New Zealand’s military logisticians are more likely to be harmed by the conditions they create than by enemy fire, and the records often don’t exist when illness appears decades later.

Introduction

We have spent years teaching soldiers to look up and out for threats. For logisticians, the danger is just as often down in the ground they’re ordered to seize and make work at speed. Bomb‑damaged ports, airheads, railheads, fuel farms, hard standing, and battered warehouses are where supply chains are wrestled back to life. They are also where dust, residues, and fluids leave a lasting fingerprint on human health.

The uncomfortable truth is latency. Low‑to‑moderate exposures, taken in with every sweep of a broom, every cut of a disc, every lift of a drum, every hour around fuels and degreasers, rarely trigger an incident report. They build quietly under heat and exertion. The bill often arrives 10–40 years later as chronic respiratory disease, cardiovascular problems, or exposure‑associated cancers (including haematological malignancies). By then, units have disbanded, notebooks have been boxed or binned, and the link between a dusty floor in a shattered shed and a midlife diagnosis is far harder to prove.

Operational realities widen this gap. Operational tempo prioritises throughput over sampling; industrial hazards are treated as background noise; and protection is a general issue, not task-specific. In many theatres, the ethos was to get the job done. Keeping the lines moving eclipsed health and safety. The result? Too many logisticians carry “silent” injuries, not the wounds of a firefight, but the legacy of the estate underfoot.

Latency‑linked conditions to flag (illustrative, not exhaustive)

• Airways & lung (0–20+ yrs): chronic bronchitis/COPD, asthma aggravation, interstitial lung disease; silica/cement dusts → silicosis; diesel/PAH‑rich exhaust → higher lung cancer risk.
• Sarcoidosis (months–years; sometimes later): an inflammatory granulomatous disease with recognised associations to inhaled particulates and combustion by-products (e.g., burn-pit smoke, fuel/solvent aerosols, mineral/metallic dusts, silica). In military logistics contexts, credible exposure pathways include routine work around burn pits, JP-8/Avtur/Avgas combustion products, and dust-rich industrial sites.
• Asbestos (20–40 yrs): pleural plaques, asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma.
• Solvents & fuels (5–25 yrs): Benzene and organic solvents are associated with haematological malignancies (e.g., AML, MDS, NHL); some degreasers are linked in studies to kidney/liver effects.
• PCBs/dioxins (incl. Agent Orange/TCDD) (5–30+ yrs): non‑Hodgkin lymphoma, some soft‑tissue sarcomas, type 2 diabetes, chloracne.
• Metals (varies): chromium VI → lung cancer; lead → neurological/haematological effects; cadmium → renal dysfunction and some cancers.

These are associations, not diagnoses. Individual risk depends on dose, duration, task and personal factors. The point is to signpost credible possibilities so exposure logging and follow‑up aren’t dismissed as “speculative”.

Illustrative exposure pathways reported by NZ logisticians

• JP-8/Avtur/Avgas used to burn excrement (latrine waste disposal) → mixed hydrocarbon and particulate inhalation.
• Proximity to burn pits for waste/rubbish disposal → complex combustion plume with fine particulates and mixed toxicants.
• Asbestos exposure in damaged facilities — notably Somalia and Timor-Leste.
• Pyrethrin-based insecticide ‘fogging’ for mosquitoes — operators in PPE while nearby logisticians worked without task-specific respiratory protection.
• Silica and heavy dusts from industrial sites — e.g., Bougainville, living/working inside a large copper-mine building.

Somalia shows how routine logistics create hidden exposures

From late 1992 to July 1994, New Zealand rotated a dedicated Supply Platoon (43-strong, with an attached infantry section) through Mogadishu. The job was prosaic and relentless: a warehouse on the airport’s north ramp, a standing stores presence inside the port, and long days pushing relief tonnage through shattered infrastructure, at one point over 1,000 tonnes in a single month.

The ground itself told the story. Movements threaded past the ruins of an oil depot and fuel farms; across coral-sand and concrete dust; through mixed cargo residues (fertiliser, cement) laminated with marine oils and solvents; past derelict aircraft still weeping fluids, plus the familiar companions of collapse: metals, asbestos fragments, and sewage-affected water.

