document_title: Georgia General Assembly

question_text: who chooses who will be the speaker of the house in the georgia general assembly

text: Georgia General Assembly

text: History[edit]

text: The General Assembly, which is the legislative branch of the state's government, was created in 1777 during the American Revolution—it is older than the United States Congress. During its existence the Assembly has moved four different times when the state capital changed its location. The first location the Assembly served in was Savannah, then Augusta and Louisville, moving from there to Milledgeville, and finally to Atlanta in 1868.[5]

text: The General Assembly in Savannah[edit]

text: By January 1777 Savannah had become the capital of Georgia—when the former colony declared independence from Britain. The legislature, then a unicameral body, met there in 1777–1778—retreating to Augusta when the British captured the city. They were not in Augusta long before it was captured by the British in 1779. Augusta changed hands three times during the war, finally returning to American possession in July 1781. They stayed in Augusta until the British left Savannah in May 1782 and the legislature returned to the capital.[5]

text: Move to Augusta[edit]

text: Between 1783–95, the Georgia General Assembly met in both Savannah and Augusta—moving from there when tensions arose between the two cities, causing then Governor Lyman Hall to officially reside in both places. On February 22, 1785 the General Assembly held its last meeting in Savannah—Augusta had become the official capital due to pressure from the general populace to have their capital in the center of the state.[5]

text: On to Louisville[edit]

text: As the population dispersed—shifting the geographic center, it was determined that the state's capital needed to move as well. A commission was appointed by the legislature in 1786 to find a suitable location that was central to the new demography. The commission recommended Louisville, which would become Georgia's first planned capital and would hold her first capitol building. Due to the fact that the capital would have to be built from the ground up, and because of numerous construction delays, it took a decade to build the city. The name Louisville was chosen by the General Assembly in honor of King Louis XVI of France for France's aid during the Revolutionary War.

text: The new state house, a two-story 18th century Gregorian building of red brick, was completed in 1796. The Legislature designated Louisville the "permanent seat" of Georgia's government. Yet, further western expansion created the need for another new state capital. The capitol building was purchased by Jefferson County and used as a courthouse, but the building had to be torn down because it became unsound. A plaque marks the location of the old Capitol.[5]

text: The Assembly arrives in Milledgeville[edit]

text:
Ordinance of Secession
Facsimile of the 1861 Ordinance of Secession signed by 293 delegates to the Georgia Secession Convention at the statehouse in Milledgeville, Georgia January 21, 1861.

text: In 1804, the state government decided that yet another capital, would be needed. Subsequently, an act was passed authorizing construction of a new capital city on 3,240 acres (13 km2) in the area currently known as Baldwin County. The city was named Milledgeville in honor of Governor John Milledge.

text: The new Capitol took two years to complete and was a brick construction in the Gothic Revival style. The legislature convened The Georgia Secession Convention of 1861 in the Milledgeville statehouse on January 16, 1861. On January 19, delegates voted for Georgia to secede from the Union—208 in favor with 89 against—drafting a new constitution, and declaring the state an independent Republic.

text: On January 21, Assembly delegates celebrated their decision by a public signing of the Ordinance of Secession outside of the State Capitol. The legislature also voted to send $100,000 to South Carolina for "the relief of Charlestonians" who suffered a disastrous fire in December 1861. With General Sherman's approach, the members of the General Assembly adjourned in fall 1864, reconvening briefly in Macon in 1865. As the American Civil War came to a close with the federal government in military control of Georgia, the legislature reconvened at the Capitol in Milledgeville.[5]

text: Atlanta[edit]

text: In 1867, Major General John Pope, military governor of Georgia, called for an assembly in Atlanta to hold a constitutional convention. At that time Atlanta officials moved once again to have the city designated as Georgia's state capital, donating the property where Atlanta's first city hall was constructed. The constitutional convention agreed and the people voted to ratify the decision on April 20, 1868. The Georgia General Assembly first convened in Atlanta on July 4, 1868.

text: In 1884, the legislature appropriated one million dollars to build a new State Capitol. Construction began October 26, 1884 and the building was completed (slightly under budget) and occupied on June 15, 1889.[5]

text: Notably, the dome atop the capitol building is plated with real gold, most of which came from the Dahlonega, Georgia area.[6]  The roofing gives rise to local colloquialisms—for instance, if one knowledgeable Georgian wanted to ask another what the General Assembly was doing, he might ask what was happening "under the gold dome."[7]

text: Organization and procedure of the General Assembly[edit]

text: The General Assembly meets in regular session on the second Monday in January for no longer than  40 legislative (rather than calendar) days each year. Neither the House nor the Senate can adjourn during a regular session for longer than three days or meet in any place other than the state capitol without the other house's consent.

text: Committees[edit]

text: Rules of procedure, employees and interim committees[edit]

text: Both houses of the General Assembly may determine procedural rules provide for its employees. The General Assembly as a whole, or each house separately, has the ability to create interim committees.

text: Oath of office[edit]

text: Before taking office senators and representatives must swear (or affirm) an oath—stipulated by state law.

text: Quorum[edit]

text: A majority of the members to which each house is entitled shall constitute a quorum to transact business. A smaller number may adjourn from day to day and compel the presence of its absent members.

text: Vacancies[edit]

text: Whenever a vacancy occurs in the General Assembly, an event that occurs whenever a member dies, resigns, or moves from the district from which he was elected, it is filled according to Georgia law and the Constitution.[8] If the vacancy occurs anytime prior to the end of the legislative session in the second year of a term, the governor must issue a writ of special election within ten days of the vacancy occurring, and, if the vacancy occurs after the end of the legislative session in the second year of a term, then the governor may choose to issue a writ of special election. But, if the vacancy exists at the time that an extraordinary session is called, then the governor must issue a writ of special election within 2 days after the call for the extraordinary session, and, if the vacancy occurs after the call but before the special session has concluded, then the governor must issue a writ of special election within 5 days of the occurrence. In each case, the writ of special election must designate a day on which the election will be held, which must be no less than 30 days and no more than 60 days after the governor issues the writ.[9]

text: Salaries[edit]

text: Members of the General Assembly receive salaries provided by law, so long as that salary does not increase before the end of the term during which the increase becomes effective. Members of the Georgia General Assembly currently earn $17,000 a year.[10]

text: Election and returns; disorderly conduct[edit]

text: Both houses hold the responsibility of judging the election, returns, and qualifications of their members. Also, both houses have the power to punish members for disorderly misconduct. Punishments for such conduct are:

text:
censure
fine
imprisonment
expulsion

text: However, no member can be expelled without a vote of two-thirds of the members of the house the member belongs to.

text: Contempt[edit]

text: When a person is guilty of contempt, the individual may be imprisoned if ordered by either the House or the Senate.

text: Elections by either house[edit]

text: All elections of the General Assembly are to be recorded. The recorded vote then appears in the journal of each house.

text: Open meetings[edit]

text: Sessions of the General Assembly, including committee meetings, are open to the public except when either house makes an exception.

text: Legislative history[edit]

text: The General Assembly does not publish reports and does not keep bill files. Major legislation is discussed in detail in the Peach Sheets,[11] a student-written part of Georgia State University College of Law's Law Review. Recent Peach Sheet articles are available in an online archive. Otherwise, Peach Sheets articles should be included in the Georgia State Law Review databases on Lexis, Westlaw and HeinOnline.[12]

text: Composition[edit]

text: The Georgia General Assembly began as a unicameral body in 1777 but changed to a bicameral legislature in 1789. It is now made up of a Senate (the upper house) and a House of Representatives (the lower house). The Senate has 56 members while the House of Representatives has 180. Members from each body serve for two years, but have no limit to the number of times they can be re-elected. Both senators and representatives are elected from their constituents' districts.

text:
Terms of the Georgia General Assembly
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
12th
13th
14th
15th
16th
17th
18th
19th
20th
21st
22nd
23rd
24th
25th
26th
27th
28th
29th
30th
31st
32nd
33rd
34th
35th
36th
37th
38th
39th
40th
41st
42nd
43rd
44th
45th
46th
47th
48th
49th
50th
51st
52nd
53rd
54th
55th
56th
57th
58th
59th
60th
61st
62nd
63rd
64th
65th
66th
67th
68th
69th
70th
71st
72nd
73rd
74th
75th
76th
77th
78th
79th
80th
81st
82nd
83rd
84th
85th
86th
87th
88th
89th
90th
91st
92nd
93rd
94th
95th
96th
97th
98th
99th
100th
101st
102nd
103rd
104th
105th
106th
107th
108th
109th
110th
111th
112th
113th
114th
115th
116th
117th
118th
119th
120th
121st
122nd
123rd
124th
125th
126th
127th
128th
129th
130th
131st
132nd
133rd
134th
135th
136th
137th
138th
139th
140th
141st
142nd
143rd
144th
145th
146th
147th
148th
149th
150th
151st
152nd
153rd
154th
vte

text: Qualifications for election[edit]

text: The Georgia Constitution stipulates that members of the Senate must be citizens of the United States, at least 25 years old, a citizen of the state of Georgia for at least two years, and a legal resident of the district the senator was elected for at least one year. Members of the House of Representatives must be citizens of the United States, at least 21 years old, a Georgia citizen for at least two years, and a legal resident of  district the representative was elected for at least one year.

