Hacker News Reader

Comment by stickfigure | Hacker News Reader

I skimmed it and noticed this: Pentachlorophenol contains dioxins, which are used in making chemical weapons, like Agent Orange

Agent Orange is not a chemical weapon, it is a defoliant. Dioxin contamination was a result of improper manufacture, not a deliberate ingredient. Read the wikipedia page, FFS.

I hate it when this happens. Do I now have to question the rest of the article?

View on HN

> Read the wikipedia page, FFS.

Indeed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_Agent_Orange_on_the...

Relevant quote:

"Agent Orange is a chemical weapon most notably used by the US armed forces during the Vietnam War, classified as defoliant. "

That is not the article on Agent Orange, but rather a C-quality-rated article you've cherrypicked with significantly more political bent. This is the wikipedia article on Agent Orange: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange:

Agent Orange is an herbicide and defoliant chemical.

Furthermore, this question was actually litigated and decided "not a chemical weapon" in the US. Again, from the wikipedia article on Agent Orange (emphasis mine):

"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."

No matter how you feel about Agent Orange the original article's statement about dioxin is just factually wrong.

It depends on the meaning of the word. Agent Orange is both a chemical and a weapon, so yes, it's a "chemical weapon", but its primary purpose is killing trees, not people, and its health effects were largely an unintended consequence of a manufacturing side product, dioxin. Most people understand "chemical weapon" to mean weapons intended to kill people, like mustard gas, sarin, VX, ec.

And yes, the original article definitely plays pretty fast and loose with scientific terminology to amp up the scare factor. A cup of coffee contains "likely carcinogens", mutagens and teratogens, the issue is the quantity and the likely effect.

Just because some Wikipedia editor writes something doesn't make it a fact. There are other relevant quotes in there from the governments of the U.K. And US saying that it's not a chemical weapon.

GP explicitly references Wikipedia as an authority, that should not suddenly be grounds to dismiss a reply.

The US saying it is not a chemical weapon is a bit like them declaring 'enhanced interrogation' not torture.

It doesn't have to directly target people to be called a weapon.

Does that make Roundup a chemical weapon?

I wouldn't go that far but the ethics of Monsanto mimic those of cigarette companies when they claimed tobacco smoking was healthy and recruited doctors to promote smoking.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/14/business/monsanto-roundup...

If it were used in a war then probably yes.

By that standard, gasoline is a chemical weapon. And toothpaste.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com