Protection was largely standard kit, helmets, frag vests, uniforms, rather than any specialist respiratory or dermal protection you’d expect in an industrial clean-up. The then-issue light fragmentation vest was widely regarded as unsuitable for the operating environment: confidence-boosting, yes; protective against chronic industrial exposures, no. Dress and load carriage reflected the heat and tempo more than hazard control (UN blue caps/baseball caps, PASGT helmets variably covered; relaxed working dress; webbing often set aside to work in vehicles and warehouses).

That is why ordinary tasks, sweeping bays, slinging pallets, cutting and rigging, refuelling, and marshalling MHE on contaminated hard-standing, can have extraordinary consequences years later when no one records what’s in the dust.

A recurring pattern across theatres

This is not an anomaly; it is a template visible across a century of New Zealand service:

• World Wars — depots, docks, railheads (1914–19; 1939–45). Coal soot, cordite fumes, leaded petrol and chlorinated solvents in workshops; asbestos in roofing and lagging; cement and lime dust from rapid rebuilds. Throughput trumped surveys: trains to marshal, ships to turn, vehicles to repair. Hygiene focused on infection and water; industrial toxicology barely featured, so exposure notes were rare.
• Korea — Kure and the Commonwealth base (1950–53). A sprawling pre-existing industrial estate re-tasked for logistics: oils, solvents and paints in abundance, metals and asbestos in shipyard fabric. NZ personnel moved through a machine built for output; documentation captured receipts and readiness, not the air and dust they worked in.
• Malaya, Borneo and Singapore–Malaysia (1948–66; presence to 1989). Workshops and airstrips required fuels, degreasers, and hydraulic fluids as routine background; insecticides/defoliants were widely used; accommodations and facilities were still in the asbestos era. These were “normal” garrison tasks under tropical conditions, with latency risks unrecognised, and site hazards seldom logged.
• Vietnam — Vũng Tàu and beyond (1964–72). Waste burning near lines of communication, pervasive dust, fuels/solvents, and herbicide-affected environments. Integration into Australian support chains normalised the setting; recognition came decades later at the cohort level, while many individual exposure trails remained thin.
• Bougainville (1990s). Accommodation and work areas inside a large copper-mine building exposed personnel to silica-rich and metallic dust under hot, enclosed conditions.
• Balkans — Bosnia/Kosovo rotations (mid-1990s–2000s). Logistics hubs established inside bomb-scarred industrial zones: transformer yards with PCBs, refineries, vehicle plants; warehouses with demolition dust and solvent films. Early-entry imperatives (“get the flow moving”) routinely outpaced site characterisation.
• Timor-Leste (1999–2002). Burnt-out Indonesian-era facilities with asbestos roofing, ad-hoc waste pits, and heavy cement/brick dust from rapid repairs. Logbooks recorded cargo and convoy timings; personal exposure records were typically maintained only in the event of an incident.
• Afghanistan (2003–2013). High-altitude fine dusts, continuous diesel exhaust, widespread solvent degreasing, and transits through hubs with burn-adjacent histories. The hazards were familiar yet diffuse, cumulative, not catastrophic, and thus rarely captured in neat exposure sheets.
• Iraq — Taji and hub transits (from 2015). Flightline dusts, fuels/solvents, and the legacy of burn pits at specific coalition bases; constant MHE movements on contaminated hard standing. Unit logs were excellent for consignments and training cycles; environmental notes were sporadic and incident-driven.

The common pattern

Occupy damaged or industrialised ground → work at pace → accept “background” contamination as the price of tempo. Ordinary logistic tasks, such as sweeping, cutting, rigging, refuelling, and marshalling MHE, become exposure pathways, and latency hides the bill until long after the paperwork stops.

Why proof is missing — and why that shouldn’t be fatal

Exposures often fail to appear in files because command salience sits with security and throughput; coalitions churn and records fragment; hygiene doctrine long prioritised infection and water over industrial toxicology; and latency outlasts memory. Compounding this, many hazards that are now recognised and routinely mitigated, legacy asbestos, diesel-exhaust particulates and cumulative solvent exposure were, even less than thirty years ago, poorly understood or not considered in planning, PPE issues, or environmental reconnaissance. That is why Parliament enacted the Veterans’ Support Act 2014 (VSA): a benevolent, merits-based scheme that requires decision-makers to act reasonably, apply natural justice, and ensure equal treatment of equal claims.

Two schemes, same principles

The VSA operates

• Scheme One (older cohorts/legacy service) and
• Scheme Two (modern deployments from 1 April 1974 onwards, with a stronger rehabilitation focus).