text: Disqualifications[edit]

text: According to the Georgia Constitution Article III Section II Paragraph IV:[13]

text:
No person on active duty with any branch of the armed forces of the United States shall have a seat in either house unless otherwise provided by law.
No person holding any civil appointment or office having any emolument annexed thereto under the United States, this state, or any other state shall have a seat in either house.
No Senator or Representative shall be elected by the General Assembly or appointed by the Governor to any office or appointment having any emolument annexed thereto during the time for which such person shall have been elected unless the Senator or Representative shall first resign the seat to which elected; provided, however, that, during the term for which elected, no Senator or Representative shall be appointed to any civil office which has been created during such term.

text: Officers[edit]

text: The presiding officer of the Senate is the President of the Senate or Lieutenant Governor. Like the United States Senate, a President Pro Tempore is elected by the Senate from among its members. The President Pro Tempore acts as President in case of the temporary disability of the President. In case of the death, resignation, or permanent disability of the President or in the event of the succession of the President to the executive power, the President Pro Tempore becomes President. The Senate also has as an officer the Secretary of the Senate.

text: The House of Representatives elects its own Speaker and a Speaker Pro Tempore. The Speaker Pro Tempore becomes Speaker in case of the death, resignation, or permanent disability of the Speaker. The Speaker Pro Tempore serves until a new Speaker is elected. The House also has as an officer the Clerk of the House of Representatives.

text: Powers and privileges[edit]

text: Article III Section VI of the Georgia State Constitution specifies the powers given to the Georgia General Assembly.[13] Paragraph I states, "The General Assembly shall have the power to make all laws not inconsistent with this Constitution, and not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, which it shall deem necessary and proper for the welfare of the state." Moreover, the powers the Constitution gives the Assembly include land use restrictions to protect and preserve the environment and natural resources; the creation, use and disciplining through court martial of a state militia which would be under the command of the Governor of Georgia acting as commander-in-chief (excepting times when the militia is under Federal command); The power to expend public money, to condemn property, and to zone property; The continuity of state and local governments during times of emergency; state participation in tourism. The use, control and regulation of outdoor advertising within the state.

text: Limitation of powers[edit]

text: Paragraph V of Article III Section VI states that:

text:
The General Assembly shall not have the power to grant incorporation to private persons but shall provide by general law the manner in which private corporate powers and privileges may be granted.
The General Assembly shall not forgive the forfeiture of the charter of any corporation existing on August 13, 1945, nor shall it grant any benefit to or permit any amendment to the charter of any corporation except upon the condition that the acceptance thereof shall operate as a novation of the charter and that such corporation shall thereafter hold its charter subject to the provisions of this Constitution.
The General Assembly shall not have the power to authorize any contract or agreement which may have the effect of or which is intended to have the effect of defeating or lessening competition, or encouraging a monopoly, which are hereby declared to be unlawful and void.
The General Assembly shall not have the power to regulate or fix charges of public utilities owned or operated by any county or municipality of this state, except as authorized by this Constitution.
No municipal or county authority which is authorized to construct, improve, or maintain any road or street on behalf of, pursuant to a contract with, or through the use of taxes or other revenues of a county or municipal corporation shall be created by any local Act or pursuant to any general Act nor shall any law specifically relating to any such authority be amended unless the creation of such authority or the amendment of such law is conditioned upon the approval of a majority of the qualified voters of the county or municipal corporation affected voting in a referendum thereon. This subparagraph shall not apply to or affect any state authority.

text: Privileges of members[edit]

text: Members of the Georgia General Assembly maintain two important privileges during their time in office. First, no member of either house of the Assembly can be arrested during sessions of the General Assembly or during committee meetings except in cases of treason, felony, or "breach of the peace". Also, members are not liable for anything they might say in either the House or the Senate or in any committee meetings of both.


document_title: List of default file systems

question_text: which file system type is the default for windows operating systems

root

text: List of default file systems

text: Default file system used in various operating systems.

tag: p

text:
Release year
Operating system
File system

1968
George 3
George 3

1971
OS/8
DECtape / OS/8

1972
RSX-11
ODS-1

1974
CP/M
CP/M file system

1980
86-DOS
FAT12, but logically format incompatible with MS-DOS/PC DOS.

1981
PC DOS 1.0
FAT12

1982
MS-DOS 1.25
FAT12

1982
Commodore 64 / 1541
Commodore DOS (CBM DOS)

1984
PC DOS 3.0 / MS-DOS 3.0
FAT16

1984
Classic Mac OS
Macintosh File System (MFS)

1985
Atari TOS
Modified FAT12

1985
Classic Mac OS
Hierarchical File System (HFS)

1987
Compaq MS-DOS 3.31
FAT16B

1988
AmigaOS v1.3
Amiga Fast File System (FFS)

1989
OS/2 v1.2
High Performance File System (HPFS)

1989
SCO UNIX
HTFS

1990
Windows 3.0 / 3.1x
FAT16B

1993
Slackware
ext2

1993
Debian GNU/Linux
ext2

1993
FreeBSD v1-v5.0
UFS1

1994
Windows NT 3.5
NTFS

1995
Windows 95
FAT16B with VFAT

1996
Windows NT 4.0
NTFS

1998
Mac OS 8.1 / macOS
HFS Plus (HFS+)

1998
Windows 98
FAT32 with VFAT

2000
SUSE Linux Enterprise 6.4
ReiserFS[1][2]

2000
Windows Me
FAT32 with VFAT

2000
Windows 2000
NTFS

2000
Ututo GNU/Linux
ext4

2000
Knoppix
ext3

2000
RHEL
ext3

2001
Windows XP
NTFS but FAT32 was also common

2002
Arch Linux
ext4

2002
Gentoo Linux
ext4

2003
FreeBSD v5.1-v9
UFS2

2003
Windows Server 2003
NTFS

2003
Fedora core
ext3

2004
Ubuntu 4.10
ext3

2004
OpenWrt
OverlayFS combining SquashFS + JFFS2

2004
CentOS 3
ext3

2005
Debian GNU/Linux 3.1
ext3

2005
dyne
SquashFS

2006
OpenDOS 7.01.08
FAT32+

2006
gNewSense
ext4

2006
Windows Vista
NTFS

2006
SUSE Linux Enterprise 11
openSUSE 10.2

ext3[3][4]

2007
Slackware 12
ext3

2007
Trisquel
ext4

2008
Windows Server 2008
NTFS

2008
Musix GNU/Linux
ext4

2008
Nexenta OS
ZFS

2009
Windows 7
NTFS

2009
Parabola GNU/Linux
ext4

2009
openSUSE 11
ext4

2009
Slackware 13
ext4

2009
Ubuntu 9.10
ext4

2010
LibreWRT
SquashFS

2011
Fedora 16
Btrfs

2011
CentOS 6
ext4

2011
Debian GNU/kFreeBSD
UFS1

2011
Arch Hurd
ext2

2012
Windows 8
NTFS

2013
Debian GNU/Linux 7.0
ext4

2013
Debian GNU/Hurd
ext2

2014
libreCMC
OverlayFS combining SquashFS + JFFS2

2014
RHEL 7
XFS

2014
CentOS 7
XFS

2015
Windows 10
NTFS

2015
OpenSUSE 42.1
Combination: Btrfs (for system) and XFS (for home).

2016
iOS 10.3
APFS

tag: table


document_title: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword

question_text: where was king arthur legend of the sword shot

text: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword

text: Plot[edit]

text: Mordred, an iron-fisted warlock, and his armies lay siege to Camelot, seeking to establish the dominance of magic-wielding mages over humankind. Uther Pendragon, king of the Britons, infiltrates Mordred's lair and beheads him, saving Camelot. Uther's treacherous brother Vortigern, who covets the throne, orchestrates a coup and sacrifices his wife Elsa to moat hags to become a demon knight, who kills Uther's wife and slays him in combat. The only survivor is Uther's son, who drifts away in a boat and ends up in Londinium, where he is found and raised by prostitutes.

text: Arthur grows into a skilled fighter and man of the streets. Arthur and his friends confront a group of Vikings who had mistreated one of the prostitutes, forcing him to pay her restitution. Afterwards, the brothel is raided by the Blacklegs, Vortigern's minions, and Arthur learns that the Vikings were under the king's protection. Arthur tries to escape the city but is caught and put on a ship with hundreds of other men; the Blacklegs have been forcing all men of Arthur's age to try to pull a sword that has appeared near the castle from the surrounding stone. Arthur is able to remove the sword but is quickly overwhelmed by its power and passes out. Vortigern meets with him in the dungeon, revealing his true lineage.

text: Meanwhile, a mage identifying herself as an acolyte of Merlin presents herself to Uther's former general, Sir Bedivere. At Arthur's planned execution, the mage uses her magic to stage a diversion while Bedivere's men rescue Arthur. Taken to Bedivere's hideout, Arthur initially refuses to help them. The mage persuades Bedivere to take Arthur to a realm called the "Darklands," where he's given a vision of how Uther sacrificed himself to save Arthur and entomb the sword in stone. Arthur learns Vortigern was responsible for persuading Mordred to rebel against humanity, and he returns determined to destroy Vortigern.

