# Airborne Hazards and Open Burn Pit Registry.



## Chopstick (Jun 22, 2014)

I was given this info on one of our Marine Family pages today.  Not sure if it news to folks here but thought I would pass it on.

https://veteran.mobilehealth.va.gov/AHBurnPitRegistry/index.html#page/home



> *Is this for me?*
> 
> The registry is a database of information about Veterans and Servicemembers collected through a questionnaire.
> OEF/OIF/OND or 1990-1991 Gulf War Veterans and Servicemembers can use the registry questionnaire to report exposures to airborne hazards (such as smoke from burn pits, oil-well fires, or pollution during deployment), as well as other exposures and health concerns.



http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/art...ervice-members-can-now-register-burn-pit-list



> More than 18 months in the making, the registry is open to active duty and former troops to report exposures to airborne hazards such as burn pits, oil well fires and other forms of pollution and document their health problems.


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 22, 2014)

problem is they are only addressing the open pits from ODS/OIF/OEF.

Haiti, Kosovo, Bosnia all had open pit burning but no one wants to talk about those AO's.


----------



## pardus (Jun 22, 2014)

SOWT said:


> problem is they are only addressing the open pits from ODS/OIF/OEF.
> 
> Haiti, Kosovo, Bosnia all had open pit burning but no one wants to talk about those AO's.



Yes, but if we can get the VA et al to recognize it for the ODS/OIF/OEF pers, it will be a short(er) step to have it extended to those that came before.

ETA, I just looked at it, and it might not be just for the campaigns you mentioned...



> OEF/OIF/OND or 1990-1991 Gulf War Veterans *and Servicemembers* can use the registry questionnaire to report exposures to airborne hazards (such as smoke from burn pits, oil-well fires, or pollution during deployment), as well as other exposures and health concerns.





> 17. What is the definition of Servicemember?
> For the purposes of the Airborne Hazards and Open Burn Pit Registry, a Servicemember is a person who is serving on active duty in one of the following branches of the United States Armed Forces: Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, National Guard, or the Coast Guard.



Although it does say IS serving... Hmm


----------



## Florida173 (Aug 2, 2016)

Just filled out finally. 

Reminds me how much I hate using any site that uses DS logon.


----------



## Kraut783 (Aug 2, 2016)

Thanks for this site for reminding me.....done!


----------



## compforce (Aug 3, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> problem is they are only addressing the open pits from ODS/OIF/OEF.
> 
> Haiti, Kosovo, Bosnia all had open pit burning but no one wants to talk about those AO's.



The question on where you served with open burning has a long list and includes an "other, fill in the box" option


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 24, 2016)

Saw this tonight. Does not really resolve anything, but st least it is top of mind. 

GAO says Pentagon needs to do more about burn pit exposure


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 20, 2017)

- update -

Iraq, Afghan vets may have their own Agent Orange

ROCHESTER – They are known as the Agent Orange of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars: Massive open-air burn pits at U.S. military bases that billowed the toxic smoke and ash of everything from Styrofoam, metals and plastics to electrical equipment and even human body parts.

_The flames were stoked with jet fuel.

One of the most notorious was in Balad, site of the largest and busiest air base operated by the military in Iraq. More than 10 acres in size, the pit burned at all hours and consumed an estimated 100 to 200 tons of waste a day. It was hastily constructed upwind from the base, and its plumes consistently drifted toward the 25,000 troops stationed there.

During two deployments to Balad with the Minnesota Air National Guard, Amie Muller worked and lived next to the pits. And now, she believes, she is paying the price.

Diagnosed last month with Stage III pancreatic cancer, the 36-year-old mother of three from Woodbury has just completed her third round of chemotherapy at the Mayo Clinic here. As she undergoes treatment, she struggles with anger and awaits a VA determination on whether a host of ailments from migraines to fibromyalgia is connected to her military service at Balad.


“It makes me really mad,” said Muller, who monitored and edited video feeds from Air Force fighter jet missions while in Iraq. “I inhaled that stuff. It was all day, all night. Everything that they burned there, is illegal to burn in America. That tells you something.”_

*The link within the story takes "forever" to load the attachment to this post is a spreadsheet with a list of the affected burn-pit sites. (within Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, and Qatar) There is a searchable database within the story.*


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 24, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> _During two deployments to Balad with the Minnesota Air National Guard, Amie Muller worked and lived next to the pits. And now, she believes, she is paying the price.
> 
> Diagnosed last month with Stage III pancreatic cancer, the 36-year-old mother of three from Woodbury has just completed her third round of chemotherapy at the Mayo Clinic here. As she undergoes treatment, she struggles with anger and awaits a VA determination on whether a host of ailments from migraines to fibromyalgia is connected to her military service at Balad.
> 
> ...



I've followed this story for some time, sad to say that Sergeant Muller died last week.  Rest in Peace, Sergeant. 

Hundreds say goodbye to Amie Muller, who sounded alarm over toxic risks for Iraq veterans

Obituary for Amie Marie (Dahl) Muller


----------



## CDG (Feb 24, 2017)

RIP Amie.


