Document EQxOYqmm0earqbva215dG7x

r. * t IN THE CIRCUIT COURT TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT ST. CLAIR COUNTY, ILLINOIS FRANCES E. KEMNER, et al, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) CAUSE NO. S0-L-970 ) MONSANTO COMPANY, ) ) Defendant. ) j j fHr? REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS Before the HONORABLE RICHARD P. GOLDENHERSH January 10, 1986 APPEARANCES: MR. REX CARR, Attorney at Law, and MR. JEROME SEIGFREID, Attorney at Law, On Behal-f ot the Flaintiffs. MR. KENNETH HEINEMAN, Attorney at Law, and MR. JOSEPH NASSIF, Attorney at Law, On Behalf of the Defendant. TRACY LYBARGER, C.3.R., R.P.R. Official Court Reporter INDEX OFFER OF PROOF 1. RENATE KIMBROUGH Cross Examination PAGE o 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF ILLINOIS 2 ST. CLAIR COUNTY 3 FRANCES E. KEMNER, et. al. ) ) 4 Plaintiffs, ) ) 5 ) NO: 80-L-970 ) 6 MONSANTO COMPANY, ) ) 7 Defendant. ) 8 9 10 REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS 11 Before the HON. RICHARD P. GOLDENHERSH 12 JURY TRIAL I 13 January 9, 198y 14 15 APPEARANCES: 16 Mr. Rex Carr Mr. Jerome Seigfreid 17 On Behalf of the Plaintiffs; 18 Mr. J. William Newbold (a.m.) Ms. Felicia Orth (a.m.) 19 Mr. Kenneth Heineman (p.ra.) Mr. Joseph Nassif (p.m.) 20 On Behalf of the Defendant. 21 22 23 24 Debra M. Musielak, CSR, CM 1 X (Following a recess for the lunch period, the following offer 2 of proof was made outside the presence of.the jury.) 3 4 REHATE KIMBROUGH 5 (being called as a witness on behalf of the Defendant, having 6 been previously sworn, continued to testify as follows) 7 CROSS EXAMINATION 3 BY MR. REX CARR 9 Q. Dr. Kimbrough, you understand that you need not be 10 resworn today, that your oath carries over to today's 11 testimony as well, do you not? 12 A I do * 13 Q. Doctor, we have been given some information just 14 recently that Dr, George Roush from Monsanto visited you 15 relative to this case, is that correct? 16 A, No, he actually wanted to visit Dr, Vern Hauk who 17 is my supervisor and, he wanted to discuss with him medical \ 18 records from the Nitro plant, and Dr. Hauk had some -- Dr, 19 Hauk asked me then to meet with Dr. Roush and Dr. Hauk, but, 20 Dr. Hauk had another commitment and had to go -- sent me over 21 to another part of the Centers for Disease Control-, so it 22 ended up that Dr. Hauk and Dr. Paul Stair who is also a 23 scientist at the Centers for Disease Control met with Dr., 24 Roush at CDC I don't remember exactly when the date was to 100 A 1 discuss those records. 2 Q. And are you saying that you did not meet with D r . I 3 Roush? 4 A Yes, X did. 5 Q. And when did you meet with Dr. Roush? 6 A. At the -- it was -- I can't remember the exact 7 date. It was a few months ago. 8 Q. Was it about the time that you agreed to 9 participate, be a witness in behalf of Monsanto? 10 A. I'm not sure whether the request preceded -- I 11 would have to check my records about the dates. I can't 12 really answer. It was about the time, but I may have agreed 13 first and then Roush may have come and visited. It may have 14 been the other way around. I just don't know, 15 Q. Would you check your records, please? 16 A. I would have to do that once I get back to Atlanta.' 17 Q. You did not bring any records? 18 A. No -- I mean, I didn't know that was a question 19 that was going to be asked of me. 20 Q. Well, your best judgment it would have been in the 21 fall of this year? 22 A. Um, yeah. 23 Q. And was that the first time that you discussed any 24 of the facts about this case with any Monsanto employee. 101 1 attorney, or representative? 2 A. I didn't discuss this case at all. He came -- he 3 has collected, and I guess because of some of the litigation 4 that took place with the Nitro workers, he now has records, 5 medical records, of all of the workers, and he wanted to find 6 out whether we would be interested in those records, because 7 he didn't really have anything that he could do with them, 8 nor did he have anyplace to put them. And he^ wanted to know ; 9 whether, because we were in Missouri and were doing studies 10 there, whether we would be interested in getting those 11 records and having them made available to us so that we could 12 examine the details of the medical findings and whatever else 13 was in those records to get a better idea of what the 14 toxicity of TCDD might be. 15 Q:. And you did not discuss that. That is only 16 inferentially connected or remotely connected with this 17 case. But you did not discuss this case at all with Dr. 18 Roush? 19 A. That wasn't the purpose of his visit. 20 Q, That may be, but my question is did you discuss 21 this case with Dr. Roush? 22 A. I didn't discuss this case. I have -- I have 23 previously at meetings and so on prior to that mentioned the 24 fact that I did those rabbit ear tests and things like that. 102 1 Q. What I'm interested not so much when you said to 2 Dr. Roush, but what was the subject matter and what was j i I 3 discussed with Dr. Roush with you? 4 A. We only -- 5 Q. Was this case mentioned during that conversation? 6 A. Wot that I can remember. We were talking about the 7 medical records and I pointed out to him that I would have to / 8 talk to NIOSH about it since we are really responsible for 9 environmental health and not for occupational health. I i 10 Q. Dr. Kimbrough, if you don't mind I understand that j 11 you have a limited amount of time here, I would, if at all 12 possible -- if you've got an unlimited amount of time it may j 13 be different. While I don't want this examination to go on I 14 forever,, if it would be at all possible for you to listen to ! 15 my question and try to answer my question as best you can, so j 16 that we could move on. E4y question is, did you discuss this | 17 case with Dr. Roush? By that I mean the medical facts, the j 18 physical facts, the occurrence facts, or any facts connected 1 19 with this case with Dr. Roush at the time you met with him? s 20 A. No. ! 21 Q. Were you ever advised or did you ever discuss Dr. 22 Bertram Carnow with Dr. Roush? 23 A. Not as far as this -- he may have mentioned his 24 name or -- but, no, didn't have a discussion about him. 103 1 Q. Did Dr* Roush -- and subsequent to that meeting, 2 how long first of all did that meeting take place Dr. 3 Kimbrough? 4 A, He was there for part of the afternoon. 5 Q. It would take a couple of hours perhaps? 6 A. Maybe. Maybe not even that much. 7 Q. Well, I'd like to have your best judgment. 3 A. Maybe a couple of hours. 9 Q. And during that period of time you discussed only 10 the issue of whether or not the CDC would take over the Nitro 11 health records? 12 A. In the condition -- 13 Q. Is that correct? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And did you, following that meeting, have another 16 meeting with Dr, Roush? 17 A. No, I just had a telephone conversation with her. 18 Q. In that telephone conversation did you discuss this 19 case or any of the facts and the medical problems associated 20 with this case with Dr. Roush? 21 A. No, we discussed the, again, the previou-s problem, 22 the records and the Nitro workers. 23 Q. Records about Nitro? 24 A., Yes. 104 j I 1 Q. All right, Now, have you had -- and is it only the j 2 two conversations, the one in person and the one by telephone 3 you've had with Dr. Roush? 4 A. During this time I knew Dr, Roush previously, 5 Q. Well, have you been in the past, from *83 up to the 6 present time, discussed any of the facts of this case or any 7 of the medical problems or medical conditions associated with 8 this case with Dr. Roush? 9 A. Not that I can remember, not specifically. I | i 10 Q, Have you had such conversations with anybody else | 11 associated with, working for, or employed by Monsanto? | 12 A, I'm not quite sure what you mean by those i 13 discussions. I did not specifically, X have come several 14 times to St. Louis and to other places and given talks, and I 15 -- people from Monsanto were in the audience and they have 16 sometimes asked me questions, but, I have not had any private 17 discussion, 18 Q, I mean any conversation where you had directly with 19 Monsanto people about this case or the facts of this case? 20 A. (indicates negatively.) 21 Q. Ma'am? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Were you never asked -- when were you first asked 24 to appear in this case or to give testimony in this case? 105 1 A. As far as I recall, I was just recently asked, I ; 2 was told this morning that apparently I was asked previously. ! 3 Q. You say you were told this morning? Somebody from 4 Monsanto told you that they have signed an affidavit or have i i 5 represented to the Court that you were contacted at some J 6 earlier time, is that correct? 7 A. Yes, but I don't remember. j i 8 Q. You have no memory of it yourself, is that correct? 9 A. No. 10 Q. The first memory you have of any contact with 11 reference to this case would have taken place in the fall of 12 1985, is that correct, ma'am? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Were you ever asked, to the best of your knowledge 15 at any time including the fall of 1985, to give a deposition 16 relative to this case? 17 A. What I normally do, and I get -- 18 Q. Excuse me. Could you answer that question, Dr. 19 Kimbrough I'm really not interested in what you normally do. 20 I want to know what you know. 21 A. I was asked, I guess, whether I would either 22 testify or give a deposition. I don't really remember. 11 23 Q. That was in the fall of this year? 24 A. Yes. 106 1 Q. Did you -- and you have no memory, and I take it i 2 you brought no -- since you have no memory you would have no | 3 records of any such meeting, telephone conversation or any j i j4 contact by Monsanto before September of 1935 relative to this | 5 case, is that correct? 6 A. That's correct. I don't make any of those records. 7 Q. All right. Now, Dr. Kimbrough, have you given 3 depositions in other matters before,administrative hearings, 9 for use in administrative hearings or intrials in thepast? ' 10 A. Just in general or inconnection with Monsanto? j 11 Q, No. No. In general. Not in connection with 12 Monsanto? 13 A. Yes. > 14 Q. And how does one go about getting you to testify by \ 15 way of deposition? i ! 16 A. Usually they -- we have a legal counsel, and if I 17 somebody calls me, I send that person to our legal counsel. j 13 I usually tell them that I don't testify in private I i 19 litigation but they can take it up with our legal counsel and 20 then whatever else they want to do they should go through 21 them. Simply because it would take an awful lot o-f my time 22 if I would have to deal with that, and also because they 23 would be the ones that would decide whether I should testify 24 or not. 107 1 Q. Well, have you ever expressed to the counsel for e 2 the health department that you had no objection to or would 3 in fact testify in particular so-called private litigation? 4 A. No, I have not specifically said that. 5 Q. But you have given such depositions in the past. 6 How many cases have you given such depositions? 7 A. It's usually when it involves the Federal 8 Government in some way. There have been several. 9 Q. Well, have you given deposition litigation where 10 the Federal Government is not involved? 11 A. For instance I gave a deposition in Missouri 12 concerning the riding arenas and the contamination of the 13 horse arenas because we had done all of the -- 14 Q. When did you give that? 15 A. That was maybe '74, *75. 16 Q. And that was in a private litigated matter, was it 17 not? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Yes. And did the -- was there any problem in the 20 persons that wanted your deposition, did they encounter any 21 problems in getting your deposition? 22 A. I don't know. I was told by our lawyer to appear 23 for this deposition which was held at CDC. 24 Q. Do you know whether or not a subpoena was, CDC does 108 1 honor subpoenas, does it not? 2 A. Yes. | 'i 3 Q. Do you know whether or not were you ever served in 4 this case with a subpoena to give an evidence deposition? 5 A. In this particular case here? 6 Q* . Yes. 7 A. No. i j8 Q. Have youbeen served with a subpoena in other cases 9 to givedepositions? ' 10 A. Yes. ! 11 Q. And have you always honored those subpoenas? 12 A. I think at one point a subpoena was -- what you 13 call that, squashed? 14 Q. Quashed? 15 A. Yeah. 16 Q. And somebody filed a motion to quash a subpoena 17 because it was not regular, and it was quashed, is that 18 correct? 19 A. Yes, but X don't remember the details. 20 Q. All right. But other than that, to the best of 21 your knowledge, any type of subpoena to give an evidence 22 deposition has been served upon you, or the health 23 department, or the CDC relative to your testimony, you have 24 honored that subpoena, have you not? 109 'I 1 A* I haven't -- I haven't -- except in a murder case, 2 I haven't been served a lot of subpoenas. That wouldn't be 3 private litigation, I guess. 4 Q. Well, really, not so much -- the subpoena isn't so 5 much served on you as it is served upon the department. My 6 question is really not directed to you personally as such, 7 but as to the department. So far as you know, has the 3 department of health always honored subpoenas and obeyed 9 subpoenas when proper and served on you or the appropriate 10 personnel in the health department? 11 A. I couldn't answer that question. You would have to 12 ask our legal counsel. 13 Q. Well, you have always responded when you've been so 14 advised by the legal counsel, are you not? 15 A. Yes, but I've always done that on their -- 16 Q. I'm sorry. 17 A. I've always done that on their advice and I have 18 never paid any attention to all this other stuff. 19 Q. In any event, to your knowledge, no such subpoena 20 was ever served upon the department in this case, in 1982 or 21 '83, is that correct? 22 A. Not as far as I know. 23 Q. All right. Now, ma'am, back to the conversations 24 that you have had with Monsanto personally, have you had, 110 1 after the two that you mentioned with Dr. Roush, have you had 2 conversations relative to this case with other Monsanto 3 employees, agents, or attorneys up to the time you are 4 testifying here today? 5 A. I was visited by the -- by Mr. Heineman and by Jane 6 Rudolph 7 Q. And was the visit by Mr. Heineman and Ms. Rudolph 3 the first contact that you had other than the ones you've 9 mentioned to Doctor, with Dr, Roush by Monsanto or of 10 Monsanto employees, agents, or attorneys? 11 A. Jane Rudolph called me. 12 Q. When did she first call you? 13 A. That was some time in the fall. 14 Q. Of this year? 15 A. I ust unfortunately don't have any dates. I I j i j I 16 Q. The date isn't important, just so that it's this 17 fall, is all that -- 1 have some letters that -- and other 18 dates, so I .don't need that. And that contact was the first 19 contact with Miss Rudolph that you had, is that correct? i ; 20 A. Yes. j J j21 Q. Now, did she advise you at that time as -to some of 22 the facts or some of the circumstances of this case? ; j23 A. She asked me whether I would testify and I told her 24 to get in touch with Martin Siegel. Ill 1 Q. Did she give you any of the facts at that time? 2 A. I cut her short because very often -- 3 Q* Dr. Kimbroughf all I really want to know whether 4 she,gave you any facts at that time? 5 A. Not really. 6 Q. All right. Now, when did you first get some facts 7 from either Miss Rudolph or Mr. Heineman or somebody else 8 connected with this case? 9 A. That was during the visit. 