text: With his friends and Bedivere's men, Arthur stages a series of ambushes against Vortigern, culminating in an assassination attempt in Londinium. The rebels sense a trap but attack anyway, fleeing to a fighters' school run by Arthur's mentor George, where they are overrun by the Blacklegs. Seeing the mage held at knifepoint, Arthur unleashes Excalibur's potential, single-handedly killing all of the soldiers. The rebels are able to escape the city except for Arthur's injured friend Back Lack, who is killed at Vortigern's hand in front of his son Blue.

text: Ashamed of his failures, Arthur tries to throw away the sword, but the Lady of the Lake returns it and shows him a vision of England's future under Vortigern's rule. Coming to terms with his responsibility, Arthur reunites with Bedivere. When they return to the rebel hideout, however, they discover all of their allies dead, Vortigern having found them and delivered an ultimatum: if Arthur does not surrender himself, the captured mage and Blue will die.

text: Arthur surrenders himself, but as Vortigern is about to execute his nephew, a giant snake summoned by the mage attacks and devours Vortigern's men. While Bedivere and the others lead an attack on the castle, a desperate Vortigern sacrifices his only daughter and is transformed into the demon knight, confronting Arthur in a separate dimension. Despite his fighting skill, Arthur is beaten, and he is about to submit when he witnesses a vision of his father, convincing him to accept the sword and his character as his own. Arthur violently slays Vortigern but blesses him as he dies.

text: In the aftermath, Arthur dissolves Vortigern's pact with the Vikings and begins building a Round Table where his knighted friends will meet. Blue and the prostitutes arrive with the crown of Uther, which Arthur accepts, holding the sword aloft.

text: Cast[edit]

text:
Charlie Hunnam as King Arthur, Uther's son, Vortigern's nephew and the would-be king of Britain who was raised by prostitutes.
Jude Law as Vortigern, Uther's brother, Elsa's husband, Catia's father, Arthur's uncle and the tyrannical ruthless king of Britain.
Àstrid Bergès-Frisbey as the Mage, a woman working for Merlin who supports Arthur and the resistance.
Djimon Hounsou as Sir Bedivere, the leader of the resistance and a former knight of Uther.
Aidan Gillen as Goosefat Bill Wilson, a skilled archer, Bedivere's friend, former knight of Uther and member of the resistance.
Eric Bana as Uther Pendragon, Vortigern's brother, Arthur's father and the king of Britain.
Kingsley Ben-Adir as Sir Tristan "Wet Stick", Arthur and Back Lack's childhood friend who is later knighted by Bedivere.
Craig McGinlay as Sir Percival, a member of the resistance who is later knighted by Bedivere.
Tom Wu as Sir George, Arthur's mentor and a skilled fighter who helps the resistance and is later knighted by Bedivere.
Neil Maskell as Back Lack, Arthur and Tristan's childhood friend and Blue's father, who helps the resistance.
Freddie Fox as Rubio, a member of the resistance who later betrays them under torture and helps Vortigern.
Annabelle Wallis as Maggie, Vortigern's maid who helps the resistance.
Bleu Landau as Blue, Back Lack's son.
Mikael Persbrandt as Greybeard, a viking who has deals with Vortigern.
Poppy Delevingne as Igraine, Arthur's mother and Uther's wife: she is killed by Vortigern in the beginning of the film.
Jacqui Ainsley as Lady of the Lake
Rob Knighton as Mordred
Katie McGrath as Elsa, Vortigern's wife.
Millie Brady as Catia, Vortigern's daughter.
Lorraine Bruce, Eline Powell and Hermione Corfield as the three Syrens.
Michael McElhatton as Jack's Eye, Arthur's scout on the kingdom.
David Beckham as Trigger, a smart-mouthed and scarred soldier of King Vortigern

tag: ul

text: Production[edit]

text: After 2004's King Arthur, Warner Brothers made multiple attempts to make a new film based on Arthurian legend: One was to be a remake of Excalibur, helmed by Bryan Singer, while the other was a movie to have been titled Arthur & Lancelot, which would have starred Kit Harington and Joel Kinnaman, as King Arthur and Lancelot respectively.[10] Warner Brothers suits worried that names were not big enough, and attempted to replace both actors with more profitable ones, before eventually dropping the project all together.[10]

text: Warner's next attempt to create a new King Arthur film was an attempt to create an Arthurian cinematic universe which would span six films, following different characters before their eventual team up.[10] For this endeavour they hired director Guy Ritchie, who has himself attempted to make a King Arthur movie prior to that. According to The Guardian, the script soon became "a strange Frankenstein's Monster-style screenplay" incorporating elements from several of the unproduced Arthurian scripts.[10]

text: Casting[edit]

text: In August 2014, Charlie Hunnam, Ritchie's choice for the role, was cast to play King Arthur.[11] Elizabeth Olsen was in talks for the female lead,[12] but on September 18, Àstrid Bergès-Frisbey landed the role instead.[13] On November 14, Jude Law was in talks to play the lead villain role in the film.[14] On February 11, 2015, Eric Bana was added to the cast to play Uther, the father of King Arthur.[15] Mikael Persbrandt joined the film on March 6 2015, to play a villainous role.[16] Although there were reports Idris Elba had been cast, he would confirm, in a Reddit AMA, this was a rumour.[17][18]

text: Filming[edit]

text: Filming in Windsor Great Park was underway in February 2015,[19] then later in North Wales from March 2, 2015.[20] Later on March 10, 2015, Ritchie tweeted a photo and confirmed the first day of shooting.[citation needed] In April 2015, filming took place in Snowdonia, where locations used were Tryfan, Nant Gwynant near Beddgelert and Capel Curig.[21] Early in July filming continued in the Shieldaig, Loch Torridon and Applecross areas of Wester Ross in the Scottish Highlands. One day of filming also took place at The Quiraing on the Isle of Skye. Filming also took place at Warner Bros. Studios, Leavesden.

text: Release[edit]

text: In April 2014, Warner Bros. set the film for a July 22, 2016 release, alongside Lights Out, but it was then moved by Warner Bros. from its original release date of July 22, 2016 to February 17, 2017, alongside Maze Runner: The Death Cure.[22] Warner Bros. moved the release date from February 17, 2017 to March 24, 2017.[23] The title was changed to King Arthur: Legend of the Sword in July 2016.[24] In December 2016 the release date was again moved, this time to May 12, 2017, possibly so as not to compete with CHiPs.[25][26]

text: Promotion[edit]

text: The trailer was released on 23 July 2016, during the 2016 San Diego Comic-Con and was attached to screenings of Mechanic: Resurrection, Don't Breathe, Shut In, and Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them.

text: It was originally planned for an IMAX release on 22 July 2016, as evident in the Comic-Con trailer,[27] but was cancelled due to it being postponed and only received non-IMAX presentations. The first extended TV spot was released on 22 January 2017, and was shown on the 2017 NFC Championship Game on Fox Broadcasting Company between the Atlanta Falcons and the Green Bay Packers and the 2017 AFC Championship Game on CBS between the Pittsburgh Steelers and the New England Patriots.

text: A second trailer was released on 20 February 2017 and was attached to Logan, Kong: Skull Island, Power Rangers and Ghost in the Shell. The third and final trailer was released on 1 April 2017 and was attached to The Fate of the Furious, The Lost City of Z (which also starred Hunnam) and Free Fire. All-in-all, Warner Bros. spent $135 million on marketing the film.[7]

text: The film was shown at select AMC Theatres in a special preview on 27 April 2017, in a promotional event titled "King for a Day." Demand for tickets led AMC to expand the event to 200 theatres.[28]

text: Home media[edit]

text: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword was released on DVD, Blu-ray, 3D Blu-ray and Ultra HD on 8 August 2017.[29]

text: Reception[edit]

text: Box office[edit]

text: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword grossed $39.2 million in the United States and Canada and $107 million in other territories for a worldwide total of $146.2 million, against a production budget of $175 million.[5]

text: In North America, the film was released alongside Snatched and was initially projected to gross around $25 million from 3,702 theatres during its opening weekend.[4] It made $1.15 million from Thursday night previews at about 3,200 theatres, but after making just $5.3 million on Friday, weekend projections were lowered to $15 million.[30] It ended up debuting to $15.4 million, finishing third at the box office. Deadline.com noted that due to the film's $175 million production budget, as well as at least an additional $100 million spent on marketing, the film was destined to be a box office bomb.[31] Regarding the cost of the film, the site quoted one finance expert as saying: "Make original IP [intellectual property] for a cost effective price. If it works then spend more if necessary on the sequel. King Arthur should have been done for $60M–80M. Warner Bros. had no reason to spend $175M-plus on this picture."[7] Comparing its opening to cost, IndieWire called the film's failings "historic".[32] The Hollywood Reporter noted that the film would likely lose about $150 million.[8] In its second weekend the film grossed $7.2 million (a drop of 53.5%), finishing 5th at the box office.[33]