----------



## Kraut783 (Feb 24, 2017)

Damn.... rest in peace.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 15, 2017)

*<UPDATE>*

Veterans who say burn pit exposure made them sick await judge's decision on lawsuit

WASHINGTON – Hundreds of veterans and their families who have spent eight years in federal court trying to prove that burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan made U.S. troops sick are worried they’ll hit a legal dead end if a Maryland judge decides the company that ran the smoke-belching disposal sites can’t be sued because it was working on behalf of the government.


----------



## Gunz (Jul 15, 2017)

KBR: No evidence that breathing fumes from burning trash pits is harmful bwaaaahaaabwahaaa

Any company that can come up with a bullshit line like that needs to be sued until they bleed out.


----------



## AWP (Jul 15, 2017)

I honestly expect to die from some rare form of lung cancer having never smoked a day in my life. Some nights you could smell the burning plastic in your clothes long after you went inside. A good temperature inversion would leave Bagram's valley with a layer of smoke and pollution starting about 200' and up. Kabul is worse from what I'm told. I wouldn't be surprised in the long run if you weren't better off at a FOB and its physical dangers.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jul 15, 2017)

heh, locals also burned their trash.....to include animal carcasses.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jul 16, 2017)

@AWP I dunno about the FOB's, but at our JSS and many of the smaller outposts all trash was burned. I dunno if this will lighten the mood, but when fresh JP8 was added to the pit it would cause the piss bottles to explode and you'd get the occasional golden rain at the JSS.

It was incredible how much trash a small group of us created; from plastic protein tubs, food wrappers, and all the junk in between was pretty crazy. So I'm wondering what it must have been like at a one of the main bases. To be fair though, most trash was burned or just discarded in Iraq by locals and service members alike and I have no idea what Afghanistan was like.


----------



## AWP (Jul 16, 2017)

R.Caerbannog said:


> @AWP I dunno about the FOB's, but at our JSS and many of the smaller outposts all trash was burned. I dunno if this will lighten the mood, but when fresh JP8 was added to the pit it would cause the piss bottles to explode and you'd get the occasional golden rain at the JSS.



The smaller FOBs would burn their trash, but the volume compared to Bagram was real small. At time the pit was this massive hole in the ground that burned 24/7. Then the incinerators arrived and you could have 4 of them going at once. I think the only time I noticed a burn pit at a FOB was the old Jalalabad PRT. Bagram was also extra stupid (which says a lot in a country overrun with stupid) because it put the burn pits upwind of the base. No kidding, the wind was almost always out of the north, so the pits were placed at the north end of the runway.

The gov't deserves to pay if only because it did something colossally stupid for well over a decade, a problem anyone with more than a few days at the base could identify.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jul 16, 2017)

AWP said:


> The smaller FOBs would burn their trash, but the volume compared to Bagram was real small. At time the pit was this massive hole in the ground that burned 24/7. Then the incinerators arrived and you could have 4 of them going at once. I think the only time I noticed a burn pit at a FOB was the old Jalalabad PRT. Bagram was also extra stupid (which says a lot in a country overrun with stupid) because it put the burn pits upwind of the base. No kidding, the wind was almost always out of the north, so the pits were placed at the north end of the runway.
> 
> 
> The gov't deserves to pay if only because it did something colossally stupid for well over a decade, a problem anyone with more than a few days at the base could identify.


This makes me wonder about the huge amount of waste that was created by us, like if there was a way to have made use of it. I mean we shipped god knows how many tons of material overseas to only discard and burn it later on. The whole burn pit issue also makes me wonder if anyone has done a garbology analysis of the material tossed / burned, which could really shed light on the behavior and lifestyle of people to whom the garbage belonged to.
At the end of the day, this burn pit debacle is the governments and KBR's fault for being negligent idiots, but I wonder if another issue is our culture. What I'm saying, is that culturally we are used to tossing things away and not using every material to it's max potential. In the US tossing stuff in the garbage is fine, but when supplies have to be shipped overseas and through contested areas every piece of tonnage should have some accountability. I also wonder how much our dependence on consumer goods has affected our ability to fight and the way we plan bases and occupation strategies.


----------



## compforce (Jul 16, 2017)

AWP said:


> The smaller FOBs would burn their trash, but the volume compared to Bagram was real small. At time the pit was this massive hole in the ground that burned 24/7. Then the incinerators arrived and you could have 4 of them going at once. I think the only time I noticed a burn pit at a FOB was the old Jalalabad PRT. Bagram was also extra stupid (which says a lot in a country overrun with stupid) because it put the burn pits upwind of the base. No kidding, the wind was almost always out of the north, so the pits were placed at the north end of the runway.
> 
> The gov't deserves to pay if only because it did something colossally stupid for well over a decade, a problem anyone with more than a few days at the base could identify.



And then there's this from the attached Memo for Record


----------



## RackMaster (Jul 16, 2017)

AWP said:


> I honestly expect to die from some rare form of lung cancer having never smoked a day in my life. Some nights you could smell the burning plastic in your clothes long after you went inside. A good temperature inversion would leave Bagram's valley with a layer of smoke and pollution starting about 200' and up. Kabul is worse from what I'm told. I wouldn't be surprised in the long run if you weren't better off at a FOB and its physical dangers.



