and his fireballs, and return fire as often as possible, and he’ll be destroyed... revealing his ultimate form.
Orcos returns only now he is huge, scary, and highly detailed. His body doesn’t even fit on the screen entirely (and doesn’t actually exist, from a programming standpoint), and he is nearly 1.5 screens tall.
Orcos will swing in to shoot a large fireball out of his mouth, which will fly to the far side of the screen and detonate, exploding in a tight semicircle of projectiles that expand outward as they move in your direction and Orcos pulls back. The gap for dodging these projectiles is small, especially if you’re between the blast and Orcos and don’t have much space to wait for them to spread out.
Ocros can back up and spin around (offscreen), bringing his tail onto the bottom of the screen to launch a series of darts up at an angle. They will aim in your general direction, so it’s best to start out high, and then slowly descend while the darts lower their trajectory to meet yours. If you go too low too fast, you’ll have to try to dodge between them.
Finally, when Orcos returns to the screen, he’ll extend his claw and send out a series of bats from his fingertips. Fortunately, your arrows make quick work of them, but you need to make sure you’re lined up with them, lest they get in behind you. Since you can’t fire up at an angle, it’s important to kill them off as quickly as possible, lest they attack your weak spot while Orcos brings his head back into view.
Introduce as many arrows as you can to the ugly face of Orcos to cause him to disintegrate, and you’ll receive your ending. The ending is the same regardless of your stats and what you have collected.
Pit is easier to control, and precision is jumping easier with the glide mechanic
RPG elements emphasized more though exploration
No insta-death penalty from falling
Slow pause / unpause
Risk-reward factor missing from Treasure Chambers
Continuing takes you down to 1 unit of health
1991, GameBoy, GB, Heritage, Nintendo, Tose
cheez said...
I'm fairly certain you lose everything you picked up in the treasure room if you make the guy appear.
Making the God of Poverty appear in Kid Icarus: Of Myths and Monsters only makes the unbroken pots disappear. You may freely collect any of the remaining items from the broken pots and leave the room at will. In the original Kid Icarus, making the God of Poverty appear would immediately eject you from the room without the ability to collect anything.
Very informative page, I look forward to reading your other pages.
I just started playing this today and am kinda rushing through it and am at 2-4 with only 2 arrows but 4 blocks of health. So are arrows awarded for enemy kills but blocks awarded for entering rooms and stuff? My point total isn't that high. for example getting 9990 in 1-1 doesn't get me a block upgrade when I tried it, so I guess it's not just about score as the Gamefaqs claims.
|
cc/2019-30/en_head_0051.json.gz/line19
|
__label__wiki
| 0.640007
| 0.640007
|
BradCassidy.Com
in loving memory of Brad Cassidy 1971 - 2008
MenuToggle menu visibility
Patrick's Reading
Kristin's Reading
Marianne's Reading
Kate's Reading
Tidbits & Memories
CD List
Record List
Submitted by Kris on Mon, 09/08/2008 - 2:29pm
Full List Coming Soon- There are hundreds of them to catalog!
Fun Facts/Food for Thought
Brad had:
6 large crates – each hold about 70-75 records weighing in at about 40 lbs each.
(one partial uncounted crate)
6 x 70 = 420 records 40 x 6 = 240 lbs
9 small tubs - each hold about 120 - 130 7” records weighing in at about 17 lbs each
9 x 120 = 1080 7” records 17 x 9 = 153 lbs
So all added up he had more than 15 crates holding a total of more than 1500 records weighing in at more than 393 pounds!
Vinyl Record Day
Profile America — Sunday, August 12th. Listening to a favorite song can bring back fond memories. That's the idea behind Vinyl Record Day — celebrated each year on this date, the anniversary of Thomas Edison's invention of the phonograph. Vinyl records — both 33? and 45 RPM — brought Americans their favorite music for more than half a century. Today, computer downloaded music means that we can each put hundreds of songs into a tiny, portable device, so we can hear our favorites anywhere. Even with these advances, CDs still account for a majority of recordings sold. And vinyl LPs haven't entirely gone away — they are a little less than 1 percent of total annual music sales. You can find these and more facts about America from the U.S. Census Bureau on the Web at <www.census.gov>.