text: The film debuted at No. 1 in an estimated 29 countries, including Russia and Scandinavia, with openings to follow in the United Kingdom, France, South Korea, and Australia.[34] Over its opening weekend, it made only $29.1 million worldwide, in 51 non-American countries.[35]

text: Critical response[edit]

text: On review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 28% based on 217 reviews and an average rating of 4.6/10. The site's critical consensus reads, "King Arthur: Legend of the Sword piles mounds of modern action flash on an age-old tale – and wipes out much of what made it a classic story in the first place."[36] On Metacritic, which assigns a normalised rating, the film has a score 41 out of 100 based 45 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews".[37] On CinemaScore, audiences gave the film an average grade of "B+" on an A+ to F scale; 56% of the opening weekend filmgoers were under the age of 35, and 59% were men.[7]

text: Writing for The Guardian, Peter Bradshaw gave the film a generally positive review: "Guy Ritchie’s cheerfully ridiculous Arthur is a gonzo monarch, a death-metal warrior-king. Ritchie’s film is at all times over the top, crashing around its digital landscapes in all manner of beserkness, sometimes whooshing along, sometimes stuck in the odd narrative doldrum. But it is often surprisingly entertaining, and whatever clunkers he has delivered in the past, Ritchie again shows that a film-maker of his craft and energy commands attention, and part of his confidence in reviving King Arthur resides here in being so unselfconscious and unconcerned about the student canon that has gone before."[38]

text: In a pan of the film for the Chicago Tribune, Michael Phillips questioned the long-term longevity of the projected series of six Arthur films from Ritchie: "I'm no businessman, but plans for a six-film franchise may be optimistic. Optimism is nowhere to be found in Ritchie's movie itself. It is a grim and stupid thing, from one of the world's most successful mediocre filmmakers, and if Shakespeare's King Lear were blogging today, he'd supply the blurb quote: 'Nothing will come of nothing.'."[39] Matt Zoller Seitz of RogerEbert.com gave the film one-and-a-half out of four stars, stating that despite the potential for a revisionist King Arthur story with "[t]he Ritchie sense of style", the overall problem is the film's lack of modulation: "Ritchie keeps rushing us along for two hours, as if to make absolutely certain that we never have time to absorb any character or moment, much less revel in the glorious, cheeky ridiculousness of the whole thing."[40]

text: Alissa Wilkinson of Vox writes that the film is "surprisingly good, and surprisingly political" in relation to the British withdrawal from the European Union, and "occasionally, it's even pretty great".[41] Chris Hartwell of The Hollywood Reporter expressed disappointment in the film's lackluster box office performance denying a sequel for the introduction of Merlin, stating it would have been more successful as a solo film instead of setting up a franchise.[42]


document_title: Agent Orange

question_text: when was agent orange first used in korea

question_tokens: when was agent orange first used in korea

text: Agent Orange

text: Chemical composition[edit]

text: The main ingredients of Agent Orange comprise an equal mixture of two phenoxyl herbicides – 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T) – in iso-octyl ester form, which contained traces of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD).[5]

text: The dioxin TCDD is a significant contaminant of Agent Orange. TCDD is the most toxic of the dioxins, and is classified as a human carcinogen by the US Environmental Protection Agency.[6]

text: Agent Orange dries quickly after spraying and breaks down within hours to days when exposed to sunlight (if not bound chemically to a biological surface such as soil, leaves and grass) and is no longer harmful.[7]

text: Toxicology[edit]

text: Due to its fat-soluble nature, dioxin enters through physical contact or ingestion.[8] Dioxin easily accumulates in the food chain. Dioxin enters the body by attaching to a protein called the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR), a transcription factor. When dioxin binds to AhR, the protein moves to the nucleus, where it influences gene expression.[9][10]

text: Development[edit]

text: Several herbicides were discovered as part of efforts by the USA and the British to develop herbicidal weapons for use during World War II. These included 2,4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid), 2,4,5-T (coded LN-14, and also known as trioxone), MCPA (2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid, 1414B and 1414A, recoded LN-8 and LN-32), and isopropyl phenylcarbamate (1313, recoded LN-33).[11]

text: In 1943, the U.S. Department of the Army contracted the botanist and bioethicist Arthur Galston, who discovered the defoliants later used in Agent Orange, and his employer University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana to study the effects of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T on cereal grains (including rice) and broadleaf crops.[12] Galston, then a graduate student at the University of Illinois, in his research and 1943 Ph.D. dissertation focused on finding a chemical means to make soybeans flower and fruit earlier.[13] He discovered both that 2,3,5-triiodobenzoic acid (TIBA) would speed up the flowering of soybeans and that in higher concentrations it would defoliate the soybeans.[13] From these studies arose the concept of using aerial applications of herbicides to destroy enemy crops to disrupt their food supply. In early 1945, the U.S. Army ran tests of various 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T mixtures at the Bushnell Army Airfield in Florida. As a result, the U.S. began a full-scale production of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T and would have used it against Japan in 1946 during Operation Downfall if the war had continued.[14][15]

text: By the end of the war, the relationship between the two countries was well established. In the years after the war, the U.S. tested 1,100 compounds, and field trials of the more promising ones were done at British stations in India and Australia, in order to establish their effects in tropical conditions, as well as at the U.S.'s testing ground in Florida.[11]

text: Between 1950 and 1952, trials were conducted in Tanganyika, at Kikore and Stunyansa, to test arboricides and defoliants under tropical conditions. The chemicals involved were 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T, and endothall (3,6-endoxohexahydrophthalic acid). During 1952–53, the unit supervised the aerial spraying of 2,4,5-T over the Waturi peninsula in Kenya to assess the value of defoliants in the eradication of tsetse fly.[11]

text: Early use[edit]

text: During the Malayan Emergency (1948–1960), Britain was the first nation to employ the use of herbicides and defoliants to destroy bushes, trees, and vegetation to deprive insurgents of concealment and targeting food crops as part of a starvation campaign in the early 1950s.[16] A detailed account of how the British experimented with the spraying of herbicides was written by two scientists, E.K. Woodford of Agricultural Research Council's Unit of Experimental Agronomy and H.G.H. Kearns of the University of Bristol.[11]

text: After the Malayan conflict ended in 1960, the U.S. considered the British precedent in deciding that the use of defoliants was a legal tactic of warfare. Secretary of State Dean Rusk advised President John F. Kennedy that the British had established a precedent for warfare with herbicides in Malaya.[17]

text: Use in the Vietnam War[edit]

text: In mid-1961, President Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam asked the United States to conduct aerial herbicide spraying in his country.[18] In August of that year, the South Vietnamese Air Force conducted herbicide operations with American help. But Diem's request launched a policy debate in the White House and the State and Defense Departments. However, U.S. officials considered using it, pointing out that the British had already used herbicides and defoliants during the Malayan Emergency in the 1950s. In November 1961, President John F. Kennedy authorized the start of Operation Ranch Hand, the codename for the U.S. Air Force's herbicide program in Vietnam.

text: During the Vietnam War, between 1962 and 1971, the United States military sprayed nearly 20,000,000 U.S. gallons (75,700,000 L) of various chemicals – the "rainbow herbicides" and defoliants – in Vietnam, eastern Laos, and parts of Cambodia as part of the aerial defoliation program known as Operation Ranch Hand, reaching its peak from 1967 to 1969. For comparison purposes, an olympic size pool holds approximately 660,000 U.S. gallons (2,500,000 L).[19][20][21] As the British did in Malaya, the goal of the US was to defoliate rural/forested land, depriving guerrillas of food and concealment and clearing sensitive areas such as around base perimeters.[22] The program was also a part of a general policy of forced draft urbanization, which aimed to destroy the ability of peasants to support themselves in the countryside, forcing them to flee to the U.S.-dominated cities, depriving the guerrillas of their rural support base.[20][23]

text: Agent Orange was usually sprayed from helicopters or from low-flying C-123 Provider aircraft, fitted with sprayers and "MC-1 Hourglass" pump systems and 1,000 U.S. gal (3,800 L) chemical tanks. Spray runs were also conducted from trucks, boats, and backpack sprayers.[24][25][26]

text: The first batch of herbicides was unloaded at Tan Son Nhut Air Base in South Vietnam, on January 9, 1962.[27] U.S. Air Force records show at least 6,542 spraying missions took place over the course of Operation Ranch Hand.[28] By 1971, 12 percent of the total area of South Vietnam had been sprayed with defoliating chemicals, at an average concentration of 13 times the recommended U.S. Department of Agriculture application rate for domestic use.[29] In South Vietnam alone, an estimated 10 million hectares of agricultural land was ultimately destroyed.[30] In some areas, TCDD concentrations in soil and water were hundreds of times greater than the levels considered safe by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.[31][32]

text: The campaign destroyed 5 million acres (20,000 km2) of upland and mangrove forests and millions of acres of crops.[33] Overall, more than 20% of South Vietnam's forests were sprayed at least once over a nine-year period.[23][34]

text: In 1965, members of the U.S. Congress were told "crop destruction is understood to be the more important purpose ... but the emphasis is usually given to the jungle defoliation in public mention of the program."[34] Military personnel were told they were destroying crops because they were going to be used to feed guerrillas. They later discovered nearly all of the food they had been destroying was not being produced for guerrillas; it was, in reality, only being grown to support the local civilian population. For example, in Quang Ngai province, 85% of the crop lands were scheduled to be destroyed in 1970 alone. This contributed to widespread famine, leaving hundreds of thousands of people malnourished or starving.[35]