I'll have to really dig to find it but I remember reports in Kabul that in the city centre it had very, very high % of airborne fecal matter and we had to wear dust masks; which were useless.  I'd just wear a scarf over my face.  I was still coughing up black shit for about 6 months after I got home.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 6, 2017)

*<UPDATE>
*
Court Deals Major Blow To Veterans Suing Military Contractor Over Burn Pits

A federal judge has dismissed a major lawsuit against a defense contractor by veterans and their family members over burn pit operations in Iraq and Afghanistan that plaintiffs said caused them chronic and sometimes deadly respiratory diseases and cancer.

In the decision, U.S. District Court Judge Roger W. Titus wrote that the company, KBR, could not be held liable for what was essentially a military decision to use burn pits for waste disposal. Titus said holding the Pentagon responsible was outside of his jurisdiction.

“The extensive evidence … demonstrates that the mission-critical, risk-based decisions surrounding the use and operation of open burn pits … were made by the military as a matter of military wartime judgment,” Titus wrote in an 81-page opinion.


----------



## pardus (Aug 6, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> *<UPDATE>
> *
> Court Deals Major Blow To Veterans Suing Military Contractor Over Burn Pits
> 
> ...




I have to agree with the decision. Personally I think the pits hurt me, but the DoD is ultimately responsible for them. Contractors work to U.S. Govt standards.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 7, 2017)

The only way KBR could be held liable would be _if_ the DoD had approached KBR and asked the company to determine the best method of waste disposal and then implement it. In that scenario, KBR, as the "contracted consulting expert" would share or shoulder most of the blame. But apparently that didn't happen.


----------



## BloodStripe (Aug 7, 2017)

Ocoka said:


> The only way KBR could be held liable would be _if_ the DoD had approached KBR and asked the company to determine the best method of waste disposal and then implement it. In that scenario, KBR, as the "contracted consulting expert" would share or shoulder most of the blame. But apparently that didn't happen.



Even if they did, someone from the DOD gave them the green light to put it there. Had it been a private burn pit that only KBR used for KBR purposes, then they would be at fault.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 8, 2017)

NavyBuyer said:


> Even if they did, someone from the DOD gave them the green light to put it there. Had it been a private burn pit that only KBR used for KBR purposes, then they would be at fault.



What I'm saying is, if you hire a company to construct something _for_ you--a building, a machine, a swimming pool or a waste management facility--and _they_ screw it up or build it improperly or advise you to build it a certain way that turns out to cause damage or harm, they, as the licensed experts, are responsible. That did not happen in this case and the ruling was justified.


----------



## BloodStripe (Aug 8, 2017)

Ocoka said:


> What I'm saying is, if you hire a company to construct something _for_ you--a building, a machine, a swimming pool or a waste management facility--and _they_ screw it up or build it improperly or advise you to build it a certain way that turns out to cause damage or harm, they, as the licensed experts, are responsible. That did not happen in this case and the ruling was justified.



If that were the case, anytime there is an aviation crash, the manufacturers would be held liable. I believe the Judge ruled correctly, even though it sucks for vets, but it's ultimately a "technical expert" from the DOD, be it civilian or military, that gives approval, even when he contractor is designated as the SME. If the contractor designed the item with malicious intent to cause harm or fraudulently, then I totally agree with what you are saying, but I think it is safe to say that wasn't KBR's intent. Luckily I haven't had to experience anything like this since joining the acquisition community so I don't have any GAO cases to list, but a quick Google search brought up the case of the Minnesota bridge collapse back in 2007 and a Nuclear Waste Treatment Plant, which both seem to center around fraudulent claims which I think is a big diversifying factor in comparing these cases to KBR.

With regards to the bridge collapse, and @Ooh-Rah can probably provide a better gap in information, the Government has blamed the engineering firm for a flaw in the design of the bridge, even though it was over 40 years ago. The contractor used a piece of steel plate that served as a junction of several girders. As it turns out, it wasn't thick enough to support the weight as more weight was added to the bridge over the years. From the NYT, "The bridge was designed in the 1960s and lasted 40 years. But like most other bridges, it gradually gained weight during that period, as workers installed concrete structures to separate eastbound and westbound lanes and made other changes, adding strain to the weak spot. At the time of the collapse, crews had brought tons of equipment and material onto the deck for a repair job." Here are a two deals I found between the Government and victims during my quick research ($38 million deal reached in Minn. bridge collapse - CNN.com ;  Last Minneapolis Bridge Collapse Lawsuit Settled For $52.4 Million ; & Construction co. settles bridge collapse lawsuits). There is a lot to this case, especially given its age and the fact that dating as far back as 1990, the state and the contractor were both aware of this issue of the girder junctions. But, since URS Corp were the engineering firm tasked with conducting the yearly safety inspections, they should be held liable.

The Nuclear Waste Treatment Plant lawsuit was on the basis of making fraudulent statements made by the contractor. They stated they built a structure to the standards used to treat dangerous radioactive wastes, and then charged the Government as such. Meanwhile, they actually didn't build it the required specs. United States Settles Lawsuit Against Energy Department Contractors for Knowingly Mischarging Costs on Contract at Nuclear Waste Treatment Plant.