Sources: Chase's Calendar of Events 2007, p. 412
Statistical Abstract of the United States 2007, t. 1124
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2007edition.html
Gramophone record
A gramophone record (also known as phonograph record, or simply record) is an analog sound storage medium consisting of a flat disc with an inscribed modulated spiral groove usually starting near the periphery and ending near the center of the disc. When made of vinyl they were also known as vinyl records.
Gramophone records were the primary medium used for commercial music reproduction for most of the 20th century. They replaced the phonograph cylinder as the most popular recording medium in the 1900s, and although they were supplanted in popularity in the late 1980s by digital media, leaving mainstream by 1991, they continue to be manufactured and sold as of 2008, still used by DJs and audiophiles for certain types of music, especially electronic dance music and hip hop.
Types of records
As recording technology evolved, more specific terms for gramophone or phonograph records would be used to emphasize some aspect of the record, often its nominal rotational speed ("16 2/3 rpm", "33 1/3 rpm", "45 rpm", "78 rpm") or the material used (particularly "vinyl" to refer to records made of polyvinyl chloride, or the earlier "shellac records"). Less specific terms such as "Long Play" (LP, meaning it was capable of playing for far longer than the old acetate records, which typically didn't go much past 4 minutes per side. An L.P. can play for over forty minutes per side. The 45 rpm discs also came in a variety known as Extended play (EP) which achieved up to 10–15 minutes play at the expense of attenuating (and possibly compressing) the sound to reduce the width required by the groove. EP discs were generally used to reissue LP albums on the smaller format for those people who had only 45 rpm players. LP albums could be purchased 1 EP at a time, with four songs per EP, or in a boxed set with 3 EPs or 12 songs. The large center hole on 45s allows for easier handling by jukebox mechanisms. In modern times it is common that a band will release an "E.P." oF 4 or 5 songs shortly before releasing a full album, or "L.P.", that hopefully will build a buzz around the new album.
Sizes of records in America and the UK are generally measured in inches, usually represented with a double prime symbol, e.g. a 7-inch or 7″ record. 45s are generally 7″ records. LPs were 10″ records at first, but soon the 12″ size became by far the most common.
Common formats
Revolutions per minute
33 1/3 rpm
45 min Long play (LP)
45 rpm
12-inch single, Maxi Single, and Extended play (EP)
Long play (LP)
7 in. (17.5 cm)
Extended play (EP)
Often used for children's records in the 1960s and 1970s.
Note: Before the early 1950s, the 33 1/3 rpm LP was most commonly found in a 10-inch (25 cm) format. The 10-inch format disappeared from United States stores around 1950, but remained a common format in some markets until the mid-1960s.
today. you can. ride a bicycle. study tai chi. learn to play an instrument. let yourself be known. be kind to a stranger. show love & care. plant a tree. improve the world. read a book. try a new food. listen to music and sing loudly. learn to say hello in a new language. breathe deeply. laugh. give thanks for the day.
I wish......
Family gathering today.
I can't believe it's been 10 years...
I know posts from a lot of Brad's friends have been few and far between on here, but I assure you
So I spent most of tonight taking notes on what I think I'll have the courage to speak on here.
I just wanted to tell you how much I wish you were here to celebrate your birthday.
I'm going to have to order 1 year 2 months ago
We all do. Brad was so unique 1 year 2 months ago
LOL 1 year 2 months ago
Love the button 1 year 2 months ago
Thanks 1 year 2 months ago
|
cc/2019-30/en_head_0051.json.gz/line21
|
__label__wiki
| 0.880259
| 0.880259
|
No slowing down for British blues legend John Mayall
John Mayall starts four nights at Jazz Alley Thursday. Photo courtesy of Jazz Alley.
When you’re turning 80 later this year and have already mentored Eric Clapton, Jack Bruce, Mick Taylor and countless other rock legends, no one would blame you for taking it easy.
John Mayall is having none of that. The father of British blues still tours relentlessly, playing about 100 shows a year. Mayall and his crackerjack band (not the iconic Blues Breakers, however) will hit Dmitriou’s Jazz Alley for four nights starting Thursday.
“It’s just for the love of the music,” Mayall said in a phone interview Monday. “It’s great to have audiences all over the world who appreciate what we do. I think the music is such a life’s blood energy. And I have my health, so I don’t see any reason to cut back.”