text: The U.S. military began targeting food crops in October 1962, primarily using Agent Blue; the American public was not made aware of the crop destruction programs until 1965 (and it was then believed that crop spraying had begun that spring). In 1965, 42 percent of all herbicide spraying was dedicated to food crops. The first official acknowledgement of the programs came from the State Department in March 1966.[15][23]

text: Many experts at the time, including Arthur Galston, opposed herbicidal warfare due to concerns about the side effects to humans and the environment by indiscriminately spraying the chemical over a wide area. As early as 1966, resolutions were introduced to the United Nations charging that the U.S. was violating the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which regulated the use of chemical and biological weapons. The U.S. defeated most of the resolutions,[36][37] arguing that Agent Orange was not a chemical or a biological weapon as it was considered a herbicide and a defoliant and it was used in effort to destroy plant crops and to deprive the enemy of concealment and not meant to target human beings. The U.S. delegation argued that a weapon, by definition, is any device used to injure, defeat, or destroy living beings, structures, or systems, and Agent Orange did not qualify under that definition. It also argued that if the U.S. were to be charged for using Agent Orange, then Britain and its Commonwealth nations should be charged since they also used it widely during the Malayan Emergency in the 1950s.[38] In 1969, Britain commented on the draft Resolution 2603 (XXIV): "The evidence seems to us to be notably inadequate for the assertion that the use in war of chemical substances specifically toxic to plants is prohibited by international law."[39]

text:
Stacks of 55-gallon (200 L) drums containing Agent Orange.

Defoliant spray run, part of Operation Ranch Hand, during the Vietnam War by UC-123B Provider aircraft.

U.S. Army armored personnel carrier (APC) spraying Agent Orange over Vietnamese rice fields during the Vietnam War.

A UH-1D helicopter from the 336th Aviation Company sprays a defoliation agent over farmland in the Mekong Delta.

text: Health effects[edit]

text: Vietnamese people[edit]

text: The government of Vietnam says that 4 million of its citizens were exposed to Agent Orange, and as many as 3 million have suffered illnesses because of it; these figures include their children who were exposed.[40] The Red Cross of Vietnam estimates that up to 1 million people are disabled or have health problems due to contaminated Agent Orange.[41] The United States government has challenged these figures as being unreliable.[42]

text: According to a study by Dr. Nguyen Viet Nhan, children in the areas where Agent Orange was used have been affected and have multiple health problems, including cleft palate, mental disabilities, hernias, and extra fingers and toes.[43][44] In the 1970s, high levels of dioxin were found in the breast milk of South Vietnamese women, and in the blood of U.S. military personnel who had served in Vietnam.[45] The most affected zones are the mountainous area along Truong Son (Long Mountains) and the border between Vietnam and Cambodia. The affected residents are living in substandard conditions with many genetic diseases.[46][47][page needed]

text: In 2006, Anh Duc Ngo and colleagues of the University of Texas Health Science Center published a meta-analysis that exposed a large amount of heterogeneity (different findings) between studies, a finding consistent with a lack of consensus on the issue.[48] Despite this, statistical analysis of the studies they examined resulted in data that the increase in birth defects/relative risk (RR) from exposure to agent orange/dioxin "appears" to be on the order of 3 in Vietnamese funded studies but 1.29 in the rest of the world. With a casual relationship near the threshold of statistical significance in still-births, cleft palate, and neural tube defects, with spina bifida being the most statistically significant defect.[49] The large discrepancy in RR between Vietnamese studies and those in the rest of the world has been ascribed to bias in the Vietnamese studies.[48]

text: 28 of the former U.S. military bases in Vietnam where the herbicides were stored and loaded onto airplanes may still have high level of dioxins in the soil, posing a health threat to the surrounding communities. Extensive testing for dioxin contamination has been conducted at the former U.S. airbases in Danang, Phù Cát District and Biên Hòa. Some of the soil and sediment on the bases have extremely high levels of dioxin requiring remediation. The Da Nang Air Base has dioxin contamination up to 350 times higher than international recommendations for action.[50][51] The contaminated soil and sediment continue to affect the citizens of Vietnam, poisoning their food chain and causing illnesses, serious skin diseases and a variety of cancers in the lungs, larynx, and prostate.[43]

text: Major Tự Đức Phang was exposed to dioxin-contaminated Agent Orange.

text: U.S. veterans[edit]

text: Several publications published by the Public Health Service have shown that veterans have increased rates of cancer, and nerve, digestive, skin, and respiratory disorders. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention notes that in particular, there are higher rates of acute/chronic leukemia, Hodgkin's lymphoma and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, throat cancer, prostate cancer, lung cancer, colon cancer, Ischemic heart disease, soft tissue sarcoma and liver cancer.[52][53] With the exception of liver cancer, these are the same conditions the U.S. Veterans Administration has determined may be associated with exposure to Agent Orange/dioxin, and are on the list of conditions eligible for compensation and treatment.[54][53]

text: Military personnel who were involved in storage, mixture and transportation (including aircraft mechanics), and actual use of the chemicals were probably among those who received the heaviest exposures.[55] Military members who served on Okinawa also claim to have been exposed to the chemical but there is no verifiable evidence to corroborate these claims.[56]

text: More recent research established that veterans exposed to Agent Orange suffer more than twice the rate of highly aggressive prostate cancer.[57] Additionally, recent reports from the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences show that Agent Orange exposure also doubles the risk of invasive skin cancers.[58]

text: While in Vietnam, the veterans were told not to worry, and were persuaded the chemical was harmless.[59] After returning home, Vietnam veterans began to suspect their ill health or the instances of their wives having miscarriages or children born with birth defects might be related to Agent Orange and the other toxic herbicides to which they had been exposed in Vietnam. Veterans began to file claims in 1977 to the Department of Veterans Affairs for disability payments for health care for conditions they believed were associated with exposure to Agent Orange, or more specifically, dioxin, but their claims were denied unless they could prove the condition began when they were in the service or within one year of their discharge.[60]

text: By April 1993, the Department of Veterans Affairs had compensated only 486 victims, although it had received disability claims from 39,419 soldiers who had been exposed to Agent Orange while serving in Vietnam.[61]

text: Ecological impact[edit]

text: About 17.8 percent—3,100,000 hectares (12,000 sq mi)—of the total forested area of Vietnam was sprayed during the war, which disrupted the ecological equilibrium. The persistent nature of dioxins, erosion caused by loss of tree cover, and loss of seedling forest stock meant that reforestation was difficult (or impossible) in many areas.[4] Many defoliated forest areas were quickly invaded by aggressive pioneer species (such as bamboo and cogon grass), making forest regeneration difficult and unlikely. Animal-species diversity was also impacted; in one study a Harvard biologist found 24 species of birds and five species of mammals in a sprayed forest, while in two adjacent sections of unsprayed forest there were 145 and 170 species of birds and 30 and 55 species of mammals.[62]

text: Dioxins from Agent Orange have persisted in the Vietnamese environment since the war, settling in the soil and sediment and entering the food chain through animals and fish which feed in the contaminated areas. The movement of dioxins through the food web has resulted in bioconcentration and biomagnification.[3] The areas most heavily contaminated with dioxins are former U.S. air bases.[63]

text: Sociopolitical impact[edit]

text: American policy during the Vietnam war was to destroy crops, accepting the sociopolitical impact that that would have.[64] The RAND Corporation's Memorandum 5446-ISA/ARPA states: "the fact that the VC [the Vietcong] obtain most of their food from the neutral rural population dictates the destruction of civilian crops ... if they are to be hampered by the crop destruction program, it will be necessary to destroy large portions of the rural economy – probably 50% or more".[65] Crops were deliberately sprayed with Agent Orange, areas were bulldozed clear of vegetation, and the rural population was subjected to bombing and artillery fire. In consequence, the urban population in South Vietnam nearly tripled, growing from 2.8 million people in 1958 to 8 million by 1971. The rapid flow of people led to a fast-paced and uncontrolled urbanization; an estimated 1.5 million people were living in Saigon slums due to people moving to cities.[66][64]

text: Legal and diplomatic proceedings[edit]

text: International[edit]

text: The extensive environmental damage that resulted from usage of the herbicide prompted the United Nations to pass Resolution 31/72 and ratify the Environmental Modification Convention. Many states do not regard this as a complete ban on the use of herbicides and defoliants in warfare but it does require case-by-case consideration.[67][68]

text: In the Conference on Disarmament, Article 2(4) Protocol III of the weaponry convention contains "The Jungle Exception", which prohibits states from attacking forests or jungles "except if such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or military objectives or are military objectives themselves". This exception voids any protection of any military and civilian personnel from a napalm attack or something like Agent Orange and is clear that it was designed to cover situations like U.S. tactics in Vietnam. This clause has yet to be revised.[69]

text: U.S. veterans class action lawsuit against manufacturers[edit]