----------



## Bypass (Nov 16, 2017)

I have been diagnosed with thyroid cancer by the VA and I now have the worst case of psoriasis my doctor has ever seen in his words. We had a burn pit right next to our dwelling in Iraq at FOB Delta which was used most of the day so whenever my three man team got off mission we got to enjoy the sweet smell of burning plastic and anything else anyone cared to throw into the fire.

Anyone else having any issues like this?

If you are then I suggest entering the burn pit registry in case you as well have any future or current problems.

Were you exposed to burn pits while deployed?


----------



## AWP (Nov 16, 2017)

I merged the threads. 

Anyone who thinks the burn pits aren't/ won't be a problem is a damned idiot.


----------



## Bypass (Nov 16, 2017)

AWP said:


> I merged the threads.
> 
> Anyone who thinks the burn pits aren't/ won't be a problem is a damned idiot.


Thank you. I didn't see this thread.


----------



## AWP (Nov 16, 2017)

Bypass said:


> Thank you. I didn't see this thread.



No worries. I hope things improve for you and your family.

Fuck cancer.


----------



## Bypass (Nov 16, 2017)

AWP said:


> No worries. I hope things improve for you and your family.
> 
> Fuck cancer.


Thank you and agreed.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Nov 16, 2017)

.


----------



## Bypass (Nov 16, 2017)

Red Flag 1 said:


> I am very sad to hear about your Thyroid cancer diagnosis.
> 
> If I can help, give me a shout.


Thank you brother. I appreciate that. The VA says Thyroid cancer is the slowest developing cancer and they are monitoring it with some action to be taken very soon I suspect.


----------



## RackMaster (Nov 16, 2017)

@Bypass sorry to hear. Sadly I think it will be the cause of most our death's. 

FUCK CANCER !


----------



## BloodStripe (Nov 17, 2017)

Bypass said:


> I have been diagnosed with thyroid cancer by the VA and I now have the worst case of psoriasis my doctor has ever seen in his words. We had a burn pit right next to our dwelling in Iraq at FOB Delta which was used most of the day so whenever my three man team got off mission we got to enjoy the sweet smell of burning plastic and anything else anyone cared to throw into the fire.
> 
> Anyone else having any issues like this?
> 
> ...



It's my understanding that psoriasis is  hereditary. However, I know too many OIF/OEF vets that have it that I have a strong belief that the two coincide with each other. 

Stay strong brother.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Nov 17, 2017)

t.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 11, 2018)

*- UPDATE -*

Joe Biden links military burn pits to Beau Biden's cancer | Daily Mail Online

Joe Biden has acknowledged that toxic military burn pits could have been a 'significant' factor that drove his son to an early death from terminal brain cancer.  Beau Biden, who was 46 when he died in 2015, served in Iraq at two locations which commonly burned waste in open pits, using jet fuel to speed up the process.

Now, after years of studies suggesting links between cancer and burn pits, Beau's father Joe has made his first public comments on the matter, saying he was 'stunned' by a book which tracked his son's exposure to the carcinogenic fumes.
'[T]hat stunned me. I didn’t know that,' Biden said in an interview with PBS News Hour on Wednesday.


----------



## pardus (Jan 11, 2018)

I believe that burn pits will be the GWOT version of Agent Orange in Vietnam.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 12, 2018)

Let's hope it doesn't take as long for the VA to acknowledge the burn pit connection as it did for AO. Lives will be lost by delay.


----------



## Florida173 (Jan 13, 2018)

Did AO have any qualitative means for proof, or was it just increased cancer rates? Because I remember reading that they still don't have conclusive evidence on the effects from lab studies and that the rates are not necessarily more than those that didn't serve.

I don't know what the effects of the burn pits are specifically, but anyone can do a PFT. Last time I did it I came out with a 25% lung capacity. No idea if it's related.


----------



## pardus (Jan 13, 2018)

Florida173 said:


> Did AO have any qualitative means for proof, or was it just increased cancer rates? Because I remember reading that they still don't have conclusive evidence on the effects from lab studies and that the rates are not necessarily more than those that didn't serve.
> 
> I don't know what the effects of the burn pits are specifically, but anyone can do a PFT. Last time I did it I came out with a 25% lung capacity. No idea if it's related.



I would be surprised if the components of AO were not toxic to humans. If one component is, the case is clear and closed IMO.
The burn pits are not just a lung issue, though that is the obvious first thought.
Everyone who served in Afghanistan has titanium in their lungs, according to to a published expert Dr in the VA that I spoke to a few years ago. They determined this after lung biopsies in A'stan vets. Titanium is prevalent in the fine dust we were all breathing in.
His did say that it is benign...


----------



## Gunz (Jan 14, 2018)

You can take one look at heavily defoliated areas...or at the various crap emitting smoke and fumes from burnpits and you just know that shit is some pure evil.

IMO it's worth the risk if some fakers and frauds get care and compensation as long as the people who were really exposed to this shit get the help they need. Our country owes them.