Mayall’s current band, the same group of guys from his 2009 studio album “Tough,” includes Texas guitar hero Rocky Athas, and Chicago southsiders Greg Rzab and Jay Davenport on bass and drums.
“There’s a lot more dynamics. With the Blues Breakers it was pretty much a set thing. There wasn’t that much variety in it,” Mayall said. “With this band there’s a lot more improvisational qualities to it. There’s a lot more freedom within the medium so it’s a much more exciting experience and that’s seemed to been proved right by the reactions we’ve been getting over the last few years.”
Fans hoping of a new studio album shouldn’t hold their breaths. Mayall said that things are hung up with his label, Eagle Records, and that the band is waiting to hear how the label wants to move forward. In the meantime, Mayall is still releasing new live material via his website, johnmayall.com.
Seattle Mayall fans will likely remember previous dates he’s played Jazz Alley. It’s where he usually plays when in the city.
“It’s nice because we can settle in for a few days, rather than one night stands, which is the normal procedure,” Mayall said. “We enjoy the fact we don’t have to break down our equipment every night and pack up. It’s a nice little change.”
If you’re expecting to hear certain songs brace yourself. With over 50 years of material to choose from, Mayall said that no two nights will be the same.
In fact, he said it’s possible that he might not repeat a song over the four nights he’s in town.
“It’s always a cross-section because there’s so much material,” he said. “People will come over one night and hear a show and come the next night and hear a completely different repertoire because there’s so much to choose from and we have so much fun with the music. A lot of people will come to more than one show.”
Act quickly if you’re hoping to catch more than one show. Both of Thursday night’s performances are already sold out.
7:30 and 9:30 p.m, Thursday-Sunday at Dimitriou’s Jazz Alley, 2033 6th Ave, Seattle; $25.50 (206-441-9729 or jazzalley.com)
-Owen R. Smith, on Twitter @inanedetails
Comments | More in Blues
More from Blues
January 2 - 5:02 AM Mark Hummel takes a flyer with Bluebird Records | Concert preview
November 2 - 11:19 AM The Black Keys crank it up to 11 | Concert review
October 30 - 4:17 PM Black Keys drummer Patrick Carney never wanted to play drums | Concert preview
August 7 - 3:08 PM Lady Gaga, Arctic Monkeys, Counting Crows, what a week! | Concert preview
July 30 - 4:59 PM Kitsap songwriting legend Bill Carter | Concert preview
|
cc/2019-30/en_head_0051.json.gz/line24
|
__label__cc
| 0.534858
| 0.465142
|
Susan Surandon
Horror Headlines: Monday April 8th, 2013
The folks over at Lionsgate have picked up the US distribution rights to "Ritual", a new flick about a fella who finds his ex wife has murdered a stranger who happens to be connected to a dangerous cult. Semi-new director Mickey Keating leads this one and while there's no word on a release date the other territories will go up on the auction block next month at Cannes. I plan on picking up the rights to Guam. Gotta make that chedda.
Susan Surandon and Topher Grace would make the world's creepiest couple and the thought of them making love makes me throw up a little in my mouth but the good news here is that both of them have been confirmed for the cast of "The Calling" and not confirmed to be bumping uglies. The duo will play detectives who are on the hunt for a serial killer who's targeting the mentally ill. I bet their children would be adorable though. You can't argue that.
Sally Hawkins, who apparently is no relation to the smart guy in the wheelchair, is the latest name to be added to the cast of the upcoming "Godzilla" reboot. No word on what role she'll play but since she's British I assume she'll play a British doctor or maybe a British police officer. Or any of those roles without a British accent. Really I have no idea here.
"Pro-Wrestlers Vs. Zombies" is a real thing and the trailer looks a lot worse than you would expect. That's saying a lot I know.
Pro-Wrestlers Vs. Zombies
Mickey Keating
|
cc/2019-30/en_head_0051.json.gz/line25
|
__label__wiki
| 0.611187
| 0.611187
| "OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL\ndelivered on 30 April 2013 (1)\nCase C‑628/11\nCriminal proceedings\(...TRUNCATED)
|
cc/2019-30/en_head_0051.json.gz/line29
|
End of preview. Expand
in Data Studio
No dataset card yet
- Downloads last month
- 20