10 Q. All right. That would be when Mr. Heineman and n Mrs. Rudolph came to see you? 12 A. Uh-huh. 13 Q. You were never told by that time about any of the 14 possible health problems of the people of Sturgeon, 15 plaintiffs in this case? 16 A. No. 17 Q. And you were never told by Mr. Rudolph or Mr. 18 Heineman about the level of dioxin contaminant that was 19 involved in this case? 20 A. That was discussed during the visit, but of course 21 it was also -- most of the information, what information I 22 had, was in the memos that we had written in our staff, and I 23 went back and read that. 24 Q. I understand that, but I'm trying to isolate the 112 1 information given to you by Heineman, Rudolph, or others at 2 Monsanto. I have all the letters and reports that you 3 brought, that you sent out. I have those already and I've 4 read those, Dr. Kimbrough. I'd like to direct your attention 5 to the conversations that you had with people from Monsanto 6 and what they told you. 7 A. I haven't really had any such conversations. 8 Q. My question is did they tell you the level of 9 dioxin in the tank car? 10 A. Only what the levels that we discussed were the 11 levels that were in the memos and whatwastalkedabout here j I | [ ]j 12 when I gave my directexamination. j 1 , i13 Q. I know, butI want to knowwhen were you given that | j14 information that you testified about in direct examination, 15 about the levels in the tank car? 16 A. Not quite sure what levels in the tank car we have 17 talked about, but the only time we talked about levels in i 18 soil and in the OCP-.crude product was at the meeting when the 19 Monsanto attorneys came to CDC to visit me. 20 Q. What did they tell you was the_level of TCDD 21 contamination in the tank car? 22 A. They told me that there was one measurement with 23 the OCP, in the OCP-crude which contain 45 parts per 24 billion. It was also a measurement of, .1 think, 67 parts per 113 1 Q. I'm sorry -- and did they tell you that it was a 2 Monsanto chemist that found the 67 parts per billion of TCDD? 3 A* I don't remember* 4 Q* Did you make notes of that conversation? 5 A. Mo* 6 Q* Did you get from them any kind of report or summary 7 or factual statement about this case in writing? 3 A. Mo. 9 Q, And what you are giving us today is your best 10 memory of what you were told at the time of this visit, is 1 i 11 that correct? 12 A* Yes. 13 Q. And it is not reflected by any kind of memo that ; j i I 14 you may have in your possession either here or back at I 15 Atlanta, is that correct? 16 A. Yes* i j17 Q. All right* What did they tell you as far as the i 18 health effects of the plaintiffs in this case were concerned? j tt 19 A* We didn't discuss the health effects* i 20 Q. They didn't advise you of any findings by the j 21 immunologists, or by Mayos, or by SraithKline, or by anybody j j 22 else? | 23 A* Mo, 24 Q. And is the testimony that you gave on direct 115 1 examination completely with no knowledge as to what 2 laboratories may have found, and what doctors may have 3 related as their opinion as to the medical conditions of 4 those plaintiffs? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Is that correct? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Were you told by Doctor -- by Mr. Heineman or Miss 9 Rudolph that the plaintiffs had been examined by Dr. Carnow? 10 A. They may have mentioned that. 11 Q. Do you know Dr. Carnow? 12 A. Not personally. 13 Q. And do you know of his reputation? 14 A. I have heard his name. 15 Q. Well, ray question is do you know of his reputation? 16 A. Not really. 17 Q. Did Mr. Heineman or Miss Rudolph make any remarks 18 to you about Dr. Carnow? 19 A. They may have said that Dr. Carnow was involved in 20 testifying, and so on. 21 Q. You mean they may have said -- you have-no memory, 22 Dr. Kimbrough, whether they did or not? 23 A. Not specifically. We primarily discussed the work 24 that CDC had done, and that they wanted to use that as 116 1 evidence* 2 Q. And what work was that? i I 3 A* Those were the -- partly the memos that were 4 written, the advice that X had given, the other -- other 5 government officials in the discussions, the rabbit ear 6 tests* The whole thing* 7 Q. As far as what had been discovered about the 8 toxicological effects of the TCDD in Sturgeon or are claimed 9 to have been discovered, you know nothing about that, is that i 10 correct, ma'am? . 11 A. Yeah. ] ii t j 12 Q. All right*And the approximate date of the 13 Heineman and Rudolphvisit was what, Dr*Kimbrough? > i | 14 A. It was before I went to China, which -- 15 Q* Before you went to China? 16 A. Yeah, which would have put it probably in October. i 17 But Mr* Siegel, our legal counsel, would be able to give you ; ii 18 those dates* j 19 Q. X know, but he isn't here* ' 20 A. I'm sorry, he was the one* He was also at this | 21 meeting. 22 Q. Your best judgment as to the time, ma'am? 23 A* Of this visit? It could have been the beginning of 24 October 117 1 Q. Now, did you ever have any contact from some person 2 not employed by Monsanto but intervening for, or speaking 3 for, or interceding for, or in behalf of Monsanto? 4 A. Not that I specifically remember. I get an awful 5 lot of telephone calls and people wanting me to do all sorts 6 of things. 7 Q. And it is -- does the name Dr. Wayland Hayes mean 3 anything to you? 9 A. Yes, he used to be my supervisor. 10 Q. And did he talk with you about Monsanto's needs and 11 necessities or desires in this case? 12 A. It's possible, but I don't remember. 13 Q. You don't have any memory of any conversations in 14 the past' where Hayes asked you to testify in behalf of 15 Monsanto? 16 A. (no response) 17 Q. If you don't, it's all right, Dr. Kimbrough. 18 A. I just don't. I mean -- 19 Q. Now, how about Colonel Young, did you ever discuss 20 your appearance or possible appearance here with Colonel 21 Young with the Air Force? 22 A. He called me recently and asked me whether I had 23 any problems with testifying in court in general and whether 24 I was completely against doing -- giving testimony, and I 118 i ii 1 told him I wasn't 2 Q. I'm sorry? 1 3 A. I told him I was not* 4 Q. You were not. Did he tell you why he was asking 5 whether or not you had any problems of that nature? 6 A. He was-- he mentioned the Monsanto litigation and 7 the fact that we had information at CDC which should be part 8 of the evidence. 9 Q. He mentioned that to you? i 11 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And, is that one of the reasons you've agreed to 12 testify here in behalf of Monsanto, because of that contact? 13 A. No. 14 Q. All right. Now, at any meetings that you had from 15 your first contact with Dr. Roush up to the time you IS testified today, has Monsanto advised you of the dioxin 17 content of other chlorinated phenols other than the 18 orthochlorophenol-crude which you have mentioned already? 19 A. They told me that their Lysol contained trace 20 amounts of 2,3,7 ,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-dioxin. 21 Q. And who was it that told you that? 22 A. The attorneys at this same meeting in Atlanta. 23 Q. And when they described trace amounts, did they 24 tell you at what levels, parts per billion? 119 1 A* They did, but they were low parts per billion and 2 3 Q. I'm sorry? 4 A. They were low parts per billion They were lower 5 than what's in hexachlorophene, or parts per trillon, I'm not 6 7 Q. What's the level? 8 A* The highest that has ever been measured was 20 9 parts per billion. 10 Q. And they told you that it was lower than 20 parts 11 per billion? 12 A. Yeah, but -- 13 Q. Of course you know that hexachlorophene has been 14 taken from the market? 15 A. But not because'of the TCDD, because it has -- it's 16 not toxic in itself. I did that work. 17 Q. Didn't the TCDD add to the toxicity of the 18 hexachlorophene? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Ma'am? 21 A. No. 22 Q. How did you establish that? 23 A. Because the effect that was caused by 24 hexachlorophene is entirely different, and the two are 120 1 Q. Well; Doctor, the extrapolation I'm not -- what was 2 the other compound? 3 A. It's -- those are the chlorinated dibenzo-furans. j i 4 Q, Well, the furans are indeed closely related. And 5 you have worked with furans? ! Ii il 6 A. I have not done any specific work on it. 7 Q. Well, you said you extrapolated from work that you 8 did on -- maybe I'm jumping to conclusions when I say that 9 you did on furans, is it work that others have done on 10 furans? 11 A. Yes. I'm referring to the poisoning in Japan and 12 Taiwan. 13 Q. You are dealing with the food poisoning case there? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Well, you haven't done any independent research of 16 your own? 17 A. No, but I've seen those patients. 13 Q. I'm sorry? 19 A. I have seen the patients. 20 Q, Well, you can see somebody with their legs cut off, 21 doesn't mean a thing, does it, Dr. Kimbrough? 22 A. That's true. 23 Q. Have you done any research in the case of the 24 Japanese people that were damaged by the substance in 122 Ii 1 question? 2 A. No. 3 Q. All right* And, the German work, was it from BASF 4 or was it the Czechoslovakian work, Jirasek, Pazderova? 5 A. I simply reviewed the literature, the German 6 literature, and that was in part the BASF -- 7 Q. And other than BASF literature, did you see 3 associated with neurotoxicity or lack of neurotoxicity of 9 TCDD from Germany? 10 A. There are a number of old reports in the literature 11 and -- 12 Q. Such as? 13 A. There is one paper about Baur, and there is a paper 14 of Kimraig, and those were really different plants* 15 Q. Well, part of BASF, are they not? 16 A* No* No, some of those some of that was in 17 Rheinland-Westphalen 18 Q. Pardon me? 19 A. I'm sorry, that's a German -- I don't know how to 20 pronounce that in English. 21 Q. I have -- I don't have trouble with the 22 pronunciation. I have trouble hearing your voice, m a 'am. 23 A. In Rheinland-Westphaien. There was also .a plant in 24 Hamburg 123 1 Q, Now, Dr. Kimbrough, are you familiar with the 2 findings in the original Nitro employees who were exposed in ' 3 the accident in *49, did they not have neurotoxic syndrome? 4 A. In the workers that were in the explosion? j j ! 5 Q. Yes. 6 A. Yes. Dr. Suskind reported that also. j I 7 Q, Now, you didn't mention that, did you, ma'am? I 8 A. No, I -- 1 9 Q. Or do you know in this case that there are 10 neurotoxic syndromes reported in this case? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Are you familiar with the Suskind morbidity study 13 as to what he reported there? 14 A. I read the study, yes. 15 Q. Now, Dr. Kimbrough, I got somewhat aside there. On 16 the Lysol content, what was your understanding the level of 17 the Lysol contaminant was with TCDD? 18 A. The concentrations were very low, 19 Q. Well, that doesn't help me, ma'am. You've said ! it t j ! 20 that already. 21 A. I don't remember. ! I __ : 22 Q. Were you told by anybody in behalf of Monsanto that 23 their 2,4-dicnlorophenol also was found to contain TCDD? 24 A. Yes. 124 i 1 Q. And at what levels do they tell you the 2 2,4-d*ichlor opheno1 contained? 3 A. I think it was also in parts per billion. i ii 4 Q. Was the first time that you learned that Monsanto 5 had products that it was selling coramerdaily containing TCDD 6 -- was the first time you learned it when counsel for 7 Monsanto told you that fact? 8 A. When there was a lot of publicity about TCDD, the 9 EPA decided to look at production processes -- 10 Q. I wonder if you could answer my question. 11 A. Mo, it wasn't the first time that I was aware -- 12 Q. When did you first learn that Monsanto products 13 contained, that is 2,4-dichlorophenol or Lysol or some other 14 Monsanto product, other than 2,4,5-T, which is well known, 15 contained TCDD? 16 A* I first learned that those types of products can 17 contain trace amounts of TCDD some time in the past, maybe a 18 year ago or so. 19 Q. About a year ago? 20 A. Uh-huh. 21 Q* And from whom did you learn that? 22 A. It was from the EPA. 23 Q. You know where they learned it? 24 A. They asked the manufacturers to give them 125 1 information on production processes and in what production 2 processes you might have contamination with those types of 3 compounds 4 Q. Now, do you know whether or not Monsanto, other 5 than telling you, has ever told anybody associated with the 6 government that their products are coming out of the Sauget, 7 Illinois, plant contained TCDD? 3 A. I don't know. 9 Q. Did Monsanto's representatives, any of them, ever 10 tell you that they had notified the government, the FDA, or 11 the EPA, or the CDC, or any other governmental agency that 12 their products that they were producing here at Sauget, 13 Illinois, contained TCDD? 14 A. They would not have any reason to tell me. 15 Q. That may be or may not be, Dr. Kimbrough, but that 16 isn't what I asked you. 17 A. I would imagine they tell the EPA, but -- 18 Q. Again, I didn't ask you for imagination. I asked 19 you, did they tell you that they ever told anybody? 20 A. No. 21 Q. All right. 22 A. No. 23 Q. Did any representative of Monsanto, including Dr. 24 Roush, ever tell you that they considered one part per 126 1 billion in their Santophen, which is -- do you know what 2 Santophen is? 3 A It's a germicide. i l 4 Q. Well, it's the base that goes in to make the Lysol? 5 A. Uh-huh. 6 Q. Same thing? I 7 A. Uh-huh. 1 .i 8 Q. And did they ever- tell you that they considered one 9 part per billion in the Santophen as medically acceptable? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Have you ever attempted to make a determination as 12 to what amount of the, 2,3,7,8-TCDD, not just TCDD, but 13 2,3,7,8 would be medically acceptable in Lysol? 14 A. No. ! 15 Q, Do you have any judgment as you sit there as to 16 what levels would be, if any, medically acceptable in i 17 Santophen or in Lysol. 18 MR. HEINEMAN: Your Honor, object, beyond the scope j i 19 of the direct examination. 20 THE COURT: Overruled. 21 A. Not for this particular product, but I did for j 22 hexachlorophene ! 23 Q. And what was the level for hexachlorophene that you 24 determined would be medically acceptable for 2,3,7,8-TCDD? 127 j 1 A. I never determined that something was medically 2 acceptable, but I felt it would not add or contribute to the 3 body burden that people were getting anyway, 4 Q. When did you decide that people were getting a body 5 burden of TCDD? 6 A, A few years ago and then -- 7 Q. Well, a few years ago is how many, Dr.Kimbrough? 8 A. In the late '70*3, the early '80's. !i 1 9 Q. Well, your hexachlorophene decision was made when? j j 10 A. I was asked that question around that time whether j i 11 that could appreciably contribute to tissue levels that we j i 12 were finding in adipose tissue, and then I calculated what 13 the dose might be that somebody would get by using things \ i j 14 like Pnisohex or the -- 15 Q. I'm sorry? i i 16 A. Things like Phisohex or. Dial soap that also had j i 17 hexachlorophene in it and decided that because of the ailuton [ 18 factor that you would get, and the amount you would use it, | j| 19 would notappreciably contribute to the body burdens that i 20 people were getting. 