----------



## pardus (Jan 28, 2018)

Dr Szema was the guy I mentioned earlier. 
There is a video somewhere online...




> Illness from burn pits a health issue for returning vets


----------



## Florida173 (Feb 15, 2018)

This seems promising
Court determines military burn pits caused lung disease in service members


----------



## BloodStripe (Feb 16, 2018)

The burn bit registry still doesnt care about contractors or GS employees. They want them to go through workmen's comp.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 4, 2018)

Keeping this thread updated as I happen across new info.  This is an editorial by the board of our metro newspaper; they do a stellar job comparing the burn pits to agent orange.

Veterans deserve answers on exposure to burn pits


----------



## Box (Jul 5, 2018)

Its odd how veterans impacted by that kind of shit are just trying to scam the government out of money but everyone else in the world is actively dying from the global warming brought about by "fumes" from humans burning stuff...
...but veterans are just looking for a handout


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 12, 2019)

*- update -*

New law would require Pentagon to identify all burn pit locations

My Grandpa used to go after us for throwing styrofoam into our campfires; who the hell thought this was a good idea?

_According to personal reports and Defense Department documents, all types of rubbish went into the pits – household trash, hospital waste, animal carcasses, plastics, batteries, tires, computers and other office equipment._


----------



## “The Old Man” (Dec 12, 2019)

I am really interested in seeing a full disclosure list. Of all the burn pits that are at places. That in the past were denied to either not exist. Or even worse, were declared non-hazardous. Which is bullshit. 
They built a solar collection array over top of the entire B- site at Detrick. This was our training area. As well as a site for the burning of biological waste from the labs.


----------



## racing_kitty (Dec 12, 2019)

I’d be interested in what they say about Rifles Base/Hurricane Point/Camp Ramadi or whatever the hell name of that palace that was located at the fork in the Euphrates. Tiny ass camp, small enough that an RPG launched through the front gate could fly halfway to the backside, and right smack dab at the halfway point was a burn pit. Made running for PT hell.


----------



## “The Old Man” (Dec 12, 2019)

racing_kitty said:


> I’d be interested in what they say about Rifles Base/Hurricane Point/Camp Ramadi or whatever the hell name of that palace that was located at the fork in the Euphrates. Tiny ass camp, small enough that an RPG launched through the front gate could fly halfway to the backside, and right smack dab at the halfway point was a burn pit. Made running for PT hell.


Camp Corregidor?


----------



## racing_kitty (Dec 14, 2019)

Tinman6 said:


> Camp Corregidor?


 Used to have a 3-story palace on the river bank that they leveled because the JDAMs dudded out (that was interesting to see)?  Landed helos on the back lawn, had all the rat rigs lined up on the river bank, and the water filtration point was right across the street? Directly across the river was a factory that sat idle for ages?

That place changed names so many times it wasn’t funny. Maybe they settled on Corregidor. But yeah.


----------



## Viper1 (Apr 10, 2020)

Bump for some new members. Airborne Hazards and Open Burn Pit Registry

Getting a login in is fairly simple, especially with CAC card.

Getting through the website is frustrating, especially seeing the deployment start and end dates being incorrect. Example, it has me deployed to Iraq for one day. One!

This is what happens when we have multiple systems tracking the same information and they do not talk to each. A pull from my ORB or the new IPPSA system would fix the errors.  We should do better.  All that said, it is worth it. Do it.


----------



## Raksasa Kotor (Apr 11, 2020)

Everyone on my team tried to register a year or so ago and provided proof of exposure that included documents and photos. 

We were all told by the VA that we didn't qualify because the location wasn't on their list. 

No fucking shit it's not on your list! None of the places we go are going to be on your fucking list by the very nature of our job - that's why we provided proof!

Our partners held a literal dumpster fire 20 feet from our hooch/TOC at least twice a week and the prevailing winds carried the smoke straight to our front door. But hey - it's not on the list, so it couldn't possibly affect our health, right? Fucking clownshoes.


----------



## compforce (Apr 11, 2020)

Raksasa Kotor said:


> Everyone on my team tried to register a year or so ago and provided proof of exposure that included documents and photos.
> 
> We were all told by the VA that we didn't qualify because the location wasn't on their list.
> 
> ...



That applied to me too back when I registered.  There was a check box for "Other operations associated with OIF/OEF/GWOT".  Is that box not there any longer?


----------



## Raksasa Kotor (Apr 11, 2020)

compforce said:


> That applied to me too back when I registered.  There was a check box for "Other operations associated with OIF/OEF/GWOT".  Is that box not there any longer?



It's been a while - I recall writing a short narrative explaining the location of the claim on the website (which was also included in the documentation we provided).


----------



## Viper1 (Apr 11, 2020)

compforce said:


> That applied to me too back when I registered.  There was a check box for "Other operations associated with OIF/OEF/GWOT".  Is that box not there any longer?



There is but it is by specific countries around gulf of Oman, Gulf of Aden, etc.

The questions and the way they are framed gives me a feeling that this will be the medical rights fight of our generation, similar to the fight our predecessors had from Gulf War and Vietnam.


