As far as using the OSHA or NIOSH information to target known health risks to specific chemicals i think you would find many that advocates for the chemical companies or in this case the Gov. that does not want to claim financial liability would use the strict know chemical research as you point out and in all likelihood that is what Gov. had used to deny the claims, but talk with chemical toxicologist that work with real people and real exposure they will tell you the validity in using this approach for multiple exposures, toxic pits, or toxic sites, is sorely inadequate because once the chemical are mixed together, and once multiple chemical target the body a whole new beast has been created, as the chemical combine and make new chemicals.Most all of these chemicals are aromatic hydro-carbons and know from experience some people with over-exposure it can weaken the immune system, and it can also set up a chemical hyper-sensitivity so that the body is predisposed to immune related diseases. . . Also the long term effects of chemicals on the body is an areas that has little research. It looks like in this situation with the rarity of men's breast cancer it is highly likely there was a chemical cocktail that has turned deadly. . .This is just my opinion Superdestroyer and i am no expert, just one that due to my lack of understanding learned the hard way, and now am a bit cautious of the chemical world and the power they yield in insuring their products are marketable. . .

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0048.html
Benzene
Exposure
Limits
NIOSH REL: Ca TWA 0.1 ppm ST 1 ppm See Appendix A
OSHA PEL: [1910.1028] TWA 1 ppm ST 5 ppm See Appendix F

Respirator Recommendations
(See Appendix E) NIOSH
At concentrations above the NIOSH REL, or where there is no REL, at any detectable concentration:
(APF = 10,000) Any self-contained breathing apparatus that has a full facepiece and is operated in a pressure-demand or other positive-pressure mode
(APF = 10,000) Any supplied-air respirator that has a full facepiece and is operated in a pressure-demand or other positive-pressure mode in combination with an auxiliary self-contained positive-pressure breathing apparatus
Escape:
(APF = 50) Any air-purifying, full-facepiece respirator (gas mask) with a chin-style, front- or back-mounted organic vapor canister/Any appropriate escape-type, self-contained breathing apparatus
Important additional information about respirator selection
Exposure Routes
inhalation, skin absorption, ingestion, skin and/or eye contact
Symptoms
Irritation eyes, skin, nose, respiratory system; dizziness; headache, nausea, stagger

It list the following standards.

TWA: 0.5 STEL: 2.5 (ppm) from ACGIH (TLV) [United States]
TWA: 1.6 STEL: 8 (mg/m3) from ACGIH (TLV) [United States]
TWA: 0.1 STEL: 1 from NIOSH
TWA: 1 STEL: 5 (ppm) from OSHA (PEL) [United States]
TWA: 10 (ppm) from OSHA (PEL) [United States]
TWA: 3 (ppm) [United Kingdom (UK)]
TWA: 1.6 (mg/m3) [United Kingdom (UK)]
TWA: 1 (ppm) [Canada]
TWA: 3.2 (mg/m3) [Canada]
TWA: 0.5 (ppm) [Canada]Consult local authorities for acceptable exposure limits.

The short term exposure level would apply to the military during peace time operations.

However, OSHA numbers should not be used for drinking water. It is controlled by the Safe Drinking Water Act http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c...

There are standards for Benzene and TCE. The Safe Drinking Water Act is set at a 1 in a million cancer risk from drinking the water for 70 years. So it would be easy for veterans to drink water that is not incompliance with the SDWA but would be well below the standard for any type of veterans compensation.

Also, the article mixed its statistics. Mems breast cancer is rare but in the last forty years, how many men have been assigned to Camp Lejune and what is the 95% CI for breast cancer in a group of men that large.

FT – I for one appreciated you owning up to the “jackass” comment and acknowledging the value of Ghost's comment. Don't be too quick to judge roro80. I know first hand how gracious he/she can be when differences are reconciled, and they can be with mutual respect. roro80 has a fine mind and a good heart to go along with those strong opinions.

FT .. no problem. I wake up every morning with what the DSM IV calls “early morning growl syndrome.” They tell me there is no cure but I'm still working on it with my therapist! (and she hasn't given up yet!)
When one lives in the “growl glass house” as much as I do, one likes to extend some compassion for other human beings who have a rare growl moment.
Thank you for the apology FT! Much appreciated.
Ghost

My apologies to Ghostdreams for the “jackass” comment and by-the-way that was very good post Ghostdreams. I'm going to blame it on the constant harassment from roro80 that is making me edgy.

E

z of c

“The degreaser (trichloroethylene) used to be used for weapon cleaning in vat tanks.”

“Gulf War syndrome” was a host of maladies claimed by many vets from the early 1990s war that had some suspecting that the vets were exposed to nerve agents (among the chemical weapons that Iraq had developed and used against Iran, and was a threat ever since to use against us when we took military action against Iraq). What apparently became news recently was a perfectly logical explation of an alternative: that vets may have been exposed not necessarily to chemical weapons, but at various times to insecticides that were in the same chemical family as many nerve agents and less powerful versions used throughout the world as insecticides (namely, organophosphate compounds that have an anticholinergic effect), but insecticides that are more powerful than those allowed to be used in the USA, i.e., older and more powerful insecticides that have been banned for many years in the Western nations. (The best known example is parathion, which is highly toxic, whereas a less powerful and much less dangerous example commonly used nowadays in the USA is the more sinister-sounding malathion.)

In other words, vets suffering from symptoms appearing to be those of poisoning by organophosphate anticholinergic nerve agents (the most powerful and toxic such compounds) may instead have been struck by overexposure from the use (or misuse) of related, though less-powerful and less-toxic such compounds (more powerful and toxic than those approved for use as insecticides here in the USA at the present time; many others were banned because of the dangers). It's a clearly logical explanation.

And,

“The VA should cover those malidies, though. I'm not sure why they haven't.”

In the other example, what springs also to mind promptly is that it could have involved wrongdoing, or may nave just been careless, negligence, or ignorance at the time, but at the present time fault doesn't want to be admitted because of the legal and other consequences that might conceivably be brought upon the parties involved — not only government authorities, but contractors, and of course the firms who manufactured the substances or otherwise caused the exposure. Avoiding blame and liability, in other words, if not an outright coverup. Then, of course, we can add a simple, cynical desire to reduce costs (of paying benefits to the vets), as seems to be the case with the “pre-existing condition” or related game playing associated with post-traumatic stress disorder and physical damage like concussions that were suffered by vets in the more recent war in Iraq.

thanks. It's a mystery made for z of c.
dr.e

Thanks,
dr.e

Thanks
dr.e

At least two screen heights of blank nothing?!

your signature made me smile

Carry on.

dr.e

dr.e

Interestingly, service people are nowadays held to those strict codes just as foremen and forewomen are in state road departments which use all kinds of chemicals in welding and cleaning.

Ghosty