text: Since at least 1978, several lawsuits have been filed against the companies which produced Agent Orange, among them Dow Chemical, Monsanto, and Diamond Shamrock.[70]:6

text: Attorney Hy Mayerson was an early pioneer in Agent Orange litigation, working with environmental attorney Victor Yannacone in 1980 on the first class-action suits against wartime manufacturers of Agent Orange. In meeting Dr. Ronald A. Codario, one of the first civilian doctors to see afflicted patients, Mayerson, so impressed by the fact a physician would show so much interest in a Vietnam veteran, forwarded more than a thousand pages of information on Agent Orange and the effects of dioxin on animals and humans to Codario's office the day after he was first contacted by the doctor.[71] The corporate defendants sought to escape culpability by blaming everything on the U.S. government.[72]

text: Mayerson, with Sgt. Charles E. Hartz as their principal client, filed the first US Agent Orange class-action lawsuit, in Pennsylvania in 1980, for the injuries military personnel in Vietnam suffered through exposure to toxic dioxins in the defoliant.[73] Attorney Mayerson co-wrote the brief that certified the Agent Orange Product Liability action as a class action, the largest ever filed as of its filing.[74] Hartz's deposition was one of the first ever taken in America, and the first for an Agent Orange trial, for the purpose of preserving testimony at trial, as it was understood that Hartz would not live to see the trial because of a brain tumor that began to develop while he was a member of Tiger Force, Special Forces, and LRRPs in Vietnam.[75][76] The firm also located and supplied critical research to the Veterans' lead expert, Dr. Codario, including about 100 articles from toxicology journals dating back more than a decade, as well as data about where herbicides had been sprayed, what the effects of dioxin had been on animals and humans, and every accident in factories where herbicides were produced or dioxin was a contaminant of some chemical reaction.[71]

text: The chemical companies involved denied that there was a link between Agent Orange and the veterans' medical problems. However, on May 7, 1984, seven chemical companies settled the class-action suit out of court just hours before jury selection was to begin. The companies agreed to pay $180 million as compensation if the veterans dropped all claims against them.[77] Slightly over 45% of the sum was ordered to be paid by Monsanto alone.[78] Many veterans who were victims of Agent Orange exposure were outraged the case had been settled instead of going to court, and felt they had been betrayed by the lawyers. "Fairness Hearings" were held in five major American cities, where veterans and their families discussed their reactions to the settlement, and condemned the actions of the lawyers and courts, demanding the case be heard before a jury of their peers. Federal Judge Julius Weinstein refused the appeals, claiming the settlement was "fair and just". By 1989, the veterans' fears were confirmed when it was decided how the money from the settlement would be paid out. A totally disabled Vietnam veteran would receive a maximum of $12,000 spread out over the course of 10 years. Furthermore, by accepting the settlement payments, disabled veterans would become ineligible for many state benefits that provided far more monetary support than the settlement, such as food stamps, public assistance, and government pensions. A widow of a Vietnam veteran who died of Agent Orange exposure would only receive $3700.[79]

text: In 2004, Monsanto spokesman Jill Montgomery said Monsanto should not be liable at all for injuries or deaths caused by Agent Orange, saying: "We are sympathetic with people who believe they have been injured and understand their concern to find the cause, but reliable scientific evidence indicates that Agent Orange is not the cause of serious long-term health effects."[80]

text: New Jersey Agent Orange Commission[edit]

text: In 1980, New Jersey created the New Jersey Agent Orange Commission, the first state commission created to study its effects. The commission's research project in association with Rutgers University was called "The Pointman Project". It was disbanded by Governor Christine Todd Whitman in 1996.[81]

text: During Pointman I, commission researchers devised ways to determine small dioxin levels in blood. Prior to this, such levels could only be found in the adipose (fat) tissue. The project studied dioxin (TCDD) levels in blood as well as in adipose tissue in a small group of Vietnam veterans who had been exposed to Agent Orange and compared them to those of a matched control group; the levels were found to be higher in the former group.[82]

text: The second phase of the project continued to examine and compare dioxin levels in various groups of Vietnam veterans, including Army, Marines and brown water riverboat Navy personnel.[83]

text: U.S. Congress[edit]

text: In 1991, Congress enacted the Agent Orange Act, giving the Department of Veterans Affairs the authority to declare certain conditions 'presumptive' to exposure to Agent Orange/dioxin, making these veterans who served in Vietnam eligible to receive treatment and compensation for these conditions.[84] The same law required the National Academy of Sciences to periodically review the science on dioxin and herbicides used in Vietnam to inform the Secretary of Veterans Affairs about the strength of the scientific evidence showing association between exposure to Agent Orange/dioxin and certain conditions.[85] The authority for the National Academy of Sciences reviews and addition of any new diseases to the presumptive list by the VA is expiring in 2015 under the sunset clause of the Agent Orange Act of 1991.[86] Through this process, the list of 'presumptive' conditions has grown since 1991, and currently the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has listed prostate cancer, respiratory cancers, multiple myeloma, type II diabetes mellitus, Hodgkin's disease, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, soft tissue sarcoma, chloracne, porphyria cutanea tarda, peripheral neuropathy, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and spina bifida in children of veterans exposed to Agent Orange as conditions associated with exposure to the herbicide. This list now includes B cell leukemias, such as hairy cell leukemia, Parkinson's disease and ischemic heart disease, these last three having been added on August 31, 2010. Several highly placed individuals in government are voicing concerns about whether some of the diseases on the list should, in fact, actually have been included.[87]

text: In 2011, an appraisal of the 20 year long Air Force Health Study that began in 1982 indicates that the results of the AFHS as they pretain to Agent Orange, do not provide evidence of disease in the Ranch Hand veterans due to "their elevated levels of exposure to Agent Orange".[88]

text: The VA denied the applications of post-Vietnam C-123 aircrew veterans because as veterans without "boots on the ground" service in Vietnam, they were not covered under VA's interpretation of "exposed". At the request of the VA, the Institute Of Medicine evaluated whether or not service in these C-123 aircraft could have plausibly exposed soldiers and been detrimental to their health. Their report "Post-Vietnam Dioxin Exposure in Agent Orange-Contaminated C-123 Aircraft" confirmed it.[89] In June 2015 the Secretary of Veterans Affairs issued an Interim final rule providing presumptive service connection for post-Vietnam C-123 aircrews, maintenance staff and aeromedical evacuation crews. VA now provides medical care and disability compensation for the recognized list of Agent Orange illnesses.[90]

text: U.S.–Vietnamese government negotiations[edit]

text: In 2002, Vietnam and the U.S. held a joint conference on Human Health and Environmental Impacts of Agent Orange. Following the conference, the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) began scientific exchanges between the U.S. and Vietnam, and began discussions for a joint research project on the human health impacts of Agent Orange.[91]

text: These negotiations broke down in 2005, when neither side could agree on the research protocol and the research project was cancelled. More progress has been made on the environmental front. In 2005, the first U.S.-Vietnam workshop on remediation of dioxin was held.[91]

text: Starting in 2005, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began to work with the Vietnamese government to measure the level of dioxin at the Da Nang Airbase. Also in 2005, the Joint Advisory Committee on Agent Orange, made up of representatives of Vietnamese and U.S. government agencies, was established. The committee has been meeting yearly to explore areas of scientific cooperation, technical assistance and environmental remediation of dioxin.[92]

text: A breakthrough in the diplomatic stalemate on this issue occurred as a result of United States President George W. Bush's state visit to Vietnam in November 2006. In the joint statement, President Bush and President Triet agreed "further joint efforts to address the environmental contamination near former dioxin storage sites would make a valuable contribution to the continued development of their bilateral relationship."[93]

text: On May 25, 2007, President Bush signed the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007 into law for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that included an earmark of $3 million specifically for funding for programs for the remediation of dioxin 'hotspots' on former U.S. military bases, and for public health programs for the surrounding communities;[94] some authors consider this to be completely inadequate, pointing out that the U.S. airbase in Da Nang, alone, will cost $14 million to clean up, and that three others are estimated to require $60 million for cleanup.[32] The appropriation was renewed in the fiscal year 2009 and again in FY 2010. An additional $12 million was appropriated in the fiscal year 2010 in the Supplemental Appropriations Act and a total of $18.5 million appropriated for fiscal year 2011.[95]

text: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated during a visit to Hanoi in October 2010 that the U.S. government would begin work on the clean-up of dioxin contamination at the Da Nang airbase.[96]

text: In June 2011, a ceremony was held at Da Nang airport to mark the start of U.S.-funded decontamination of dioxin hotspots in Vietnam. Thirty-two million dollars has so far been allocated by the U.S. Congress to fund the program.[97]

text: A $43 million project began in the summer of 2012, as Vietnam and the U.S. forge closer ties to boost trade and counter China's rising influence in the disputed South China Sea.[98]

text: Vietnamese victims class action lawsuit in U.S. courts[edit]