----------



## Viper1 (Apr 11, 2020)

Raksasa Kotor said:


> It's been a while - I recall writing a short narrative explaining the location of the claim on the website (which was also included in the documentation we provided).


So short narratives are no longer necessary or asked for. @Raksasa Kotor  you can input country and then type in specific FOB or province by name.


----------



## BloodStripe (Apr 30, 2020)

I recieved this email a few days ago. Does the wording in this mean the VA is finally recognizing that burn pits are a real threat to our health?

(edited to fix typos. My phone screen is cracked and it's starting to add in words)


----------



## “The Old Man” (Apr 30, 2020)

Looks to me like. They are addressing a concern without really acknowledging as valid. The very real cause of the concern. 
I received the same email.  Even though the VA and the DOD. Do not officially recognize the burn pits we had at Detrick.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 1, 2022)

<Update>

From Kelly Kennedy Twitter feed:

Kelly Kennedy - Twitter Feed

_@POTUS will propose establishing presumption for rare respiratory cancers connected to #burnpits at the State of the Union address tonight, administration officials say.

:squamous cell carcinoma of the larynx and trachea, adenocarcinoma of the trachea, salivary gland-type tumors of the trachea and lung, adenosquamous carcinoma of the lung, large-cell carcinoma of the lung, sarcomatoid carcinoma of the lung, typical/atypical carcinoid of the lung.

Constrictive bronchiolitis is still going through the review process, a high-ranking administration official said.

@POTUS also supports legislative efforts for service-connected disabilities stemming from environmental exposures, the official said.

About 3.5 million veterans may have been exposed to particulate matter while deployed, the official said, so the administration is looking at potential costs of the new rule, as well as recent rules tying other respiratory symptoms, such as asthma, to service.

VA.gov | Veterans Affairs_


----------



## Marine0311 (Mar 2, 2022)

I filed for a claim.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 3, 2022)

Marine0311 said:


> I filed for a claim.


Hopefully it gets approved right out of the gate. If not, appeal.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 28, 2022)

Jon Stewart on fire…


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1552685990980059138


----------



## pardus (Jul 29, 2022)

Why did the republicans vote against this?


----------



## Gunz (Jul 29, 2022)

pardus said:


> Why did the republicans vote against this?



There was apparently $400-billion in unrelated spending attached to the bill, some of it involving climate change. They support the bill but didn’t want to support the riders which they feel are fiscally irresponsible.

They’re getting tons of heat on this and no doubt will have to do serious damage control. Ultimately I think the bill will pass.


----------



## AWP (Jul 29, 2022)

The problem is they voted 85-14 or something last month to pass the bill. Some changes were made, I don’t know what, and now they’ve overwhelmingly rejected the bill.

The optics on this are horrible and they have really screwed themselves by not explaining the Nay votes. Then you have things like Darth Scott’s tweet from the USO all the while knowing he was going to vote against the bill.

ETA: 84-something back on June 16th. Congress.gov doesn’t show any changes submitted after the 14th, so the bill was good then, but not 6 weeks later?


----------



## pardus (Jul 29, 2022)

I wonder if that 400b was tacked on in the last 6 weeks then?
I figured it would be something like that, no bill is just a bill on it’s own. Fucking politics.

I just read this, kind of explains things…
Fate of Historic Toxic Exposure Bill Unclear After Shocking Senate Defeat


----------



## Gunz (Jul 29, 2022)

The Republicans wanted funding for the bill through annual appropriations, not mandatory spending. The vote was basically a protest Republicans wanted to get on record in case the bill with the riders blows up in the future. 

So…when they have another vote—maybe Monday—the bill should pass. Hopefully. In the meantime, bad PR for GOP prior to midterms.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 29, 2022)

I know some dismiss Jon Stewart, but when he speaks for  9/11 and Vets, it is consistently influential.


----------



## Cookie_ (Jul 29, 2022)

The 84-14 (really 12 because two didn't vote) record last month had dissenters because of the discretionary vs mandatory spending, but that was already in the original version. Nothing was changed in the bill when it went back to the house other than technical fixes.
It is the same bill, they basically just fixed typos/formatting.

The only viable reason 25 GOP members changed votes is because Manchin agreed to work on the build back better bill.

These shitbag Senators are using vets as a fucking protest vote because they don't like the spending that will come from an unrelated bill.

New benefits for burn pit victims in limbo after Senate Republicans block plan


----------



## compforce (Jul 29, 2022)

I'm going to say there's more here than meets the eye.  There is literally ZERO incentive for any Senator to vote against a bill like this one if you take it at face value.  I guarantee there's something in the language of the bill or in the proposed markups that opens the door to some abuse cooked into it.  I'll reserve judgment until the people that voted against it come out with their public reasoning.


----------



## Cookie_ (Jul 29, 2022)

Stop giving a pass to these politicians simply because they have a (R) next to their names.

Not a single thing has changed in this bill that would cause 25 people to jump ship. Why is it they care about fiscal responsibility when it comes to veterans healthcare?