21 Q# And, Doctor, when did you first determine that -- i I t I i j 22 there was a body burden of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in adipose tissue? j i 23 A. I decided that once we -- the chemical methods were f 24 going to be able to detect smaller and smaller amounts that 128 1 we would eventually find it, and then the first time it was j 1. i 2 reported was in some adipose tissue samples that the veterans 3 administration had taken both from Viet Nam veterans but also 4 from some control people. 5 Q. You are talking about the Grossr Dr. Gross work 6 from University of Nebraska? 7 A. That was some of it, yes. 8 Q. Well, is there anything other than that? I 9 A. Well, since then, Dr. Rappe has done -- has ` 10 conducted some analysis with tissues. We are doing adipose j 11 tissue analysis at the Centers for Disease Control. 12 Q, And are you basing -- well, that's recently you are i 13 doing that. My question is when did you decide what the body 1 t 14 burden was, and is your answer that all you did was read Dr. 15 Gross' report on the veterans and the controls and the 16 veterans? 17 A. No, I -- that's not the only -- that was not the 18 only reason why I felt that there would be body burdens -- I 19 predicted that, in other words. 20 Q. I'm looking for knowledge. What knowledge did you 21 have. Doctor, as to the levels of TCDD in adipose-tissue in 22 addition to Gross' work? 23 A. I can't really remember when that came out, but at 24 about -- at about the same time several things happened. One i 129 1 was that the methodology was improving so you could detect i 2 lower levels. 3 Q. Doctor, I'm trying to accelerate your appearance 4 here, and if you could just answer my question. I know the 5 methodology came out. I'm interested in knowing what your 6 knowledge was and when you had it. 7 HR. HEINEMAN: Objection, the witness was trying to 3 answer that question and he interrupted her. 9 THE COURT: Overruled. Not responsive. 10 Q. (by Mr. Carr) Do you understand my question, Dr. 11 Kimbrough? 12 A. I'm trying to answer it and it's -- there was some 13 information that those materials were in the environment that 14 came out in the middle and late '70's, and so I assumed if 15 you have something that's very -- that's present in the 16 environment, people would have occasion to be exposed. And I 17 predicted in a paper which I wrote in the *70's that we would 18 probably be able to detect those levels at very low 19 concentrations, and then pretty soon people started 20 publishing and showing those. 21 Q, There ace only two publications we know.of, one 22 from Canada, Kingston and Ottawa, the people living in that 23 area around the Great Lakes, and the Viet Nam study by Dr. 24 Gross, is there another study published. 130 1 A* There are papers by Rappe, who is a Swedish -- 2 Q. I know who Rappe is. But his papers did not 3 mention levels of TCDD in the fat. 4 A He mentions -- 5 Q. He mentions it in the combustion? 6 A, No, he also -- he presented, I think, a paper at 1 the last Banbury -- one of the Banbury conferences -- 8 Q. That may be, and has that been published? 9 A. The Banbury conference has been published, 10 Q. Okay. Doctor, I don't want to spend a lot of time 11 on that. Is that the extent of the knowledge of adipose 12 tissue? 13 A. And our own results, which we haven't published. 14 Q. You haven't brought those results here? 15 A. No. 16 Q. And you have not furnished those to us ahead of 17 time? 18 A. NO. 19 Q. And could you produce those for us? 20 A. No, we haven't finished our analysis. 21 Q. But you've used the knowledge you've gained there 22 in your testimony you are giving here, have you not, ma'am? 23 A. I haven't really used it. 24 Q. I'm sorry? 131 1 A. I haven't -- I expect -- I mean that's -- I 2 expected that. 3 0. Expected what? \ i 4 A. That if you started analyzing fat tissue of humans 5 6 Q. That isn't really what X asked you. You have used 7 the knowledge you've gained in those studies in the testimony 3 that you will not or cannot bring to us in your testimony, 9 have you not, ma'am? ii 10 A. You asked about my experience, yes. i 11 Q. And, Doctor, insofar as you mentioned in your I 12 direct examination testimony, studies that were ongoing as to 13 health effects, I think you mentioned birth defects, and I i ' 14 made a note somewhere if I can find it, you worked with 15 porphyria, screened populations, birth defects, and you had a 16 number of programs going on relative to TCDD, you recall 17 that, m a 1am? 18 A. Some of those statements are made in respect to 19 what you find normally in the general population, rather than 20 any specific study with TCDD. 21 Q. I understand that, ma'am, but you mentioned that 22 you have done a number of studies screening people, things of 23 that sort. Are those -- and birth defects. Are those 24 ongoing studies at the CDC? Are those studies that have 132 1 already been done? 2 A. The Centers for Disease Control did a birth defect 3 study in Viet Nam veterans and that's been published in the 4 Journal of American Medical Association* 5 Q. All right, but I'm interested in your -- are there 6 any other surveys CDC is doing relative to birth defects? 7 A Not at the moment. 3 Q. Are there any that you've done in the past that 9 have not been published? 10 A. Is this only in relation to TCDD now? We have a 11 birth defects program. 12 Q. I would only be interested if it's knowledge that 13 you have used in your testimony or in coming to your opinion 14 about the toxicity of the TCDD and its health effects. 15 That's all I'm interested in. 16 A. No, except for the study that's been published by 17 Dr. Sriksson, which is the study on the Viet Nam veterans. 18 Q. Well, that's been published? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. All right. But there are no other CDC ongoing 21 programs dealing with that? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Birth defects and TCDD? 24 A. No, but we do have this broad birth defects 133 1 surveillance program. 2 Q. And are the results of that program available? i ] i 3 A. Of the birth defects surveillance program? 4 Q. Yes. 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And you didn't bring any of that with you? 7 A. No. 8 Q. What about the other studies you mentioned# you had 9 something ongoing on screening for porphyrias# porphryia 10 cutanea tarda# hematic porphyria? 11 A. We have looked, for instance# at people in Michigan 12 in connection with other exposures, where we have measured 13 porphyrins in urine. 14 Q. Now# is that studyavailable? 15 A. It hasn't been published yet. 16 Q. Is it available? 17 A. It's not in a form where it would be -- in other 18 words# it has not been summarized# but there was a report 19 made by a Dr. Robert Hill in a conference, and that has been 20 published in Environmental Health Perspective. ^ 21 Q. What about work that you've done? Are you working 22 with TCDD now# ma'am? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Have you done any TCDD work other than your -- the 134 1 one article that you published, and I think you wrote, not a 2 chapter, but at least an article for a book relative to 3 occupational exposure to TCDD, anything besides that? 4 A. That was -- I also edited that book. Yes, I have 5 recently written a review for a book that will be published 6 to the Veterans Administration. 7 Q. Is it dealing with TCDD? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Is it available for us? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q* Have you -- did you bring it with you, ma'am? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Did Monsanto advise you that any documents or 14 material that you were going to use for opinions that you 15 were going to express in this case, did they advise you that 16 those must be produced to us? 17 A. No, I mean this is all my -- 18 Q. I'm sorry? 19 A. This is all my information and my knowledge and my 20 experience. But any papers that you want, I'll be glad to 21 send you. 22 Q. But were you advised that we should have that 23 before you testified? Were you given any information at all 24 by Monsanto as to what to bring, what documents to bring, 135 X what documents not to bring? 2 A. No. 3 Q. All right. Doctor, you have in your CV a large 4 number of papers that you've done, as well as reviewed, and 5 talks given, couple hundred of both things, I suppose, put 6 together, have you not, that are related to toxic substances 7 and the effect of toxic substance upon human populations? 8 A. Yes, animal studies. 9 Q. How many thousands of pages would you reckon you've 10 written in the area of effect of toxic substances on things 11 that may be associated with human health? 12 A. I don't really know. 13 Q. Well -- 14 A. If you have a hundred papers and you have fifteen 15 pages a paper, that would be 1,500 pages. 16 Q. And none of those -- we got your CF on the day you 17 testified, I think, came here to testify. None of those 18 publications have been brought to us, have they, ma'am? 19 A. No. 20 Q. And, there is probably 20 lectures or -- they are 21 all listed as lectures on starting out with halogenated 22 compounds in February of '83 down to October the 2nd, '85, 23 lecture of hazard of chemicals in indoor air. All of those 24 are lectures that you have given in the past two years, 1 am? I 2 A. Yes 3 Q. And many of them, if not -- well, the dominant 4 majority of those lectures' that we have given involve dioxin 5 or polycyclic, polyhalogenated materials, do they not, ma'am? 6 A Yes 7 Q. And, are those -- can we get those in the public 8 area or must we get those from you if we needed to review 9 those to cross examine you? 10 A* Most of them are not available in any form 11 Q You have copies of all of those, though, did you 12 not? 13 A No You see, I don't write any talks 1 just go 14 and give them 15 Q Well, do they take -- do you know what you say, 16 m a 1am? 17 A. No X think I gave one in St. Louis that was taped 18 and then later published 19 Q* Ma'am, in any event, the works that you have 20 written and spoken in the past on the subject, some are 21 available and some are not, is that correct? 22 A Yes, but the background information would be 23 available in articles that I have also written. 24 Q. I understand that, ma'am, but you understand what I i 1 maybe don't understand, but when we undertake to cross 2 examine someone, we like to haver in advance of the time we 3 see them, the work that they have done that we can get either 4 from them when we take their prior deposition or order of 5 Court to produce them so that we can cross examine 6 intelligently on your views on particular subjects* None of 7 that material you have brought here in this case, isn't that 8 correct, ma'am? 9 A. No. 10 Q. That is correct, isn't it? 11 A. Yes* I'm sorry* 12 Q* I thought that's what you meant* Now, Dr. 13 Kimbrough, with regard to the Missouri Health Study you did, 14 I think you testified that you designed, or at least 15 participated in the design of the Missouri Pilot Health 16 Study, did you not? 17 A. Yes* 18 Q* And you have in your possession at CDC or available 19 to you the original health records and questionnaires that 20 were a part of that study, did you not, ma'am? 21 A* That is located at the Missouri State Health 22 Department* 23 Q. Well, as one'of the participants in the study r it 24 is available to you, is it not, ma'am? nn 1 A Yes. 2 Q. And if the Court were to order you to bring in the 3 raw data, all of those laboratory reports, you could do so, 4 could you not, ma'am? 5 A. This would be -- would have to be checked with the 6 Missouri State Health Department, becauseveven though we were 7 involved in the study, it is the State Health Department 8 Study. You see, we gave the funding and some technical 9 expertise, but it is a -- the Missouri State Health 10 Department Study. It's not a CDC study. 11 Q. Well, you understand that most of the reports given 12 in that, in the published or reported results of the Missouri 13 Pilot Health Study, most of the lab reports were in the 14 nature of means and not actual values, you know that, don't 15 you, ma'am? 16 A . Yes. * 17 Q. And in order to really know what people had, you 18 would need to see the lab reports themselves, wouldn't you? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Just, for instance,, you could have a hundred people 21 who had abnormally high results in given tests and other 22 people who had abnormally low results in a given test and 23 your mean would come out in the normal range, would it not, 24 m a 'am? 139 1 A. If you had very high and very low -- 2 Q. Could you answer that question, Dr. Kimbrough? 3 A Yes, but if you also give the range, then that 4 would give you some idea. 5 Q. All you've got is a range. You could have one 6 high, one very high and one very low, you've got the range, 7 doesn't tell you at all what the actual values were, does it, 8 ma'am? All you'd have is a range? 9 A. But it would tell you the extent of the 10 distribution. 11 Q. But that wouldn't tell me whether people are sick 12 or not, would it, based upon a laboratory result? All it 13 would give me is you would have a range of 500 parts at the 14 high and another range of five parts at the low, and all 15 cluster either high or low under that range, and you would 16 come up with a normal, if normal were halfway between the 5 17 and the 500, would you not, ma'am? 18 A. Yeah, but if you had this very high value and that 19 was extremely abnormal, that would tell you that that person 20 was sick. If you have a range, it would give you the extent 21 of the distribution of all of the values. 22 Q. But all it would give you. is there is one -- if 23 you've got the range, all you'd get is that there is one 24 high, which could well be a variant, an outlyer, and you've iAn 1 got one low, which very well could be a variant or outlyer. 2 The point that I'm making/ ma'am, is that to properly assess 3 whether you and others connected with that Missouri Health 4 Study did in fact evaluate the lab results properly/ one has 5 to see the lab results/ doesn't one? 6 A. Not necessarily/ but one could do that/ though/ and 7 could review them. Now, whether they are available would be 8 something you would have to discuss with our legal 9 department 10 Q. I know, ma'am, but what you have here and n testifying/ I'm sure you understand, you have an advantage in 12 that you've seen those lab reports If you wanted to, you 13 could see them, if you haven't seen them, and when you 14 testify here, you say my opinion is thus and so. If I don't 15 have the material upon which you base your opinion, I've got 16 no option but to accept what you say, isn't that correct, Dr. 17 Kimbrough? 18 A I've also had training and experience. 19 Q. Excuse me, Dr. Kimbrough, could you answer that 20 question for me, please? 21 A. Yes, and I also have training and experience. 22 Q. Of course you have. No question about that. Dr. 23 Kimbrough, but, when you as a scientist go in and want to 24 find out the truth, you look, or try to discover the facts 141 1 leading up to truth, don't you, ma'am? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And part of the facts leading up to the truth, you 4 don't necessarily -- well, I know you are famous for it, you 5 don't necessarily accept what someone else says, even though 6 they may be trained and experienced, do you, ma'am? 7 A. Yes. 3 Q. Isn't that correct? 1 1 \ 9 A. Yes, that's right. j j 10 Q. You dig into it because you know that even though, ! 