Both schemes operate under the Act’s principle of benevolence. New Zealand adopts medical-scientific Statements of Principles (SoPs) from Australia’s Repatriation Medical Authority. Each SoP lists causal factors that, if present, link a condition to service. Two standards of proof apply: Reasonable Hypothesis (RH) for warlike/non-warlike (operational) service, a pro-veteran, lower threshold; and Balance of Probabilities (BoP) for peacetime/routine service, a higher threshold.

How decisions should run in practice.

1. If a relevant SoP exists, Veterans’ Affairs New Zealand (VANZ) tests the claim against it.
2. If the RH test is met for qualifying operational service, the claim must be accepted.
3. If no SoP applies or a SoP cannot neatly capture cumulative exposure, **section 15** applies: VANZ must accept the claim if it is consistent with a reasonable hypothesis based on the facts, unless there are reasonable grounds to believe it is not service‑related. This is the statutory safety‑net for thin or fragmented records.

Where veterans get tripped up when making a claim

Here is where the machinery breaks down: a process that treats missing records as the veteran’s problem and turns a benevolent scheme into an adversarial grind.

• Thin records → heavy proof load on the veteran. Requests for exposure logs, sampling data, or site surveys that never existed end up weaponising the gaps the system created.
• SoPs treated as gates, not guides. Complex, cumulative or novel exposures (multiple deployments, solvents, PCB yards) don’t map neatly to Statements of Principles, yet section 15 isn’t used early to accept a reasonable hypothesis.
• Insurer-style posture. The process can feel adversarial, with repeated demands for “more” evidence, credibility challenges, and narrow readings of medical reports, especially when records are scarce.
• Delay as denial. Multi-stage reconsideration/review/appeal stretches months into years; terminally ill veterans can die before resolution, or families inherit the burden mid-grief.
• The state holds the data, while the veteran bears the risk. VANZ sits within NZDF, the institution with the records and institutional knowledge; yet, the evidential burden often rests with the ill claimant.
• Language and culture mismatch. Claims framed like welfare applications rather than an earned entitlement under a State-fault scheme erode trust and deter engagement (contemporary veteran uptake is reported as extremely low).

If New Zealand truly values those who keep the lines moving, Veterans’ Affairs and the NZDF must do better: shift their efforts from surge-time forms to credible post-tour evidence so that tomorrow’s veteran has a fair shot.

When proof is already thin: build a triangle of proof

• Tasks & places: diaries, load lists, movement tables, port/airfield names, ramp IDs, warehouse numbers, fuel farm locations, photos.
• Site history: industrial uses, conflict damage, spill/burn areas, foam pads, mining legacies, and why it was dirty.
• Medical trajectory: onset windows, peers with similar issues, GP/specialist notes and screening results.

Conclusion

Operationally, the principal danger to military logisticians is often not incoming fire but the estate underfoot, ground that must be made serviceable at pace and under pressure. Somalia serves as a national wake-up call: ordinary logistics in extraordinary environments, mainly undertaken in general-issue kit, with little of the exposure ever documented. Many hazards now recognised and routinely mitigated, such as legacy asbestos, diesel particulates, PCB yards, and cumulative solvent loads, were poorly understood or not considered less than thirty years ago, which only widens today’s evidential gaps.

Even so, that counsel comes too late for many operations up to the early 2000s, when industrial hazards were poorly understood and exposure logs were uncommon. Even if the chaos of early entry cannot be redesigned, commanders and agencies can still complete the process correctly by creating a usable record. A succinct post-tour bundle, filed with personnel records and the unit archive, should include:

• a task/location timeline,
• sketch maps and photographs of sites worked,
• a note of known or likely prior industrial uses,
• brief witness statements,
• unit diaries and load/consignment lists,
• and GP/screening notes (e.g., spirometry where relevant).

Decades later, this modest package can be the difference between a fair hearing and a polite denial. Where no bundle exists for historic tours, assemble the best available reconstruction from diaries, photos, unit logs, site histories, and medical notes.

On the claims side, practice should match principle. Decision-making ought to reflect the benevolent, merits-based intent of the law; use multiple pathways (SoPs and reasonable-hypothesis routes); and adopt a culture that investigates rather than contests. Independent oversight, separate from VANZ and NZDF, would help ensure that the absence of paperwork does not become the absence of justice.