> Wednesday’s failed vote was rooted in the budgetary policy dispute that was first raised last month by Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.), who objected to the way the bill would change the accounting of about $400 billion in preexisting veterans spending. That previously authorized spending had been designated as discretionary — that is, subject to yearly congressional appropriations. But the bill, known as the PACT Act, authorizes $280 billion of new mandatory spending — that is, not subject to yearly appropriations — and also converts the prior $400 billion in authorizations from discretionary to mandatory.


The money argument is that the $400 billion already earmarked to go to the VA is money that has to be approved every year, and the bill would make it mandatory. It would also add that $280 billion to expand coverages for burn pit/cancer/Agent Orange exposure.




> That, Toomey first argued last month, amounts to a budget “gimmick” that could facilitate massive amounts of new appropriated spending: “Why would they do a thing like that?” he said in a June 24 floor speech. “The reason is because that way you create a big gaping hole in the discretionary spending category, which can be filled with another $400 billion of totally unrelated spending — who knows on what.”


His argument is "maybe they might possibly do a thing with the yearly budget bill where we all have to vote to pass it anyways".

You know what the GOP can do if the dems try to slide in $400 billion of new discretionary spending? Just not vote on the annual appropriation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/28/republicans-burn-pits-veterans/

IDK about anybody else on this board, but veteran's healthcare shouldn't be a yearly budget battle. Medicare and Medicaid are funded under mandatory spending, so why not the VA? We can spend ~$800 billion on the DOD but are willing to pinch pennies when it comes to vets?


----------



## amlove21 (Jul 29, 2022)

I would urge you to read Hunter Seven Foundation's take on the PACT. You might have to find them on IG; they're good people (I know them personally, and have had some of them on the pod). 

Aside from the issues already stated; the PACT did almost zero in terms of actually doing what it was supposed to do- provide legitimate resources for screening, testing, and entering service members into preventative programs for cancer awareness and detection. Furthermore- the money (the real money for those programs and not the VA budget) was underwhelming. 

For instance- the PACT directed the VA to "Ask screening questions every 5 years"... so, legitimately, Jon Stewart is screaming in the streets for the VA to ask people, "Hey, any reason you think you might have cancer?" twice a decade. Is that the change we need?

They break it down much more than I can; they even included examples of tens (probably hundreds apply to this but are just unknown) of dead service members that the PACT would not have helped in any real way. 

I understand everyone's need to breathlessly pick a side and throw your opinion out there. But, as you read this bill and _actually line out the things it was supposed to accomplish and then bounce that off the money those things got, _I have a hard time getting too worked up about it. 

The Stewart performance art was fun and all, but all it does is find yet another wedge to drive politics into an issue where it really doesn't need to be. And that's not to demean Jon Stewart- I perceive him to care on some level about the cause.  

But good thing no one here is falling for that! So, kudos to all with the well balanced and non-emotional takes.


----------



## Cookie_ (Jul 29, 2022)

Idk why this formatted weird, but you're talking about this post @amlove21?


HunterSeven Foundation on Instagram: "Before you go rioting and calling on senators to be hung for treason, read this post.  The PACT Act was pushed to the Senate for a vote tonight, and failed to pass the 60-vote threshold.  Now we will never claim to be “politicians” or “legislative subject matter experts”. We are medical providers, we provide healthcare for those in need, and we advocate for our patients.  We've had many reach out and ask us about the #PACTact - the multi-billion dollar bill that has claimed to help 'save veteran lives', in reality, and from a medical perspective, we are sorely disappointed in the lack of actual lifesaving measures and methods that would be enacted by this bill.  We were able to confirm no medical or subject matter experts were included in the formation of this bill. We also requested the medical diagnoses and included cancers be re-evaluated by the level of mortality and severity for inclusiveness and prioritization, but we were denied.  We requested consideration for cancer screening and early identification be included through secondary prevention measures, unfortunately, it was denied also.  In fact, in the full 150 page bill, we checked out how many of the following words were used: - Compensation: 20x - Benefit: 39x - Presumptive: 60x - Screening: 10x 🚩 - Prevention: ZERO TIMES 🚩  The #medical moral and ethics surround this bill are painful for us to bare witness. We need early identification of cancers, cancer screenings, not just within the VA but overall. This bill does not do that.  The 44-year old Night stalker Pilot who passed from Leukemia, he wouldn’t be covered under this bill. And, if you ask his wife, and three young daughters if compensation would help ease their loss, what do you think they would say?  No amount of money can fill the heartbreaking loss of a loved one. Cancer screening early on for those at risk saves lives.  We care for these military #veterans suffering, struggling for screening, in pain, and some who we unfortunately couldn’t help in time and those who didn’t make it.  The moral is - there are two sides to every story, there is a motive and a reason why people do what they do… ours is to prevent as many deaths as possible."


----------



## Cookie_ (Aug 3, 2022)

The bill has passed without any changes.

Three Ammendments were proposed:



> The amendments offered on the legislation included one from Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., who proposed that the bill be funded using mainly discretionary funds, the amount of which are determined and set by Congress each year, instead of mandatory spending, which would automatically have to be funded in every budget cycle.
> 
> A second was offered by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who sought to cover the cost of the bill by reducing funds to the U.S. Agency for International Development, while Sen. Marsha Blackburn, D-Ga., offered an amendment to allow veterans in the VA health system immediate access to community care.
> 
> All three failed.