11 most best-intentioned people can misinterpret results, there | 12 are biases, aren't there, ma'am, that can color somebody's j 13 conclusions or opinions and interpretations of particular j 14 tests, you know that, don't you? 15 A. The tests themselves may be biased, doesn't r 16 necessarily mean how you took it, though. j . | 17 Q. That's another element. You have to see the test ! j 18 in order to see how it is biased, isn't that true, ma'am? 19 Now, in the case just for example for the Missouri Pilot 20 Health Study, you've given on direct testimony that those 21 people weren't sick, haven't you, ma'am? 22 A. I didn't say they weren't sick, I said that we 23 didn't find anything that we could associate with exposure to 24 TCDD. 142 1 Q. No, and that's because you looked at a group of 2 people that all of whom were exposed to some extent, isn't 3 that correct. Dr. Kimbrough? 4 A. We had really two groups of people -- 5 Q. Could you answer that question, please? 6 A. No, I didn't. 7 Q. Doctor, did you not take 800 questionnaires as -- 8 and separate those people in those questionnaires into the 9 high-risk group and the low-risk group? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And did you not send those questionnaires to the 12 people that live in the vicinity of the contaminated sites? 13 A. That lived in that area, yes. 14 Q. And by living in that area, isn't there a 15 possibility of exposure, albeit low, in some instances? 16 A. The possibility that the low-risk group would have 17 had any -- 18 Q. I wonder if you would answer my question. Dr. 19 Kimbrough. 20 A. It's very remote. 21 Q. Dr. Kimbrough, you took people that live in Times 22 Beach, and put some of those people in your low-risk group, 23 did you not, ma'am? 24 A. We evaluated the possibility -- 143 1 Q* Could you answer my question, ma'am? !! 2 A. I would have to go back and I can't answer that 3 question right now* I would have to go back and -- 4 Q. Doctor, the questionnaires that you received back 5 in response were all from people who lived in the 6 contaminated -- who had addresses in the contaminated area, 7 isn't that correct, ma'am? i 8 A* I can't answer that question. 9 Q. Aren't you familiar with this study that you sent 10 the questionnaires to people that lived in those areas? 11 A. We did, but I would have to -- I would have to 12 check with Richard Hoffman who was actually the one who was 13 conducting the study. 14 Q. Doctor, what you are saying now in point of fact 15 you- don't know whether you did or did not have exposed people 16 in your low-risk group, is that what you are saying, if you 17 have to check? 18 A. We discussed the -- 19 Q. 1 know you discussed it, but could you answer my 20 question? 21 A. The low and high-risk group, X don't recall that 22 the addresses of the people. 23 Q. Doctor, you do know that the 800 questionnaires 24 from which the high-risk group and the low-risk group were 144 1 selected -- well/ strike that. You do know that your t! i i i I j 2 high-risk group and low-risk group were selected from those 3 800 questionnaires that were received, did you not, ma'am? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q* And you do know that those questionnaires were sent 6 to people who responded to media announcements if you live in 7 an area,, one of those contaminated, alleged to be 8 contaminated areas and want to participate in this study, I 9 please give us your name and address. You know that's the j t 10 way you got the people, you know that, too, don't you, ma'am? j 11 A. Yes, but not all of the questionnaires and not all j 12 of that information that was collected was actually used for j 13 the studies. There have been a number of effort -- i i 14 Q. Doctor, please, we know that you didn't study 800 ! 15 people. You selected a high-risk group from the 800 and a i 16 low-risk group from the 800, did you not, ma'am? ! 17 A. Yes, we selected a high and low-risk group. j i 18 Q. But they were all from people who responded to your ! 19 public announcements if you lived in one of those i 20 contaminated area, please let us know your identity, and if 1 21 possible, participate in this study, isn't that correct, 22 m a 'am? 23 A. The -- 24 Q. Could you answer that question? 145 1 A. No, that's not quite correct. 2 Q. Well, how is it incorrect? 3 A. In that there were two efforts ongoing. One was to 4 simply have a registry of, and register all of the people 5 that had had exposure. And that is what some of U3 6 collection of people and so on, that was done by the Missouri 7 State Health Department and then in addition to that we 8 specifically tried to get two groups of people for the 9 studies, and we did the same thing with Quail Run. In other 10 words, one is simply a registry -- a registry of all of those n people 12 Q. Yes. 13 A. That's one event which is separate from the 14 studies. 15 Q. All right. Go ahead. 16 A. And the people that were selected for the studies 17 were from the area with the highest contamination at Times 18 Beach, and then we tried to match them with controls from an 19 area that had really no contamination. 20 Q. Oh, now, Dr. Kimbrough, you did not send 21 questionnaires to areas that were not contaminated, did you, 22 m a 1am? 23 A. Well, this is not -- the -- this is not the -- the 24 study of the small group of people where we also picked 146 1 controls. i 2 Q. Doctor, did you not ~ could you give Monsanto 3 Exhibit 55 to the witness. Could you turn to Page 26, Dr. 4 Kimbrough? 5 MR. HEINEMAN: Excuse me, is 55 the right -- 6 MR. CARR: Yes, Monsanto Exhibit 55. Are you 7 ready? 8 MR. HEINEMAN: No, Ifm not. i i j 9 MR. CARR: Missouri Pilot Health Study. \ 10 Q. (by Mr. Carr) Page 26. Does it describe the i n medical cares and methods used? j 12 A. Yes. ! 13 Q. And does it say in the middle of that paragraph, 14 "We administered the questionnaire to the individuals (or 1 i j 15 nearest relatives) believed to be at risk of exposure based j*i 16 on residence near, occupation at, or frequent activities in 17 proximity to contaminated sites." i j I 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And did you in fact do that? 20 A. Yes. ' ! i * | ! 21 Q. And now, Doctor, the high-risk group is described 22 on the next page, is it not, that you -- ! 23 A. I would like to continue reading the end of this. 24 Q. You would like to read it foryourself or -- > _______ __ ____________________________________________________________ i 147 1 A, Yes* 1 iIl I ii I 2 Q. Or for some other purpose? 3 A. Well, in order to be able to explain what I was 4 trying to explain -- 5 Q. Doctor, I'm really not asking for an explanation 6 right now, I'm asking you specific questions and I'd like to 7 have specific answers* Did you in fact administer the j8 questionnaire to individuals who were believed to be at risk ! 9 of exposure? Is that a true statement, Dr. Kimbrough? t 10 A. Well, if you read at the bottom of Page 26, that j i 11 explains what I was trying to say. It says, 'This process I 12 has since been continued with more active efforts being taken 13 to find and interview all potentially-exposed individuals as i1 14 well as comparison populations from uncontaminated areas." 15 Q. I understand that. I'm not asking about that, 16 Doctor, Is what I read to you true? Did you in fact do 17 that, ma'am? 18 A. Yes, but that wasn't -- that was a survey. ! I j 19 Q. Now, that's correct, no doubt about it. Now, would i i 20 you turn to the next page, ma'am. 21 A, All right. 22 Q. You selected your high-risk group from that group 23 of the people that completed the 800, the 800 questionnaires, i 24 did you not, ma'am? Is that correct, ma'am? j 148 1 A. This was how the high-risk group was selected. 2 Q. They were selected from those people that completed 3 the questionnaires were they not* ma'am? 4 A* The high-risk group yes. 5 Q. All right. Now, would you turn to the next page 6 ma'am? And on the next page you say "We also selected a 7 low-risk comparison group of individuals most of whom were 8 from the group of 800 who had completed the questionnaires." 9 Correct ma'am? 10 A # Yes. 11 Q. Now the questionnaires were sent to people who you i 12 believed to be at risk of exposure is that right ma'am as 13 stated as you said was the truth as stated on Page 26? i | i 14 A. Yes. | ! ? 15 Q. And you selectedfrom thatgroupof 300 the | i 16 low-risk group -- I'm sorry. You selected for your low-risk j 17 group most of the people were from the group of 800 who 18 completed the questionnairecorrect ma'am? j * I 19 A. Yes. i 20 Q. And the questionnaire was sent* to people who were 21 believed to be at risk of exposure based on residence near 22 occupation at or frequent activities in proximity to 23 contaminated sites correct ma'am? 24 A. Yes. 149 i 1 Q. is that correctr ma'am? 2 A. That's correct, but then we also -- Sorry. 3 Q# Host of your low-risk comparison group was selected 4 from those people who were described in that sentence I just 5 read to you, were they not, ma'am? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And, your low-risk group, most of them, not all, 8 but most of them were selected from people who were believed 9 to be at risk of exposure based on residence near, occupation 10 at, or frequent activities in proximity to contaminated 11 sites, is that correct, ma'am? 12 A. They were selected because -- 13 Q. Could you answer that question, please, ma'am? 14 A. They were selected out of that group because they 15 didn't have all of those criteria. 16 HR. CARR: I wonder if you would direct the witness 17 to answer the question as I framed it? 18 THE COURT: Dr. Kimbrough, you have to answer it as 19 the attorney frames it. 20 A. Well, I can't. / 21 THE COURT: Well -- -_ 22 A. I mean, you can't -- 23 THE COURT: It's a clear question, and you've shown 24 yourself obviously capable of understanding any question 1P A 1 that's been asked in this courtroom so far* I would ask that 2 you answer it as it's asked* If there is anything else that 3 you feel needs to be brought out or that Mr. Heineman feels 4 needs to be brought out, he'll have an opportunity for 5 redirect examination where he can bring that out* But at 6 this point in time, you answer the questions of the attorney 7 who's asking you the questions* 8 A* Could you repeat the question, please? 9 (Question was read back by the Court Reporter.) 10 A. No* | 11 Q. Was it the truth, as you said it was the truth, [ t 12 that the low-risk group, most of it were taken from the group 13 of 800 who completed the questionnaire? Is that the truth, 14 ma'am? 15 A Yg s 16 Q. It is the truth that most of your low-risk group i I i | 17 were taken from the group of 800 who had completed the 18 questionnaire? 19 A* Yes* * i 20 Q. And the questionnaires were administered to j I 21 individuals who were believed to be at risk of exposure, were j 22 they not, ma'am? J 1 23 A* Yes* 24 Q* And therefore the low-risk group was selected from J 1 that group of people who were believed to be at risk of 2 exposurer isn't that correct, ma'am? I 3 A. No. 4 Q. Doctorf how can one be the truth and not the 5 other? If you selected it from the people who completed the 6 questionnaires, and the questionnaires were sent to people 7 believed to be at risk, of necessary, if I put eggs in this 8 basket, and if I take eggs out of that basket, I'm obviously j ! 9 selecting people -- eggs that had previously been put in that | i 10 basket? n A. Maybe those eggs weren't eggs. 12 Q. But it describes them as eggs, says individuals 13 believed to be at risk. That's the people you administered 14 the questionnaires to, isn't it, ma'am? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And that's the same group of people as described in 17 the second paragraph on Page 28, isn't it sir, the group of 18 800 who completed the questionnaire? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And those were the people who had the lowest risk 21 of exposure, correct, sir -- ma'am? 22 A. I don't -- 23 Q. Doesn't it describe that those were the people with 24 the lowest risk of exposure? 1 A. NO. 2 Q. Doesn't it say that -- am I reading that wrong? 3 Aren't the words with the.lowest risk of exposure based on 4 exposure site* doesn't that appear there, ma'am? 5 A* On which page are we now? 6 Q. Page 28, Doesn't it say that they selected the 7 low-risk group, most of them were from the group of 800 with 8 the lowest risk of exposure based on type exposure, site, 9 age, risk, etcetera? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Then they had a risk of exposure but it was the 12 lowest risk of exposure, this group of people, correct, 13 ma1am? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And those were people who resided near, had an 16 occupation at, or frequent 'activities in proximity to 17 contaminated sites, correct, ma'am? 18 A. No. 19 Q. That is incorrect? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Now, Doctor, the only way I suppose that we can 22 test that is to find out if you're -- you don't call them -- 23 maybe there is another way. You don't call them no-risk 24 group, do you, ma'am? 153 T i t \ 1 A. They virtually had no exposure* J 2 Q* Excuse me, that's not my question* You don't call 3 this group a no-risk or unexposed group, do you, ma'am? 4 A* To be conservative we call it a low-risk group* 5 Q. Could you answer my question, ma'am? 6 A* We called it a low-risk group* 7 Q* Dr* Kimbrough, you are not answering my question* j 8 Would you read the question to her again* i | 9 (Question was read by the Court Reporter) ! 10 Q* You don't call this a no-risk orunexposed group, ! 11 do you, ma'am? ! 12 A * No 13 Q* You called them low-risk? ! 14 A* Yes* 15 Q* Low-risk means that there is some risk, albeit low, ; 16 correct, ma'am? 1 * i I 17 A. Yes. | t 18 Q* Now, no-risk or unexposedwould mean that theyhave I 19 no risk of any problems related to dioxin, wouldn't that be 20 correct, ma'am? 21 A. No. i t ! 22 Q* That wouldn't be correct? 23 A* No* 24 Q* What's incorrect about that, Dr* Kimbrough? 1 i 1 A. Because the general population, everybody has trace 2 amounts of exposure to very low levels. 3 Q. Now, Doctor, you really don't know that to be a 4 fact, and I'm not going to quarrel with that, but that's not 5 responsive to ray question. The best way to put it then, 6 ma'am, is you did not select a group of controls that you 7 believed to have no exposure to this particular episode of 8 dioxin contamination, isn't that correct, ma'am. | i 9 MR. HEINEMAN: Excuse me, Your Honor, I'd like to | j i 10 object to the question of Mr. Carr. He's arguing with the j 11 witness and I'd like to have his statement about what she i j 12 knows and doesn't know be stricken from the record. It's not j i 13 a question and she has answered specifically the question i 14 that he did ask her. : 15 THE COURT: Objection is overruled. 16 Q. (by Mr. Carr) Is that correct, ma'am? 17 A. Could you repeat the question? 18 (Question read back by the Court Reporter) 19 A. No, that's not true. | | | il | I j i I 20 Q. You did select a group of people who did not reside 21 in the contaminated site areas? 22 A. They did -- 23 Q. They did reside, didn't they, ma'am? | 24 A. Yes. i er 1 1 Q. And if somebody resides in Times Beach they may on 2 occasion use the streets of Times Beach* might they not* 3 raa1am? 4 A Yes* 5 Q, Ma'am? 6 A* Yes. 7 Q. And* if they use the streets of Times Beach* they 8 are going to have some risk of exposure to dioxin* aren't 9 they* ma'am* from the dioxin that's in the soil in the 10 streets of Times Beach? 11 A* They may. 12 Q. Yes. And that is what your low-risk group 13 consisted of* didn't it* ma'am? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Yes. 16 THE COURTs Mr. Carr* is this a good point for a 17 short break? 18 MR. CARR: Yes* Your Honor. 19 THE COURT: We will take a short recess at this 20 time. 21 (Following a recess* these proceedings continued outside the 22 presence of the jury.) 23 Q. (by Mr. Carr) Dr. Kimbrough* is the Missouri 24 Health Study the only human health study of which you are 1 aware and which the effects of low-dose exposure to dioxin 2 was the subject of the study? 3 A. There have been studies in Seveso, Italy. 4 Q. Well, Seveso. All right. 5 A. And then there was a study of the Ranch Hand -- the 6 Ranch Handers in the Air Force. 7 Q. Well, the Ranch Handers, some people questioned 8 whether or not it was a study of exposure at all. But those 9 three then, Seveso, Ranch Hand and Missouri? 10 A. And then we looked at birth defects on Viet Nam 11 veterans that has been reported. There was a mixed exposure 12 in Binghamton where some people were looked at. 13 Q. Well, that was a lot of other chemicals involved 14 there, a lot of other furans and everything else involved 15 there. It would be extremely difficult to isolate, would it 16 not, what effects, if any, the TCDD at the Binghamton Office 17 Building may have had upon the people? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Impossible to tell, would it not? 20 A. There was a mixed exposure. 21 THE COURT: I'm sorry, I didn't hear your answer. 22 A. There was a mixed exposure. There were a number of 23 chemicals. 24 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. 157 * 1 1 Q. And do you subscribe to the theory that when 2 chemicals are mixed that way, there can be synergistic 3 effects, one toxic chemical added to another toxic chemical, 4 the sum of the toxicity would be greater than if they were 5 just individually exposed? 6 A. That occurs sometimes, and the opposite can also be 7 true. It varies. 8 Q. Sometimes one can tend to neutralize the other so 9 that the two chemicals mixed together would be less toxic I 10 than the sum of the two individually, and the opposite is 11 true, they add to one another's toxicity in some instances? 12 A. Yes. l 13 Q. All right. And that could be, could it not, a 1 i 14 cause of some of the serious problems that were found at the ji 15 Binghamton Office Building, synergistic effect? 16 A. I'm not aware of any sefious problems. 17 Q. You are not? I 18 A. No. Ii l 19 Q. Have you read -- I don't know whether he's a j 20 doctor, Dr. Schecter's work on this area? 21 A. Yes, Schecter; 22 Q. Have you read that? 23 A. Yes. I'm on the -- I'm a member of the group of [ 24 consultants that has advised the New York State Health j -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I 158 1 Department. 2 Q. Weren't there a number of serious health effects 3 described in the Binghamton Office Building? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Then perhaps you are not, and I don't have the 6 particular document with me to show it to you, but you don't 7 recall reading in the book that was put out that the 8 Plaintiff's Exhibit here, the exact number X don't know, in 9 which there were -- the people seen at the clinic were, 10 following exposure were found to have a number of serious 11 problems? 12 A. I'm aware of -- 13 Q. Suicide and things of that sort? 14 A* I'm aware of Dr. Schecter's reports. They are 15 individual case reports and those people may have had 16 problems, but whether or not that was related to the exposure 17 is not clear. 18 Q. Well, it's not clear that it wasn't related to 19 exposure. They had the exposure and they had those problems, 20 isn't that right, ma'am? 21 A. The exposure hasn't been established all that well, 22 either. 23 Q. Well, that's another problem, Doctor, but they were 24 in the office building, they had potential exposure, they had i 1 those problems did they not, ma'am? 2 A. They claimed to have problems. 3 Q. Well did a doctor upon examination confirm that 4 they did have those problems? 5 A. I'm not sure what problems we are talking about. 6 Q. Well maybe I better take the time to look up the 7 exhibit* Would you Jerry? I don't think I brought that file 8 with me* Here it is* Article -- Plaintiff's Exhibit 1534 9 1534 A 1534 B I'll hand our copy to her* 10 THE CLERK: I have them* 11 Q* Give her 1534 B that would be the easiest thing | 12 for herto use* Now what was my -- Doctor have you had a | i 13 chance to look at Page 8? 14 A* Not really. 15 Q. Now have you had a chance to look at it? 16 A* Uh-huh. i !i 17 Q. Doctor there is a number of significant problems | 18 described in that exhibit are there not m a 'am? 19 A. Yes but I'm not sure that they have anything to do i 20 with the Binghamton building. 21 Q* Doctor I didn't ask you that did I? What I asked 22 you was in this document there was a number of significant 23 problems aren't there Doctor? 24 A* There are a number of conditions listed* 160 1 Q. Do you not consider those conditions significant 2 problems? 3 A. Yes, they may be* 4 Q. Well not maybe, they are if they exist, they are 5 significant problems, aren't they. Dr. Kimbrough? 6 A. Yes, if they exist. 7 Q. And, do you have any reason to doubt the truth of 8 what's reported by Schecter as having been found in this 9 occupational medical clinic? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. You have reason to doubt the truthfulness of it? i | iI j 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Do you -- is Dr. Schecter a -- do you have some 14 knowledge that he lies and cheats and tells tales? 15 A. No, but there are studies that were also done by 16 the New York Health Department, there are other studies that 17 looked at the same group of people. 18 Q. How do you know that, Doctor? 19 A. Because I am an advisor to the New York State 20 Elealth Department. 21 Q. What other health studies are you talking about at 22 New York? 23 A. They surveyed the population. 24 Q. Who surveyed. Doctor? 1 A. Some physicians at the State Health Department. 2 Q. Physicians, Doctor, are you sure it was physicians? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Was it not -- and did they publish it, Doctor? 5 A. There are reports that are available which you can 6 obtain by writing to the New York State Health Department. 7 Q. Doctor, we have some reports and what we have is 8 Dr. Roush referred to them and they were -- he originally 9 said it was by a doctor but when we got to it, we found out 10 it was some technician made a report. Is that what you are 11 referring to, sir -- ma'am? 12 A. No, it's a woman physician and I can't recall her 13 name right now, and Doctor Axelrod, who is also a physician. 14 Q. And they have published those, Schecter's reports 15 untrue? 16 A. They have not published'his reports are untrue, < 17 they have examined the people and they have summarized their 18 findings. 19 Q. Well then, what you've done is you've selected and 20 chose to believe the report of this group you've mentioned, 21 Axelrod and others and not what Schecter says, is that right? 22 A. What I'm saying is that there seems to be -- 23 Q. Excuse me, could you answer that question? 24 A. Yes, because there is a discrepancy. 162 i1 1 Q. And you selected the one that you wanted to believe 2 and rejected the one that you did not want to believe, 3 correct? 4 A. I have been several times in Binghamton, many 5 times* 6 Q* Could you answer that question, ma'am? 7 A. Yes* 3 Q. The answer is yes, you did reject the Schecter 9 view, did you not? 10 A* Yes* 11 Q* Now, Schecter's book was -- his article was 12 subscribed by as a co-author, Dr* Tiernan, do you believe him 13 to be a reputable scientist? 14 A. He is a chemist* 15 Q* Do you believe him to be a reputable scientist? 16 A* Yes* 17 Q* M. L. Taylor, do you believe him to be a reputable 18 scientist? 19 A* I don't know who M. L* Taylor is. 20 Q* Isn't Taylor from the Wright State University, the 21 laboratory? Don't you know he's in the Department of 22 Pharmacology and Toxicology? 23 A* I guess I did know that* 24 Q* Yes, you did* Do you consider him to be a 163 1 reputable scientist? 2 A. I really don't know much about him* 3 Q. Do you believe the laboratory at Wright State 4 University, reputable scientists? 5 A . Y@Si 6 Q. Do you think they would say something that was not 7 true if they knew it was untrue? 8 . A. They might not know. 9 Q. I know thatf but that's not what I said/ is it? 10 A. Their contribution was to the tissue levels. 11 Q. Excuse me/ could you answer my -- Could you read 12 it7 13 (Question read back by the Court Reporter.) 14 A. No, I don't think so. 15 Q. If they reported dioxin in blood; would you believe 16 themr that they were telling the truth? 17 A. I would wonder about that. 18 Q. Whether they are telling the truth? 19 A. They may know it -- as they see the truth they 20 would be telling the truth. 21 Q. Well, that's what I'm asking you. 22 A. But it may not be the real truth. 23 Q. The truth is always in the eye of the beholder, may 24 not be a fact but I could believe this world is flat and if I 164 1 tell you this world is flat and believe it to be so, I'm 2 telling you the truth, am I not? 3 A. But that's not the way things are. 4 Q. But it's not a fact that the world is flat, is it, 5 raa1am? 6 A* NO. 7 Q. You understand when I ask you whether it's a fact 8 or whether it's a truth I'm asking you two different things, 9 what a person is saying? Because I'm asking you based upon 10 the reputation, what you know of Dr. Taylor, Tiernan. Would 11 they report the truth as they saw it to be the truth? ^ 12 A. As they saw it, yes. ,i | ! 13 Q. Would they do that? j i 14 A. Yes. I i 15 Q. So the rest of thosepeople from the Department of I j 16 Surgery at the clinical campus of the Upstate Medical Center, j 17 New York at Binghamton, do you know him, this is G. Gitlitz, | 18 I suppose? | 19 A. No. 20 Q. You don't know him? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Do you believe then, ma'am, that those people did 23 not have skin cancer as described here? 24 A. They may have skin cancer, yes. x 1C E 1 Q. Do you believe that they had liver pathology, three | 2 cases of liver pathology? 3 A. They had some changes in their liver Pathology is 4 a little strong. 5 Q. Well, do you believe they had liver pathology? 6 A. Mo, I don't believe that. 7 Q. Did you look at the slides? ,u 8 A. I also saw the -- { i j 9 Q. Excuse me, did you look at the slides? 1 10 A. I saw the pictures of the ultra structures. 11 Q. I'm sorry? 12 A. Yes, I did look at some pictures that he had. j 13 Q. That Schecter had? 14 A. Yes. I 15 Q. And that were published as a matter of fact in the I i 16 book, you saw those, didn't you? j l 17 A. I didn't see the book but 1 saw the -- I saw some j 18 pictures of the liver. 19 Q. And it is your judgment I forgot -- forgive me, are ! 20 you a pathologist? i 1 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. It's your judgment as a pathologist, that those 23 pictures did not show any pathology? * 24 A. They show some changes. * I j 1 ! 166 ---------------------------------------------------------------- i I 1 Q. That isn't what I asked you? i l | 2 A. They don't show what I would consider pathology. 3 Q. All right. They show changes but you did not 4 consider those changes to be pathological? 5 A. Right. 6 Q. Do you believe them when they say they had 7 hypertension or they discovered associated with this fire, i 8 case of hypertension# or doesn't say a case but just 9 hypertension, do you believe that? 10 A. Not the association, no. 11 Q. Dr. Kimbrough, I'm going to get to that in a 12 moment, but I'm asking you now whether or not you believe 13 those cases existed and that Schecter is telling the truth 14 when he says they were from people that had been working in 15 that building? 16 A. That's possible. 17 Q. I'm not even asking you that. Do you believe it 13 could be the truth? Do you think the man is lying when he 19 says it was reported to him that those people were working in 20 this building and at the occupational clinic those records 21 showed those things? Do you think Schecter is lying? 22 A. You find those things in the general population. 23 Q. Dr. Kimbrough, every ailment on earth you find in 24 the general population? 167 1 A. Uh-huh, yes. 2 Q. You can have somebody laying in the street and he 3 says I just got run over by a car, I got these broken legs, 4 and you can say, well, you find that in the general 5 population. You can say that about anything and everything, 6 can you not? That's not an answer to my question, did you 7 believe that, is it, Dr. Kimbrough? 3 A. I think it is. 9 Q. Dr. Kimbrough, do you believe the man is telling 10 the truth when he says it was reported to him he found in 11 those records, in those clinical records, a case of 12 hypertension, suicide, nervousness, irritability, insomnia, 13 impotence, fatigue, elevated serum cholesterol and 14 triglyceride levels, psychoneurotic illness leading to time 15 off from work and psychiatric treatment, headaches, and 16 peripheral nerve impairment and other findings? Do you 17 believe that, believe that he's telling the truth that those 18 were facts that he believes, those are things that he 19 believes to be facts and are shown in the records that he's 20 examined? 21 A. I don't really believe that. 22 Q. Do you have any information of your own to cause 23 you to come to a disbelief that Schecter is telling the 24 truth? 168 ^ 1 A. The -- the New York State Health Department i j 2 reviewed the -- 3 Q. I know that somebody did the reviewing. I'm asking 4 you whether or not you have any information of your own to 5 support your statement that Dr. Schecter is not telling the 6 truth when he reports those things? 7 A. There weren't -- there aren't that many abnormal 8 health effects in those findings in this population. 9 Q. Doctort you still didn't answer my question. 10 A. Ho, I don't. 11 Q. Now, Doctor, what -- why would Schecter -- what 12 would motivate him to tell something that he doesn't believe 13 is the truth? 14 A. I don't know. 15 Q. Have you associated with him in the past? 16 A. Yeah. 17 Q. Does he hae a financial or monetary interest in 18 telling something that isn't true? 19 A. Not as far as I know. 20 Q, is there any reason that you know of that he would 21 not report the truth as he sees it? 22 A. He may be overstating the facts. Some people do 23 that. 24 Q. I know that. Some people don't do it. My question KO 1 is, any reason that you know of at all why he would not be 2 telling the truth? 3 A. I don't know of any reason, no. 4 Q. All right. Then -- he is then, unless -- do you 5 simply believe he made it up, just for fun? 6 .A. I think he's overstating the fact, and we have 7 argued about this in public, at meetings. I've told him so. 8 Q. Well, by overstating the facts, do you mean that 9 somebody that he -- when he -- there was not three cases of 10 skin cancer? 11 A. There may have been three cases of skin cancer. 12 Q. Excuse me, if there may have been three cases of 13 skin cancer, he's not overstating the fact that those three 14 cases of skin cancer exist, isn't that correct, ma'am? i 15 A. Yes, but they had nothing to do with the exposure. 16 Q. Doctor, that may be. That's the next point that 17 I'll get to, if I ever get to it. That may be. what I'm 18 asking you is whether or not there were -- there were cases 19 of skin cancer. Do you have any reason to dispute or doubt \ 20 that there were three cases of skin cancer as reported by Dr. t 21 Schecter? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Do you have any reason to doubt that there were j 24 three cases of liver pathology with those changes, although j __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I 170 1 you don't call them# with, liver changes as described by Dr. 2 Schecter? 3 A, There were liver changes. 4 Q. And X adopted, do you have any reason to believe 5 that he's not telling the truth there# if we call those liver 6 changes rather than liver pathology? 7 A. It is my recollection that there were two people 8 with liver changes# but I may be wrong. 9 Q. And he may be right? 10 A. Right. | 11 Q. Now, this is not only published# given before the j i 12 some chemical society# if my memory serves me right, also I ji 13 published in a book# wasn't it? Chapter in a book? This was 14 the follow up of the ACS meeting in Miami? l 15 A. Yes. i 16 Q. Yes. ' 17 A. Yes# just the proceedings are published. j [ 18 Q. Those other things# to save me going into one at a j 19 time# do you believe that those other cases exist but that he j ii 20 has in each instance tried to connect them to the Binghamton j 21 fire and you don't believe such a connection exists? What } ! ! 22 I'm trying to do is separate# Dr. Kimbrough# whether or not j 23 those cases exist from a connection with the# causal 24 connection with the fire# that's what I'm trying to do. Do 171 1 those cases exist in your opinion? 2 A. I don't know. 3 Q. You don't have any reason to doubt that they exist, 4 do you, ma'am? He would not make them up, would he, ma'am? 5 A. I do, sir, have some reason to doubt, but I don't 6 know whether he made them up. 1 Q. You think he might have made them up? 8 A. I don't know 9 Q. I know what you said, you don't know, I'm asking 10 you to put it on the record. Do you think that he might have 11 made them up? 12 A. I just don't know. 13 Q. Do you understand the difference between think and 14 know? 15 A. I don't know. 16 Q. X know you don't know whether he made them up. Dr. 17 Kimbrough, do you believe that he made them up? Do you think 18 that he made them up? 19 A. I don't know that either. 20 Q. You don't know what you think or what you believe? 21 I'm asking you what you think or believe, Dr. Kimbrough. 22 A. Some of them may be there and some of them the 23 evidence may really not be there. The only way I would have 24 to be able to do that would be to look at the records. 172 1 Q. That isn't what I'm asking you, again, Dr* 2 Kimbrough. Do you believe that he made those cases up or any 3 of those cases up? 4 A. I can't answer that question 5 Q. Is it because you have no belief one way or the 6 other? 7 A That's one part of it, and I'm not really sure what 8 we are talking about, what cases and what of those parts. 9 Q* I can help you with the latter part, the cases that 10 he has described in here. Are those fictitious cases that he 11 has made up for whatever purpose he might have? Are those 12 cases, or are those cases, do they in fact exist as far as 13 you -- do you have any information to believe that they do i 14 not exist, that this is something manufactured by Dr. 15 Schecter or by somebody else? i 16 A. There are other possibilities. 17 Q. And those are -- 18 A. For instance, you don't know whether all of this 19 occurred in just a few people, whether with each of those 20 things you are talking about a separate person -- 21 Q. Maybe, I'm not quarreling with that. 22 A. So I don't know. 23 Q. I'm not trying to tell you each of those are 24 separate episodes. I'm simply trying to find out from you1 1'71 i i 1 whether or not you believe those are symptoms accurately, or j i 2 not accurately even, but truthfully reported by Dr. Schecter7 3 A. I just don't know. 4 Q. I know that. I'm asking you what you believe. 5 A. I believe that they are not accurately reported. 6 Q. No, and I asked you whether or. not you believe they 7 are truthfully reported. Left the accurate out. 3 A. As Dr. Schecter sees the truth, they may be 9 truthful. 10 Q. All right. 11 A. I don't know. | ij12 .Q. Well, that's what I'm asking you. Do you believe i 13 that he is telling the truth as he sees it? | ii 14 A. I don't know. j \ 15 Q. Doctor -- Doctor, you do understand the difference 16 between the word believe and know, don't you, ma'am? I would ] i17 like to move on to another point. It is an elementary thing, i 18 what you believe. Why are you reluctant to tell me whether | I 19 or not you believe the man is telling the truth? That's all i i* 20 I'm asking you. Do you believe the man is telling the truth ! 21 as he sees it? He may be seeing imaginary things, may be j | 22 seeing things that do not exist, but is he relating the truth j ! 23 as he sees it in your belief, ma'am? 24 A. The truth as he sees it, yes. 174 1 1 Q. All right* Now, Doctor, the next point to ask is 2 whether or not the truth as he sees it was in fact associated 3 with the Binghamton Office Building* Do you believe that 4 those people that he -- not accurately, truthfully reporting 5 his belief, that those people had a connection with the 6 Binghamton Office Building fire? 7 A. I -- you stated your question in two ways. Which 8 one should I answer? | 9 Q. Do you believe that he is telling the truth that as 10 he sees it that those cases of those problems listed here 11 were associated with people who had been in the building 12 after the explosion, after the fire? 13 A* I can't answer that question* 14 Q. Why not? i j I 15 A. Because I don't know what people he's talking 16 about. 17 Q. He's talking about those people that he's described 18 here, those cases that he says were people, cases of people . 19 that were in the building. 20 A. He's talking about a subset of patients followed in 21 an occupational clinic, and I'm not sure what this subset of 22 patients represents, whether they actually were all in the 23 building. 24 Q* It represents a group of people that he believes ! I \ 175 1 w e r e in the b u i l d i n g , d o e s n ' t it, ma'am? | 2 A. Yeah, but 1 don't know that, 3 Q. I know you don't know it, ma'am. I'm talking about 4 -- everything that you read in an article, you don't know 5 that it exists. What I'm asking you, is do you believe that 6 he's reporting what he things is the case, that those people 1 were in the building? 1 8 A. That had those symptoms, problems, I don't know. 9 Q. Dr. Kimbrough, you do know what the word believe 10 means, don't you, ma'am? You do know that it's different t j11 from the answer you are giving me, you knew that, don't you? 12 Why are you coming here and doing this? \ 13 A. I'm trying to answer your questions and I can't I 14 answer this question, not this way. 15 Q. You can answer the question as to what you believe, 16 Doctor. If you believe the man is a liar, say so. i! 17 A. I don't know that he's a liar. j iI 18 Q. You are protected by the privilege of testifying in | 19 this case. You can call the President, you can call your I | ! 20 boss, you can call the Judge, you can call me, you can call ' 21 anybody you want any kind of name that you want. Anything 22 that you say in this courtroom is absolutely privileged. You 23 may not be liable for anything that you say here, absolutely i ' ii 24 privileged. Now, is it that you simply believe the man is a j i i ----------------------------------------------------------------------- i 17 f ! 1 phony and a fraud and a liar? 2 A. No, I don't believe that. 3 Q. All right. Do you believe that he's telling the 4 truth as he sees it? 5 A. I don't believe anything. Why should I believe 6 something? 7 Q. Because you are a lady that's coming here, that is 8 represented to be an expert in the area of human health 9 effects associated with dioxin. Because you have read this, 10 because you are part of the counsel that is responsible for 11 the Binghamton office health effects, because you are 12 obviously an intelligent young lady and you must have a 13 belief. Because you are not a fool. Dr. Kimbrough. Because 14 I don't believe that you are telling me the truth when you 15 say you don't have a belief. You have already said that you 16 argued with Dr. Schecter on other occasions. 17 A. Uh-huh. And I have some problems with this, but I 18 can't explain them. 19 Q. Why can't you explain them? 20 A. Not in the way we are conversing. 21 Q. Well, explain then, ma'am. 22 A. Okay. One of the -- as I said earlier, a lot of 23 those things occur normally in the population. Some of them 24 are chronic health effects that you would not get following 177 1 an acute exposure For instance, hypertension is something 2 that comes on very gradual. Cancer, incubation period or the 3 latency period or the development of cancer is usually many 4 many years -- 5 Q Doctor, all of those things I agree with. 6 A. So all of this has nothing to do with each other. 7 Q. We are not arguing that point. Apparently you do 8 not understand what I'm asking you. 9 MR. HEINEMAN: Object, Your Honor, he asked the 10 witness to explain. j 11 MR. CARRs I know it. I'm trying to save us some 12 time because we are not at issue on this point. Ij 13 MR. HEINEMAN: He interrupted her and I object to ! 14 it. ! 15 THE COURT: Objection is overruled. I don't think 16 -- there is some lack of understanding somewhere along the 17 line because I don't think that -- first of all, she said 18 those things already. Secondly, I don't think it was 19 responsive to his question. Mr. Carr, go ahead. 20 Q. (by Mr. Carr) Doctor, you are*talking about i i 21 whether or not the Binghamton fire indeed caused those 22 problems which are all problems found in the general 23 population and that the cancer or latency period is certainly 24 a long time. This fire was in *79 and the article was 170 1 written in '81 or something, whatever the date is* That 2 isn't what I'm asking you about. I'm not trying to get you 3 to concede that those problems were in fact caused by the 4 Binghamton fire, not at this point as yet. All I'm trying to 5 do is to get some kind of framework that I can ask you about, 6 because if you absolutely believe there were no cases of skin 7 cancer, there was no liver changes, there wasn't any 8 hypertension, any suicide, then it's silly for me to even 9 talk to you about it. But if you think that there may have 10 been those cases but not caused by this fire and are not 11 caused by exposure or some other reason, then we can talk 12 about it. I'm simply trying to find out whether or not you 13 believe those cases existed; whether or not the man is 14 telling the truth. I'm not asking you to agree that his 15 conclusion is correct. Do you understand that, Dr. 16 Kimbrough? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. All right. Now, with that in mind, do you think 19 the man is reporting the truth as he sees it insofar as those 20 problems are concerned? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. All right. Now, it is your belief, as I understand 23 it, whether the problems exist or don't exist, they were not 24 caused by exposure to the chemicals in that -- associated 179 1 that fire, is that right? 2 A. I'm sorry, I didn't pay attention. Can you read 3 the question back? 4 Q. Why didn't you pay attention, Dr. Kimbrough? 5 A. I don't know. I'm getting tired. 6 THE COURT; Would you like to take a short break? 7 A. It's okay. But I just, see, I'm one hour ahead. 3 Q. It's ten after five your time. ' 9 A. That's right. i j 10 Q. All right. But, theyhave been reported as j i 11 associated by those people named, have they not, ma'am, or by | !i 12 this one person named, if you have problems with that, Dr. ! | 13 Schecter? ' 14 A. He also states etiology of those medical findings ' 15 is not always clear. 16 Q. Yeah. Nobody -- j i i 17 A. That's on the same -- j j18 Q. Nobody is quarreling with that, Dr. Kimbrough, you | 19 are fighting a straw man that doesn't exist. You are 20 advocating a position, Dr. Kimbrough, that I'm not contesting 21 at this point. 22 A. He's making those reports but he's not necessarily 23 making this association. 24 Q. That's right. He isn't. Did I say thathe was? i j 180 i 1 A, I thought that was what I said, i ii 2 Q. I know, but that's not -- he's reported those 3 things in this paper, hasn't he, ma'am? 4 A. He has a sentence in this paper which says, 5 etiology of those medical findings is not always clear. 6 It's on the page you gave me, 7 Q. He says that, doesn't he? 1 ii j8 A. That's what he says on this page that you gave me, 9 Q. Right, he says that. Nobody is quarreling with 10 that, so, whatever it is, he reports those things, doesn't \ 11 he, ma'am? j 12 A. Yes. i i 13 Q. And, Doctor, are there anyotherreports of health 1 14 effects that somebody has said may be associated with i 15 exposure to dioxin other than the ones you've named? 16 Mentioned Seveso, Binghamton possibility, I don't know, I 17 can't remember myself, you mentioned, I thought, three, j i 1 18 Seveso, Binghamton, and the Missouri -- Ranch Hand, Right? i 19 A, Ranch Hand, 20 Q. All right. Any other humanhealth effects studyof | 21 which you are aware? \ 22 A. Of low-level exposure? j 23 Q. * Yes. | 24 A. I can't think of anything at the moment, it was 181 1 some other surveys, but -- 2 Q. There were other surveys? 3 A* Well, there was a suspicion of exposure, which 4 doesn't bear out* 5 Q. I'm sorry, I can't hear you. 6 A. Where there was a suspicion of exposure, but there 7 really wasn't any exposure. 8 Q, What surveys were those? 9 A. For instance a survey that was done around Dow 10 Chemical Company. 11 Q. In Midland, you mean? 12 A. In Midland, Michigan. 13 Q. And cook reported those in their works? Or is 14 there -- has it been published? l j 15 A. I think it's only a report that you can get from 16 the Michigan Department of Health. They were involved in 17 that. 18 Q. Wasn't a CDC work? 19 A. MO. I 20 Q. Anything else? 21 A. Nothing that I can think of at the moment. 22 Q. All right. Then the Missouri Health Study then at 23 the very least is one of at the most a half a dozen studies 24 that may be related to low-dose effects of exposure, human | I i i 182 1 health effects associated with low-dose exposure of dioxin, 2 correct, ma'am? 3 A* Yes, 4 Q. All right. Now, do you still have the Missouri 5 Health Study in front of you? 6 A* Yes. 7 Q. Would you turn to table C-2 on Page 61, if you 8 would. Now, Dr. Kimbrough, in the normal population, what 9 percent of people would you believe as a pathologist, as a 10 doctor, would have swelling in hands or feet? 11 A. Somewhere up to about 25 percent. It depends on 12 the age and the -- what you call swelling. 13 Q. I noted you were looking directly at the result 14 here. Did the number that reported that abnormality -- , I 15 directed your attention to it, did the number that reported 16 that abnormality influence your opinion? 17 A. No. 18 Q. Doctor, do you really believe that 25 percent of 19 the normal population has swelling in hands or feet? Do you 20 really sincerely, honestly believe that? 21 A. It's a very common complaint. 22 Q. That's not what I asked you. 23 A. Yeah. 24 Q. You believe that we have got,, of the eight people 183 1 in this room, that two of us have swelling hands or feet? I 2 A. Not all the time, but sometimes* I i 3 Q. Doctor, anybody will have a swollen foot if they 4 hit it on something or if they get injured. This isn't the 5 questionnaire. When you ask the questionnaire -- did you 6 bring a copy of the questionnaire with you by any chance? 