So does the VA. They are all part of the Executive Branch, and if they know the president wants exposure to be "presumptive" (whatever that means), it will be so. It's a political thing. But there is yet no medical scientific evidence to show that exposure to burn pits is any more dangerous than exposure to wood smoke from a campfire. There may well be evidence in due course, but today no. It is well to remember that the guy served out his tour sitting in a Quonset hut doing lawyer stuff.
My guys were taking turns driving skid steers pushing batteries, human shit, and trash around a pile while it smouldered. Prior to that my guys mixed human shit and jp8 fuel in a can and stirred it with a shovel to slowly burn it away. I'm a lead from the front kind of guy and gave it a whirl. The smoke is black and thick up close. From afar you can smell it... Dare I say its smell would warm the cockles for perverse reasons.
As you say there is no proven connection. Andy's comment shows why we need a draft. If you ask any veteran with integrity the same question they will react as we are. If you ask some fat reservist who is 100% disabled for "PTSD" for his time managing the wash rack in kuwait he will say yes. There is a reason for the divergence in the answer and it comes down to integrity. If you ask a civilian they will assume that DoD is correct. It is not.
Maybe you should read the science. You just emote. Yeah, you have "integrity" as do all real men who look at their butts in the mirror. As opposed to guys who don't even lift.
between burn pits and brain cancer? All three studies I found from the National Academies and in pub med find NO relationship between burn pit exposure and brain cancer, and at least one brain cancer specialist outlined reasons that brain cancer is an unlikely outcome of exposure to combustion products (the same reasons that brain cancer is hard to treat - most chemicals don't pass the blood/brain barrier).
On their website, under a section title: "Am I eligible for VA disability compensation?"
"For some conditions, we automatically assume (or “presume”) that your service caused your condition. We call these presumptive conditions.
If you have a presumptive condition, you don’t need to prove that your service caused the condition. You only need to meet the service requirements for the presumption.
Find out more about these categories of presumptive conditions:
A chronic (long-lasting) illness that appears within 1 year after discharge
An illness caused by contact with contaminants (toxic chemicals) or other hazardous materials
An illness caused by your time spent as a prisoner of war (POW)"
As you correctly point out, this is a political conclusion not a scientific one. As recently as last year, the NYT stated that the president has long "speculated" on this linkage. There is no scientific conclusion to match his speculation. Maybe one will arise in the future. Maybe it will be proven to have no basis whatsoever. But in the absence of either, we have politically determined to cover and treat those conditions as though there is direct causation.
There are nearly 8 million people living in Baghdad. Are we going to pay them all out for disability as well? The green zone was a safe metropolis within iraq where carrying your weapon would get you the side eye. This shit makes me hopping mad.
It's like saying you live in Englewood in Chicago when you reside in Kenilworth. It should be dismissed on its face.
The VA is required to treat such disease as presumptive. But it comes from the PACT Act, is my understanding, which was passed in 2022 with relatively bipartisan support.