text: On January 31, 2004, a victim's rights group, the Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent Orange/dioxin (VAVA), filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn, against several U.S. companies for liability in causing personal injury, by developing, and producing the chemical, and claimed that the use of Agent Orange violated the 1907 Hague Convention on Land Warfare, 1925 Geneva Protocol, and the 1949 Geneva Conventions. Dow Chemical and Monsanto were the two largest producers of Agent Orange for the U.S. military, and were named in the suit, along with the dozens of other companies (Diamond Shamrock, Uniroyal, Thompson Chemicals, Hercules, etc.). On March 10, 2005, Judge Jack B. Weinstein of the Eastern District – who had presided over the 1984 U.S. veterans class-action lawsuit – dismissed the lawsuit, ruling there was no legal basis for the plaintiffs' claims. He concluded Agent Orange was not considered a poison under international law at the time of its use by the U.S.; the U.S. was not prohibited from using it as a herbicide; and the companies which produced the substance were not liable for the method of its use by the government.[99] Weinstein used the British example to help dismiss the claims of people exposed to Agent Orange in their suit against the chemical companies that had supplied it.[100][101]

text: The Department of Defense's Advanced Research Project Agency's (ARPA) Project AGILE was instrumental in the United States' development of herbicides as a military weapon, an undertaking inspired by the British use of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T to destroy jungle-grown crops and bushes during the insurgency in Malaya. The United States considered British precedent in deciding that the use of defoliants was a legally accepted tactic of war. On November 24, 1961, Secretary of State Dean Rusk advised President John F. Kennedy that herbicide use in Vietnam would be lawful, saying that "[t]he use of defoliant does not violate any rule of international law concerning the conduct of chemical warfare and is an accepted tactic of war. Precedent has been established by the British during the emergency in Malaya in their use of helicopters for destroying crops by chemical spraying."[102][103]

text: George Jackson stated that "if the Americans were guilty of war crimes for using Agent Orange in Vietnam, then the British would be also guilty of war crimes as well since they were the first nation to deploy the use of herbicides and defoliants in warfare and used them on a large scale throughout the Malayan Emergency. Not only was there no outcry by other states in response to Britain's use, but the U.S. viewed it as establishing a precedent for the use of herbicides and defoliants in jungle warfare." The U.S. government was also not a party in the lawsuit, due to sovereign immunity, and the court ruled the chemical companies, as contractors of the U.S. government, shared the same immunity. The case was appealed and heard by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan on June 18, 2007. Three judges on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Weinstein's ruling to dismiss the case. They ruled that, though the herbicides contained a dioxin (a known poison), they were not intended to be used as a poison on humans. Therefore, they were not considered a chemical weapon and thus not a violation of international law. A further review of the case by the whole panel of judges of the Court of Appeals also confirmed this decision. The lawyers for the Vietnamese filed a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. On March 2, 2009, the Supreme Court denied certiorari and refused to reconsider the ruling of the Court of Appeals.[104][105]

text: In a November 2004 Zogby International poll of 987 people, 79% of respondents thought the U.S. chemical companies which produced Agent Orange defoliant should compensate U.S. soldiers who were affected by the toxic chemical used during the war in Vietnam. Also, 51% said they supported compensation for Vietnamese Agent Orange victims.[106]

text: Help for those affected in Vietnam[edit]

text: To assist those who have been affected by Agent Orange/dioxin, the Vietnamese have established "peace villages", which each host between 50 and 100 victims, giving them medical and psychological help. As of 2006, there were 11 such villages, thus granting some social protection to fewer than a thousand victims. U.S. veterans of the war in Vietnam and individuals who are aware and sympathetic to the impacts of Agent Orange have supported these programs in Vietnam. An international group of veterans from the U.S. and its allies during the Vietnam War working with their former enemy—veterans from the Vietnam Veterans Association—established the Vietnam Friendship Village outside of Hanoi.[107]

text: The center provides medical care, rehabilitation and vocational training for children and veterans from Vietnam who have been affected by Agent Orange. In 1998, The Vietnam Red Cross established the Vietnam Agent Orange Victims Fund to provide direct assistance to families throughout Vietnam that have been affected. In 2003, the Vietnam Association of Victims of Agent Orange (VAVA) was formed. In addition to filing the lawsuit against the chemical companies, VAVA provides medical care, rehabilitation services and financial assistance to those injured by Agent Orange.[108]

text: The Vietnamese government provides small monthly stipends to more than 200,000 Vietnamese believed affected by the herbicides; this totaled $40.8 million in 2008 alone. The Vietnam Red Cross has raised more than $22 million to assist the ill or disabled, and several U.S. foundations, United Nations agencies, European governments and nongovernmental organizations have given a total of about $23 million for site cleanup, reforestation, health care and other services to those in need.[109]

text: Vuong Mo of the Vietnam News Agency described one of the centers:[110]

text: May is 13, but she knows nothing, is unable to talk fluently, nor walk with ease due to for her bandy legs. Her father is dead and she has four elder brothers, all mentally retarded ... The students are all disabled, retarded and of different ages. Teaching them is a hard job. They are of the 3rd grade but many of them find it hard to do the reading. Only a few of them can. Their pronunciation is distorted due to their twisted lips and their memory is quite short. They easily forget what they've learned ... In the Village, it is quite hard to tell the kids' exact ages. Some in their twenties have a physical statures as small as the 7- or 8-years-old. They find it difficult to feed themselves, much less have mental ability or physical capacity for work. No one can hold back the tears when seeing the heads turning round unconsciously, the bandy arms managing to push the spoon of food into the mouths with awful difficulty ... Yet they still keep smiling, singing in their great innocence, at the presence of some visitors, craving for something beautiful.

text: On June 16, 2010, members of the U.S.-Vietnam Dialogue Group on Agent Orange/Dioxin unveiled a comprehensive 10-year Declaration and Plan of Action to address the toxic legacy of Agent Orange and other herbicides in Vietnam. The Plan of Action was released as an Aspen Institute publication and calls upon the U.S. and Vietnamese governments to join with other governments, foundations, businesses, and nonprofits in a partnership to clean up dioxin "hot spots" in Vietnam and to expand humanitarian services for people with disabilities there.[111][112][113] On September 16, 2010, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) acknowledged the work of the Dialogue Group by releasing a statement on the floor of the United States Senate. The statement urges the U.S. government to take the Plan of Action's recommendations into account in developing a multi-year plan of activities to address the Agent Orange/dioxin legacy.[114]

text: Use outside Vietnam[edit]

text: Australia[edit]

text: In 2008, Australian researcher Jean Williams claimed that cancer rates in the town of Innisfail, Queensland were 10 times higher than the state average due to secret testing of Agent Orange by the Australian military scientists during the Vietnam War. Williams, who had won the Order of Australia medal for her research on the effects of chemicals on U.S. war veterans, based her allegations on Australian government reports found in the Australian War Memorial's archives. A former soldier, Ted Bosworth, backed up the claims, saying that he had been involved in the secret testing. Neither Williams or Bosworth have produced verifiable evidence to support their claims. The Queensland health department determined that cancer rates in Innisfail were no higher than those in other parts of the state.[115]

text: Brazil[edit]

text: The Brazilian government in the late 1960s used herbicides to defoliate a large section of the Amazon rainforest so that Alcoa could build the Tucuruí dam to power mining operations.[116] Large areas of rainforest were destroyed, along with the homes and livelihoods of thousands of rural peasants and indigenous tribes.[117]

text: Cambodia[edit]

text: Agent Orange was used as a defoliant in eastern Cambodia during the Vietnam War, but its impacts are difficult to assess due to the chaos caused by the Khmer Rouge regime.[118]

text: Canada[edit]

text: The U.S. military, with the permission of the Canadian government, tested herbicides, including Agent Orange, in the forests near the Canadian Forces Base Gagetown in New Brunswick.[119] In 2007, the government of Canada offered a one-time ex gratia payment of $20,000 as compensation for Agent Orange exposure at CFB Gagetown.[120] On July 12, 2005, Merchant Law Group LLP on behalf of over 1,100 Canadian veterans and civilians who were living in and around the CFB Gagetown filed a lawsuit to pursue class action litigation concerning Agent Orange and Agent Purple with the Federal Court of Canada.[121] On August 4, 2009, the case was rejected by the court due to lack of evidence. The ruling was appealed.[122][123] In 2007, the Canadian government announced that a research and fact-finding program initiated in 2005 had found the base was safe.[124]

text: On February 17, 2011, the Toronto Star revealed that Agent Orange was employed to clear extensive plots of Crown land in Northern Ontario.[125] The Toronto Star reported that, "records from the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s show forestry workers, often students and junior rangers, spent weeks at a time as human markers holding red, helium-filled balloons on fishing lines while low-flying planes sprayed toxic herbicides including an infamous chemical mixture known as Agent Orange on the brush and the boys below."[125] In response to the Toronto Star article, the Ontario provincial government launched a probe into the use of Agent Orange.[126]

text: Guam[edit]

text: An analysis of chemicals present in the island's soil, together with resolutions passed by Guam's legislature, suggest that Agent Orange was among the herbicides routinely used on and around military bases Anderson Air Force Base, Naval Air Station Agana, Guam. Despite the evidence, the Department of Defense continues to deny that Agent Orange was ever stored or used on Guam. Several Guam veterans have collected an enormous amount of evidence to assist in their disability claims for direct exposure to dioxin containing herbicides such as 2,4,5-T which are similar to the illness associations and disability coverage that has become standard for those who were harmed by the same chemical contaminant of Agent Orange used in Vietnam.[127]