The Toomey argument was always bullshit (IMO). The only reason for this spending to be discretionary instead of mandatory is if you want to cut it later.
I firmly believe that VA Healthcare should be mandatory spending the same as Medicare/medicaid.

The Paul Ammendment was fine for trying to balance the checkbook, so to speak. I wouldn't have been upset if it passed.

It sucks the Blackburn Ammendment failed. That would have been a major help to people who needed it.

Here's a like to the Hunter Seven Foundation's take on the bill.

As @amlove21 mentioned, there's a lot of shortcomings in this bill.
There's still a lot of work to be done to get this right, but I think something in effect now is better than waiting years for a perfect bill.


----------



## compforce (Aug 3, 2022)

Cookie_ said:


> The Toomey argument was always bullshit (IMO). The only reason for this spending to be discretionary instead of mandatory is if you want to cut it later.
> I firmly believe that VA Healthcare should be mandatory spending the same as Medicare/medicaid.


That's not what his argument was.  His argument was that by making the spending mandatory the way the bill is written creates up to a discretionary $400B over 10 years that doesn't go away.

Don't believe what the media (or John Stewart) are saying his motives are, here's his direct explanation to Congress


----------



## AWP (Aug 3, 2022)

I find it interesting that Fox News hasn't covered this but CNN has run stories (both examples are online, I can't speak to the TV side).


----------



## Cookie_ (Aug 3, 2022)

compforce said:


> That's not what his argument was.  His argument was that by making the spending mandatory the way the bill is written creates up to a discretionary $400B over 10 years that doesn't go away.
> 
> Don't believe what the media (or John Stewart) are saying his motives are, here's his direct explanation to Congress


Yea, I understand his stated reason for that. I also think it's  bullshit.

He could have proposed an Ammendment that moving this 400b from discretionary to mandatory would zero out (reduce overall discretionary by 400b), but he didn't.

This style of budget balancing is what the Paul Ammendment would have done. I can get behind that one, not Toomey's.

But again, I think the VA budget for care/facilities/providers (not administrators) should be higher. (We also need community care options expanded, amongst other things.)


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 3, 2022)

So, I wonder what the first few pages of this discussion looks like, given the newer information and multiple sources we got to hear from...

It's almost like (and this is gonna be crazy, I know) the government consistently does shit like this (gluttonous bills chock full of bullshit, too long to read and actually internalize, that are intended to never sunset), and then average citizens with google and an opinion magically become experts on the topic and wait .0000000002 seconds to weigh in.

No one here is falling for that; you're all too smart. But there are a lot of people allowing themselves to get worked up about things they don't understand, powered by people they don't know. The "72 hour rule" should be mandatory, not a rule of thumb.


----------



## compforce (Aug 3, 2022)

We're just going to have to disagree on this.  There's no mechanism to change the discretionary spending in the budget after it has been approved.



Cookie_ said:


> But again, I think the VA budget for care/facilities/providers (not administrators) should be higher. (We also need community care options expanded, amongst other things.)


I'd be perfectly happy to have the VA's health care budget REDUCED in favor of an insurance model that paid for all procedures, prescriptions, etc. to be performed by private practitioners.  I know that supposedly exists in some form somewhere, but I've never actually seen it in practice.  We shouldn't have to fight for benefits.  Lawyers that specialize in getting benefits for Veterans shouldn't even be a thing.  I have ZERO faith in the VA health system.


----------



## compforce (Aug 3, 2022)

amlove21 said:


> The "72 hour rule" should be mandatory, not a rule of thumb.


As opposed to discretionary?


----------



## Cookie_ (Aug 3, 2022)

compforce said:


> I'd be perfectly happy to have the VA's health care budget REDUCED in favor of an insurance model that paid for all procedures, prescriptions, etc. to be performed by private practitioners. I know that supposedly exists in some form somewhere, but I've never actually seen it in practice. We shouldn't have to fight for benefits. Lawyers that specialize in getting benefits for Veterans shouldn't even be a thing. I have ZERO faith in the VA health system.



That's sadly one of the amendments that got shot down. I think it would reduce the VA's operational budget and improve quality of care if those rules were expanded. The current community care rules are pretty limiting on who can use them.

Under the 4th criteria for community care:



> In this situation, VA is unable to schedule an appointment that is within both average driving time standards and wait time standards. For average drive time to a specific VA medical facility, the access standards are:
> 
> 
> 30-minute average drive time for primary care, mental health, and non-institutional extended care services (including adult day health care)
> ...



I'd be perfectly fine with the VA just being a department that just paid out benefits instead of running health care facilities.


----------



## RackMaster (Aug 3, 2022)

Cookie_ said:


> I'd be perfectly fine with the VA just being a department that just paid out benefits instead of running health care facilities.




That is exactly how ours was run, they still fucked it up and instead contracted out to Blue Cross to manage benefits.


----------



## pardus (Nov 30, 2022)




----------