7 A. No. 8 Q. How was the question posed? Swelling in hands or 9 feet, or did you see -- you helped design the question, did 10 you not? 11 A. I saw the questions but I don't remember anymore ! 12 exactly how it was posed. j i 13 Q. You helped design the question, did you not, ma'am? | 14 A. Yeah, most of the questions that had more to do | 15 with toxicology. 16 Q. My question is, did youhelp designthose | ! j 17 questions? 18 A . Yes. I Ii 19 Q. Now, the purpose of those questions were to find I 20 out whether or not they had some things that would be caused, 21 called ailments, not just an occasional occurrence, isn't 22 that right, ma'am? 23 A. Not all of the questions. You put some questions I 24 in there to see how valid the answers are that you get. ! ! ! i 184 1 Q. How about the swelling in hands or fee 2 question put in there to see if they were honest i 3 A. No* ii 4 Q. It was a question designed to find out 5 not there was an unusual, if you will, health ef 6 real health effect associated with this populate 7 that correct, ma'am? ' j 8 A. Whether there was a difference betweer 9 groups. 10 Q. Doctor -- 11 A. No, that's how you analyzed it later < i 12 Q. You wanted to find out -- just suppose 13 found out that 15 percent of the people in the j] I 14 group had swelling in hands or feet and only oni< 15 the people in the low-risk group had such swell 16 would you have concluded from that? 17 A. Nothing. 18 Q. Nothing at all? j i i 19 A. No. I would have to analyze other th 20 Q. Well, other things along with it, wh 21 questionnaires came out that way, the high-risk J 22 this abnormality or this generalized disorder i 23 low-risk group did not. What would you conclud 24 A. That would be something I would rgis 185 1 /ould do other things, but I wouldn't make any conclusions 2 >ased on it? 3 Q. What would that help you, what kind of evidence 4 :hat .would be toward coming to a conclusion? 5 A. I wouldn't -- just based on that, I wouldn't come 6 :o any conclusion. 1 Q. I didn't ask you that. I asked you how would you 8 consider that evidence in helping you to come to your 9 conclusion? 10 A. It's only an indicator. 11 Q. I understand that, ma'am. I'm not asking you 12 that. You would consider that, would you not, as something 13 that would indicate that the people with the swollen hands or 14 feet are having a health effect that the people in the 15 low-risk group are not having. That was the purpose for 16 putting it in, was it not? 17 A. It suggests that they might have some fluid 10 retention. 19 Q. Associated with dioxin exposure? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Well, Doctor, didn't you design those questions to 22 try to find out whether or not they had health effects 23 associated with dioxin exposure? Wasn't all of your 24 questions except your test questions designed by CDC or 186 1 helped by CDC for the express purpose of finding out whether 2 or not there were health effects associated with dioxin 3 exposure? 4 A. This is only a preliminary -- 5 Q. Could you answer my question, Dr. Kimbrough? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Then, Doctor, your entire study is a fraud, isn't 8 it, m a 'am? 9 A. No. 10 Q. If you didn't design -- did you really tell those 11 Missouri people that those questions are not designed to help 12 you find out whether or not there are harmful consequences 13 from dioxin exposure? Did you tell them that when they 14 started this study? 15 A. To help us find out whether -- yes. 16 Q. Those questions were designed to help you find out 17 whether or not there are harmful health effects from exposure 18 to dioxin, isn't that correct, ma'am? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Yes. That's the reason you put that question in 21 about swelling in hands or feet, to aid you to come to that 22 conclusion, isn't that right, ma'am? 23 A. To obtain some information. 24 Q. To aid you in coming to that conclusion, isn't that 187 1 right? 2 A. To obtain information 3 Q. I'm sorry? 4 A. To obtain information. 5 Q. That's not what I asked you. To aid you to come to 6 the conclusion whether or not there are health effects from 7 exposure to dioxin, isn't that right, ma'am? 8 A. That's not quite right. 9 Q. Well, did you put it in there for any purpose other 10 than to help you come to that conclusion along with the other 11 evidence? What other reason would you have for putting it in 12 there, Dr. Kimbrough, except to aid you in arriving at a 13 conclusion of whether or not there are health effects 14 associated with dioxin exposure? 15 A. To be able to focus more on specific things, and 16 then once you do that, you then arrive at conclusions as to 17 whether some of those effects might be associated with 18 exposure 19 Q. Doctor, isn't that all part of the process of 20 aiding you to come to the conclusion of whether or not dioxin 21 has harmful health effects? 22 A. It's all part of the process, yes. 23 Q. Yes, indeed. This question was put in there for 24 that purpose, otherwise, it would be stupid to put it in 188 1 there, wouldn't it be, ma'am, a useless thing? 2 A. It's part of the process, yes* 3 Q. And it had a useful purpose, did it not, ma'am? 4 A . Yes 5 Q. And you wouldn't have put it in there if you had 6 not expected to use that, along with other things, in helping 7 you arrive at a scientific opinion, if you will, or 8 conclusion as to the health effects as to dioxin, isn't that 9 correct, ma'am? 10 A. Yes, it's part of the process* 11 Q. And that's true of all those questions that you've 12 asked those people except some that you may have put in as a 13 test or a catch question, right, m a 'am? 14 A* Yes. 15 Q. Now, you would not expect the normal population to 16 have swelling in hands or feet, wguld you, ma'am? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. You would? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Dr. Kimbrough, I'll remind you that you are under 21 oath. Do you really think that 25 percent of the people 22 responding to that question that you asked that would say, 23 yes, I have swollen hands or feet? 24 A. Yes. 189 1 Q. Now, Doctor, your question then is worthless, isn't j i 2 it? 3 A. No, If everybody had responded that they had 4 swelling then it depends on the number, and it also depends 5 on the age. 6 Q. How many people would you have to have respond that 7 they have swollen hands or feet before you would consider 0 that that is an aid in arriving at your conclusion? | ! 9 A. If more than half of the people would say that they j 10 would have swelling of hands and feet all of the time then I I 11 would get concerned, j 12 Q. No, I'm not asking concerned, Dr, Kimbrough, Maybe j 13 we are going at the wrong thing, because this is not to find | 14 out whether or not you should have concern, this is to find j 15 out, is it not, ma'am, are there health effects, and, if so, j 16 are they from exposure to dioxin. Isn't that the whole j j 17 purpose of the study? j 18 A. Yes, that's the purpose of the study. j I 19 Q. And, Doctor, you designed the study to be able to j 20 pinpoint problems that people are having. You really don't |i 21 think that 49 percent of the population have swollen hands or 22 feet, do you, ma'am? 23 A, Sometimes, depending on the age, 24 Q. Doctor, how did you phrase the question? | I i j 190 1 A I d o n 't specifically know. X would have to go back 2 to the questionnaire. i 3 Q. The swelling of the hands and feet depend upon age, 4 doesn't itr ma'am? i i 5 A. And whether or not you are pregnant, and whether or i 6 not -- 7 Q. Did you take -- did you finish your answer? 8 A. And whether or not you have eaten a lot of salt. I 9 mean there are a lot of things that can affect that. 10 Q. I'm sure there is. Did you take those things into 11 consideration when you selected your population? 12 A. No, not all of those things, because you can't take 13 those things into consideration. 14 Q. Why can't you? 15 A. When you select the population -- 16 Q, Why can't you? 17 A. You can't select apopulation for all of those 18 factors. That's part of epidemiology. 19 Q. Well, you wouldn't expect to have 25 percent 20 pregnant women, would you? 21 A. No, but there may be a few. 22 Q. Sure, there may be a few. But certainly not 25 23 percent or 49 percent? 24 A. There may be a few that ate a.lot of salt. There 191 1 may be a few that sit a lot. 2 Q. Doctor, in your general population, taking a group 3 at random, as you did here, you tried to get a random group, 4 didn't you, ma'am, except exposure, low risk or high risk? 5 A. Uh-huh. 6 Q. Now, that's the population that I'm talking about. 7 This population here in this room where Mr. Seigfreid is the 8 very oldest of us all. 9 MR. NASSIF: By far 10 Q. (by Mr. Carr) Months at least older than most of 11 us. And we have Court Reporter and the Clerk who are by all 12 odds the youngest. And we have a cross section here. Do you 13 really think that half of those people, or part of those 14 people, are going to have swollen hands or feet in the 15 parameters of your question? 16 A. Some of the time, I do*. 17 Q. And, Doctor, then your question, if you ask do you 18 have some swollen hands or feet, a hundred percent of the 19 population some of the time, a hundred percent is going to 20 answer question. Because surely you didn't frame the 21 question that way. If you did, it was a stupid question. 22 A. Well, maybe it was. 23 Q. Well, was it framed that way, Dr. Kimbrough? I'm 24 not going to accept that. 192 1 A. I don't know specifically how it was framed, 2 Q. Doctor, you know good and well it wasn't framed 3 way to get a yes response from a hundred percent of the 4 people. Dr. Kimbrough, I. suggest to you that you are playing 5 games with me. A. No, I am not. 7 Q. Did you design the question in such away that you 8 would get an affirmative response from everybody? Do you 9 believe that everybody has swollen hands or feet at some time 10 or another in their life? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Yes. Then if you ask that question that way, you 13 should have got a hundred percent yeses, shouldn't you, 14 m a 1am? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. That question framed that way would be worthless, 17 wouldn't it, ma'am? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Therefore, you did not frame it that way, did you, 20 ma'am, because you framed it in a fashion to get information 21 that you could use, isn't that correct, ma'am? 22 A. Yeah, we tried. 23 Q. So that question wasn't framed that way, was it, 24 m a 'am? t 193 X A. Yeah, but I don't know exactly how it was framed. 2 Q. I'm excluding, eliminating something that would -- 3 swelling on occasion? 4 A. Uh-huh. 5 Q. Now, Doctor, this question was designed to elicit 6 whether or not swelling in hands or feet was a real problem 7 to the person being asked that question, that is the truth of 8 the matter, isn't it, ma'am? 9 A.' I assume so. 10 Q. Now, Dr. Kimbrough, what percent of the population 11 do you think has a real propose with swelling in the hands or 12 feet? 13 A. I still believe that about 25 percent of the 14 population, if you talk about a cross section, taking all 15 ages, does have that problem. 16 Q. Has a real problem with swollen hands or feet? 17 A. Uh-huh. 18 Q. Do you have such a problem? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. When, do you have it, now? 21 A. At night after I've been on an airplane. I just 22 I'm very sensitive to salt. I try to eat very little salt, 23 for instance. 24 Q. Isn't that unusual to be very sensitive to salt? 194 1 A* No* 2 Q* What percent of the population do you believe are 3 very sensitive to salt? 4 A. Probably more than we realize, but -- 5 Q. That may be, but what percentage do you believe, 6 raa1am? 7 A* I would think maybe 25 percent of the people. 8' Q* 25 percent of the people are sensitive to salt, 9 too? 10 A. Uh-huh. 11 Q. Dr* Kimbrough, is it your opinion, and we can save 12 a lot of trouble here, that 25 percent of the population are 13 afflicted with every problem known to man? 14 A* I don't understand what -- some time in their lives 15 they will have some problems, I don't -- 16 Q* No, in the framework of a question you are going to 17 ask to elicit health effects? 18 A* Some people will have* Some problems are more 19 prevalent than other problems* 20 Q* What problems do you think that 25 percent of the 21 population had? 22 A* Things like headaches, since they are more frequent 23 than that 24 Q. I'm sorry? 195 1 A* Headaches and those sorts of things would be even 2 more frequent* 3 Q. You think that 25 percent of the population have 4 persistent headaches? 5 A. Well, they are also different -- 6 Q* Excuse me* Do you think that 25 percent of the 7 population have persistent headaches? 8 A. Depends on what a persistent headaches is, what you 9 mean by that. 10 Q. How you all used the word and expected to use the 11 word when you used the phrase in your questionnaire* Do you 12 think 25 percent of the population have persistent headaches 13 in that framework? 14 A, They have frequent headaches, that's what I 15 believe. 16 Q* My question is persistent headaches, isn't it?17 A. 24 hours a day, every day of the year? 18 Q* Doctor, within the parameters -- within the 19 framework of the way you all designed the question and 20 administered the question to the people in the Missouri Pilot 21 Health Study? 22 A. I personally feel that the term persistent, the way 23 it's used here, is a very poor choice of words* 24 Q. Well, that may be, but you chose the wording, I 196 1 didn't? 2 A. I didn't necessarily choose that word. 3 Q. You were a part of the group that chose the word? 4 A. I was part of the group, but I wasn't necessarily , 5 the one that used that term. 6 Q. Well, in any event, do you think that 25 percent of 7 the population have persistent headaches? 8 A. That's one of the afflictions that people have a 9 lot, yes, I do believe that. 10 Q. You believe that 25 percent of the American 11 population have got persistent headaches? 12 A. It depends on -- unless the term persistent is 13 defined to me, I can't answer that question. 14 Q. Well, did you define it to the people that you gave 15 the questionnaire to? 16 A. I wasn't involved in administering the 17 questionnaires, so I don't know. 18 Q. Well, you would have given -- did you define it in 19 writing to the people you gave the questionnaire to? 20 A. No. 21 Q. What kind of question did you ask them? Are you 22 afflicted with persistent headaches? 23 A. I was not involved in that part of the study. You 24 would have to -- 197 1 Q. You read it, you designed the study, including the 2 questionnaire. What was the question that you asked? 3 A. I helped design the study, but I was not involved 4 in the details of it. 5 Q. Did you read the details of it? Did you read the 6 study before it went out from CDC or before it went out to 7 the public? 8 A. I was involved in th clinical laboratory side, 9 what types of tests to do, and in the question of exposure 10 assessment. 11 Q. Would you answer my question, Dr. Kimbrough, did 12 you readit, ma'am? 13 A. I read the draft, yes. i j i I 14 Q. Now, did you see the questions on headaches? | 15 A. Yes. | i 16 Q. Did you criticize or did you send any criticism or 17 make any comment to anybody about the question on persistent 18 headaches? 19 A. No, not specifically. i 20 Q. Doctor, here 41 percent of the people with the j 21 low-risk exposure have got persistent headaches according to 22 what they say, isn't that correct? 