text: Korea[edit]

text: Agent Orange was used in Korea in the late 1960s.[128]

text: The United States local press KPHO-TV in Phoenix, Arizona, alleged (in 2011) that the United States Army had in 1978 buried 250 drums of Agent Orange in Camp Carroll, the U.S. Army base in Gyeongsangbuk-do, Korea.[129]

text: In 1999, about 20,000 South Koreans filed two separated lawsuits against U.S. companies, seeking more than $5 billion in damages. After losing a decision in 2002, they filed an appeal.[130]

text: In January 2006, the South Korean Appeals Court ordered Dow Chemical and Monsanto to pay $62 million in compensation to about 6,800 people. The ruling acknowledged that "the defendants failed to ensure safety as the defoliants manufactured by the defendants had higher levels of dioxins than standard", and, quoting the U.S. National Academy of Science report, declared that there was a "causal relationship" between Agent Orange and a range of diseases, including several cancers. The judges failed to acknowledge "the relationship between the chemical and peripheral neuropathy, the disease most widespread among Agent Orange victims".[131]

text: Currently, veterans who provide evidence meeting VA requirements for service in Vietnam, and who can medically establish that anytime after this 'presumptive exposure' they developed any medical problems on the list of presumptive diseases, may receive compensation from the VA. Certain veterans who served in Korea and are able to prove they were assigned to certain specified around the DMZ during a specific time frame are afforded similar presumption.[132]

text: Laos[edit]

text: Parts of Laos were sprayed with Agent Orange during the Vietnam War.[133]

text: New Zealand[edit]

text: The use of Agent Orange has been controversial in New Zealand, because of the exposure of New Zealand troops in Vietnam and because of the production of Agent Orange for Vietnam and other users at an Ivon Watkins-Dow chemical plant in Paritutu, New Plymouth. There have been continuing claims, as yet unproven, that the suburb of Paritutu has also been polluted; see New Zealand in the Vietnam War.[134] There are cases of New Zealand soldiers developing cancers such as bone cancer but none has been scientifically connected to exposure to herbicides.[135]

text: Philippines[edit]

text: Herbicide persistence studies of Agents Orange and White were conducted in the Philippines.[136]

text: Johnston Atoll[edit]

text: The U.S. Air Force operation to remove Herbicide Orange from Vietnam in 1972 was named Operation Pacer IVY, while the operation to destroy the Agent Orange stored at Johnston Atoll in 1977 was named Operation Pacer HO. Operation Pacer IVY (InVentorY) collected Agent Orange in South Vietnam and removed it in 1972 aboard the ship MV Transpacific for storage on Johnston Atoll.[137] The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports that 1,800,000 gallons of Herbicide Orange was stored at Johnston Island in the Pacific and 480,000 gallons at Gulfport in Mississippi.[138]

text: Research and studies were initiated to find a safe method to destroy the materials and it was discovered they could be incinerated safely under special conditions of temperature and dwell time.[138] However, these herbicides were expensive and the Air Force wanted to resell its surplus instead of dumping it at sea.[139] Among many methods tested, a possibility of salvaging the herbicides by reprocessing and filtering out the 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) contaminant with carbonized (charcoaled) coconut fibers. This concept was then tested in 1976 and a pilot plant constructed at Gulfport.[138]

text: From July to September 1977 during Operation Pacer HO (Herbicide Orange), the entire stock of Agent Orange from both Herbicide Orange storage sites at Gulfport and Johnston Atoll was subsequently incinerated in four separate burns in the vicinity of Johnson Island aboard the Dutch-owned waste incineration ship MT Vulcanus.[139]

text: As of 2004, some records of the storage and disposition of Agent Orange at Johnston Atoll have been associated with the historical records of Operation Red Hat.[140]

text: Okinawa, Japan[edit]

text: There have been dozens of reports in the press about use and/or storage of military formulated herbicides on Okinawa that are based upon statements by former U.S. service members that had been stationed on the island, photographs, government records, and unearthed storage barrels. The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has denied these allegations with statements by military officials and spokespersons, as well as a January 2013 report authored by Dr. Alvin Young that was released in April 2013.[137][141]

text: In particular, the 2013 report refuted articles written by journalist Jon Mitchell as well as a statement from "An Ecological Assessment of Johnston Atoll" a 2003 publication produced by the United States Army Chemical Materials Agency that states, "in 1972, the U.S. Air Force also brought about 25,000 55-gallon (208L) drums of the chemical, Herbicide Orange (HO) to Johnston Island that originated from Vietnam and was stored on Okinawa."[142] The 2013 report stated: "The authors of the [2003] report were not DoD employees, nor were they likely familiar with the issues surrounding Herbicide Orange or its actual history of transport to the Island." and detailed the transport phases and routes of Agent Orange from Vietnam to Johnston Atoll, none of which included Okinawa.[137]

text: Further official confirmation of restricted (dioxin containing) herbicide storage on Okinawa appeared in a 1971 Fort Detrick report titled "Historical, Logistical, Political and Technical Aspects of the Herbicide/Defoliant Program", which mentioned that the environmental statement should consider "Herbicide stockpiles elsewhere in PACOM (Pacific Command) U.S. Government restricted materials Thailand and Okinawa (Kadena AFB)."[143] The 2013 DoD report says that the environmental statement urged by the 1971 report was published in 1974 as "The Department of Air Force Final Environmental Statement", and that the latter did not find Agent Orange was held in either Thailand or Okinawa.[137][141]

text: Thailand[edit]

text: Agent Orange was tested by the United States in Thailand during the war in Southeast Asia. Buried drums were uncovered and confirmed to be Agent Orange in 1999.[145] Workers who uncovered the drums fell ill while upgrading the airport near Hua Hin District, 100 km south of Bangkok.[146]

text: Vietnam-era Veterans whose service involved duty on or near the perimeters of military bases in Thailand anytime between February 28, 1961, and May 7, 1975, may have been exposed to herbicides and may qualify for VA benefits.[147]

text: A declassified Department of Defense report written in 1973, suggests that there was a significant use of herbicides on the fenced-in perimeters of military bases in Thailand to remove foliage that provided cover for enemy forces.[147]

text: In 2013, VA determined that herbicides used on the Thailand base perimeters may have been tactical and procured from Vietnam, or a strong, commercial type resembling tactical herbicides.[147]

text: United States[edit]

text: The University of Hawaii has acknowledged extensive testing of Agent Orange on behalf of the United States Department of Defense in Hawaii along with mixtures of Agent Orange on Kaua'i Island in 1967–68 and on Hawaii Island in 1966; testing and storage in other U.S. locations has been documented by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs.[148][149]

text: In 1971, the C-123 aircraft used for spraying Agent Orange were returned to the United States and assigned various East Coast USAF Reserve squadrons, and then employed in traditional airlift missions between 1972 and 1982. In 1994, testing by the Air Force identified some former spray aircraft as "heavily contaminated" with dioxin residue. Inquiries by aircrew veterans in 2011 brought a decision by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs opining that not enough dioxin residue remained to injure these post-Vietnam War veterans. On 26 January 2012, the U.S. Center For Disease Control's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry challenged this with their finding that former spray aircraft were indeed contaminated and the aircrews exposed to harmful levels of dioxin. In response to veterans' concerns, the VA in February 2014 referred the C-123 issue to the Institute of Medicine for a special study, with results released on January 9, 2015.[150][151]

text: In 1978, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency suspended spraying of Agent Orange in National Forests.[152]

text: A December 2006 Department of Defense report listed Agent Orange testing, storage, and disposal sites at 32 locations throughout the United States, as well as in Canada, Thailand, Puerto Rico, Korea, and in the Pacific Ocean.[153] The Veteran Administration has also acknowledged that Agent Orange was used domestically by U.S. forces in test sites throughout the United States. Eglin Air Force Base in Florida was one of the primary testing sites throughout the 1960s.[154]

text: Cleanup programs[edit]

text: In February 2012, Monsanto agreed to settle a case covering Dioxin contamination around a plant in Nitro, West Virginia, that had manufactured Agent Orange. Monsanto agreed to pay up to $9 million for cleanup of affected homes, $84 million for medical monitoring of people affected, and the community's legal fees.[155][156]

text: On 9 August 2012, the United States and Vietnam began a cooperative cleaning up of the toxic chemical on part of Danang International Airport, marking the first time Washington has been involved in cleaning up Agent Orange in Vietnam. Danang was the primary storage site of the chemical. Two other cleanup sites the United States and Vietnam are looking at is Biên Hòa, in the southern province of Đồng Nai—a "hotspot" for dioxin—and Phù Cát airport in the central province of Bình Định, says U.S. Ambassador to Vietnam David Shear. According to the Vietnamese newspaper Nhân Dân, the U.S. government provided $41 million to the project, which will reduce the contamination level in 73,000 m³ of soil by late 2016.[157] Some 45,000 cubic meters were "cleaned", an equal amount began in October 2016 scheduled for completion in mid 2017.[158]

text: Due to the fact that destruction requires high temperatures (over 1000 degrees C), the destruction process is energy intensive.[159]