23 A. Yes. i I 24 Q. Do you think that 41 percent of the population have | i i 198 1 got persistent headaches? 2 A. it depends on how they interpret persistent. I 3 just can't answer that question. 4 Q. Doctor, how would you consider persistent 5 headaches, one that you have and you cannot get rid of, that 6 it stays with you, it persists? Isn't that what persistent ! 7 means? I i I 3 A. It could mean to a person that he has a headache ! 9 that starts in the morning and he still has it at night, and 10 I would think that there are maybe as many as 50 percent of 11 the people that could have such headaches 12 Q 50 percent of the population have such headaches? 13 A. Yes, not every day, but -- 14 Q. God, Dr Kimbrough, what population do you 15 associate with? 15 A. This type of information also is in other health 17 surveys. 18 Q. Doctor, if that amount of the population have got 19 persistent headaches do you think it might be associated with 20 the fact that the population have got dioxin in their tissue, 21 is that a possibility? 22 A. No, it's always -- people always have suffered from 23 headaches* 24 Q. How do you know that? 199 i 1 A. If you look at all the headache remedies that are 2 sold. 3 Q. Dr. Kimbroughr how do you know that they had -- 50 4 percent of the population have persistent headaches before 5 the onset of chemical contamination of our environment, 6 including dioxin? 7 A. If you go back to the old medical literature, there 8 is evidence that people -- that's one of the problems. 9 Q* What medical literature says 50 percent of the 10 population has got persistent headaches? 11 A. It's just a very common problem. 12 Q. How about joint and muscle pains, without looking 13 at the -- unless you've already read it recently, what 14 percent of the population have joint and muscle pains, 15 ordinary cross section of a healthy population? 16 A. Well, there were two healthy people outside that 17 were complaining about muscle pain at the remission that we 18 had. 19 Q. How do you know they weren't plaintiffs in the 20 lawsuit? 21 MR. SEIGFREID: No, Ken Heineman, he's not 22 healthy. 23 MR. CARR: Heineman has never been healthy a day 24 during this trial. 200 1 MR. NASSIF: Seigfreid was the other one. 2 MR. CARR: I'm not talking about old men. 3 MR. NASSIF: Your Honor, there were three. Jane 4 Rudolph also complained. 5 MR. CARR: She is a pregnant lady. 6 A. She is not pregnant. 7 THE COURT: It's from exposure to toxic chemical 8 trials. | 9 MR. NASSIF: Three out of the five in the hallway. \ i 10 Q . What population would have joint and muscle pains j 11 in your judgment? 12 A. It'sagain depends onthe age. ~ j i 13 Q. Well, the cross section that you have, people that j 14 you use in the Missouri Pilot Health Study? j 15 A. It could have up to 30, 40 percent. I i 16 Q. Up to -- That starts out at one. Do you think that j [ 17 30 or 40 percent of the general population have got a I 18 disorder known as joint and musclepains? | 19 A. Yeah. Unless you primarily look at children, they 1 20 don't seem to complain as much. i 21 Q. Doctor, then your health study, as you designed it ! i} 22 here, in your judgment, could not possibly elicit health j 23 effects, could it? If you expect 40 or 50 percent of the j 24 people answering the question to have the problem, there is | __________________ _______________________________________________________________________ ij 201 1 no point in asking the question, is there, ma'am? You are 2 never going to find out whether or not dioxin caused the 3 problem, are you, ma'am? 4 A. I think some of the questions were unnecessary. 5 Q. Could you answer my question, please, ma'am? 6 A* Yes, you can still find that out* 7 Q. What you'd have to do, I suppose, agree on what the 8 base is and say all right, 50 percent of the people are going 9 to have headaches, therefore, if we get a result that shows 10 70 percent of the headaches, we can say that that might be , 11 associated with the dioxin, is that what you are saying? 12 A* Yes. 13 Q. And, since 70 percent of the people do not have 14 complaints of persistent headaches, it's your judgment as a 15 pathologist and toxicologist that dioxin doesn't cause 16 headaches, is that right, Dr, Kimbrough? 17 A* Not in this situation. 18 Q* That is to low-dose exposure? 19 A. Uh-huh. 20 Q. There isn't anything in your judgment, and if I 21 went through those other findings here, there isn't anything 22 in your judgment that could possibly be caused by dioxin, is 23 there, ma'am? If 50 percent of the population is going to 24 have the afflications anyway, you don't.leave much for dioxin 202 1 to cause, do you, ma'am? 2 A. That's one purpose in epidemiology studies* It's 3 very difficult to sort those things out. 4 Q* You sure don't sort it out by asking questions 5 where you expect 50 percent of the population to respond yes 6 to start out with, do you, ma'am? 7 A. If you do have a high background noise then that's 8 the best you can do. 9 Q. Doctor, are there any publications that you use or 10 used in designing this study, do you know, were used to set 11 up the baseline that you are going to start out with for 12 swelling in hands or feet, or persistent headaches, or joint 13 and muscle pains? 14 A. We reviewed the literature on the problems that the 15 workers had reported. We also looked at the Ranch Hand 16 questionnaires. We are also aware of studies that have been 17 -- surveys that have been done, National Center for Health 18 Statisticians of the general population. 19 Q. And the survey showed what? Are those available? 20 A. Those surveys? 21 Q. Uh-huh. 22 A. Yes, the Haines studies, which are nutrition 23 studies, and they are, they just give you information on what 24 the background complaints and -- 203 1 Q. And did you -- did you look at those, and by you, I 2 mean the Missouri Pilot Health Group when you designed the 3 questionnaire? 4 A* I don't think everybody in Missouri did, no, but 5 I'm aware of those. 6 Q* But you do, so if I wanted to cross examine you as 7 I'm trying to, to test whether or not you are accurately \ 3 stating the number of people that have headaches, or 9 persistent headaches and joint and muscle pain, swelling 10 hands, I could have that? If I had an opportunity to get 11 that data from you, I could use it to test your statements, 12 couldn't I, ma'am? 13 A. Uh-huh. 14 Q. But you didn't bring that data with you, ma'am, and 15 you weren't asked to do so, were you, ma'am? 16 A. No. 17 Q. You knew that, though, that you were going to 18 testify and did testify in direct examination about the 19 Missouri Pilot Health Group, you did know that? 20 A. I simply said that -- 21 Q. I 'm sorry? 22 A. Yes, I did. 23 Q. You did know in advance of the time that we have 24 used the Missouri Health Study, because the answer to your 204 1 questions indicated that we had used the Missouri Health 2 to suggest ailments caused by dioxin? You knew that, 3 didn 't you? 4 A. No. 5 Q. You didn't? 6 A. No. 7 Q. You didn't know that we combined the two groups? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Nobody told you that? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Doctor, how did you come to know that we were going 12 to ask you about the Missouri Pilot Health Test? 13 A. X didn't know that you were going to ask me, 14 Q. I thought you just said you did. 15 A. The only thing I said was that I talked about the 16 study in ray previous testimony. 17 Q. But you didn't know before you got here that you 18 were going to be asked about it? ' 19 A. No. 20 Q. All right. And for that reason then -- well, 21 nobody asked you to bring your documentation? 22 A. NO. 23 Q. Doctor, what about the loss of ten pounds a month? 24 How many people do you believe lose ten pounds a month not 205 1 being on a diet? 2 A. They don't* 3 Q. I'm sorry? 4 A* That's a very low incidence, unless they have a 5 health problem* 6 Q* Hy question is how many people, in your judgment, 7 lose ten pounds in a month's time when they are not on a 8 diet? 9 A* None* 10 Q* Or more than ten pounds? 11 A* None, unless you are pregnant and have a baby* 12 Q. All right, and we have got 6 percent in the 13 high-risk group that report that, don't we? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q* And we have got 4 percent in the low-risk group 16 that report that, don't we, ma'am? 17 A* 3 percent* 18 Q* 2*9* What did I say? 19 A* You said 4* 20 Q. I'm sorry* 2*9* We have got 3 percent? 21 A. Uh-huh. 22 Q. So, well, we would have then about 5 percent of the 23 population here that has lost ten pounds or more in one month 24 and not on a diet, correct? 206 1 A. Uh-huh. 2 Q* That would be then certainly significant to you, 3 rouldn11 it? 4 A, Uh-huh. 5 Q* Did you consider the significance of that when you 6 reviewed this study? 7 A One possibility would be anxiety. 8 Q. I'm sorry? 9 A. Anxiety would be one reason. XO Q. That could be one possibility, so the answer is 11 yes, you did consider that, did you? 12 A. Uh-huh. 13 Q. And did you just put it off on anxiety? 14 A. We are going to look at more people and try and get j 15 further information from an additional study. i I 16 Q. Would you answer my question? 17 A. We didn't know how to interpret it. i 18 Q. you made no conclusions based upon that whatsoever? | 19 A. Not yet. 20 Q. It's possible that it could be a health effect from 21 dioxin exposure, however, isn't it, ma'am? 22 A. Yes, we just have not made any conclusions. 23 Q. Is the answer to my question, yes, it is possible? 24 A. It would be possible, yes. 207 i 1 Q. What about the blood problems that show up here, ; 2 Doctor, how many people would you expect to have those kind 3 of blood problems that are listed here, anemia, leukopenia, 4 blood clotting problems, and other blood problems? 5 A, Again it would vary with the people that you would 6 look at, but, you could have those problems in people up to 7 about ten percent or so. For instance, some people are on 3 anticoagulants, I mean, just depends on what you are looking 9 at 10 Q. What are those other blood problems that are listed 11 there? ji j 12 A, You mean leukopenia? | 13 Q. There is a category of other blood problems, got I j14 anemia, leukopenia, blood clotting problems and other blood 15 problems. What is that? 16 A. That was a catch-all question, and we really ii ! } j 17 couldn't analyze it and -- 18 Q. What did you do, just ask them if they had other 19 blood problems? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Not specifying what they mean? j i I it 22 A* Yes. * I 23 Q. And you had no idea at all what you were asking I 24 them? I 208 1 A Mo 2 Q. Doctor -- 3 A. No Sometimes people will get information from 4 their physician and they may not.understand that something 5 called leukopenia is a blood problem, so then in order to 6 catch that, you put in a general phrase If you then find 7 that many people in the population that you are concerned 8 with have a problem, you may have to go back That was -- 9 it was -- 10 Q. I understand your question now And you've got -- 11 you add those up, you've got 25 percent in your high-risk 12 group that have got some kind of blood problem, do you not, 13 ma'am? 14 A. I -- it's possible that some of those people were 15 the same people. 16 Q. Well, it would be possible they might be included 17 in the other blood problems but anemia, leukopenia and blood 18 clotting problems are all three separate problems that you 19 would not have in one individual? 20 A. If somebody has a blood clotting problem he could 21 also very well have an anemia So I can't answer that. 22 Q. What about leukopenia? i 23 A. That wouldn't necessarily -- that could be 24 associated with anemia, but -- 209 1 Q. It's a distinct and different disease? 2 A. in a way it's different. 3 Q. Sorry? i 4 A. It is different. 5 Q. Those four questions here were not meant to be . 6 duplicative, were theyr ma'am? 7 A. They were meant in a way to be duplicated so that 8 if people didn't understand one thing we might still catch it 9 by something asking another question. 10 Q. You've got from 22 to 25 percent then of people, 11 let's even say 20 to 25 percent of people in the high-risk 12 group that have got some kind of blood problems, correct, 13 m a 1am? 14 A. We don't know that. This is what they said they 15 did. 16 Q. That's what they said. Isn't that an 17 extraordinarily high number, Dr. Kimbrough? 18 A. Wot necessarily, since most! of them seem to be 19 anemias. 20 Q. I'm sorry? 21 A. Since most of them seem to be anemias. 22 Q. It would have to be anemia that they'd know about 23 and had treated for, Doctor. Don't you consider that to be 24 an extraordinarily high amount of people to have anemia, 15 210 1 ? 2 A. if people answer questionnaires like this and they 3 may say they have anemia, and when we then check the records, 4 it may be that they at one point had anemia or that they 5 really just have a slightly -- 6 Q. Well/ did you do thatr Doctor? 7 A. Mo, that wasn't done. i 0 Q. Well/ Doctor/ taking this at face value, isn't that ifii i i 9 an extraordinarily high number of 20 to 25 percent to have 10 blood problems? i i! 11 A. Not if the anemia is very mild. 12 Q. Well, you've added the caveat there. Doctor, you 13 didn't make it whether it was severe or mild anemia, did 14 you? And I'm not asking the question that way. Do you not 15 consider this to be an extraordinary number of people to 16 report on blood problems? 17 A. No. i i 13 Q. I thought you told me before you would expect about j 19 what, ten percent, five, ten percent, that had those 20 problems? Didn't you tell me that, ten percent? 21 A. Then I was talking about documented problems. j i 22 Q. You weren't talking about what you were asking, you 23 didn't understand that I was asking about those questions? 24 A. No, I thought you were asking about documented j l 211 1 cases, what you would find if I did a blood survey in a 2 population* By actually doing the tests on a group of ! i ( !I 3 people, X might get that in a general population, but, 4 looking at this questionnaire, it wouldn't necessarily be 5 very high, because -- 6 Q. Here again -- 7 A* It would depend on how the people interpreted the 8 questionnaire* I 9 Q. Again, the only way I could test that would be if } 10 you brought your questionnaire here, if you brought the I 11 documents that you studied in trying to determine how many j 12 people would have reports of the anemia problems, is that 13 cor rect, m a 'am? I 14 A. This would be the Missouri State Health Department 15 where all this would be* 16 THE COURT: I'm sorry? i i i 17 A* It's basically a study that was funded by CDC. We ] 18 consulted on it* But basically the study was done out of the | i 19 Missouri State Health Department and out of the group of j 20 physicians in St* Louis, | 21 Q* Dr. Kimbrough, those questions weren't just sent to j 22 the subject and asked to fill it out and send back, was it? ! 23 Those were questions that were administered by trained health I 24 people, isn't that correct? 212 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. So they would ask not just one question, do you 3 have persistent headaches, or do you have blood problems, but 4 they would ask as many questions as they need to get 5 meaningful information, isn't that right? 6 A. No. 7 Q. No? What's wrong with that? 8 A. They will just ask the questions on the 9 questionnaire, otherwise you would introduce a bias, because 10 everybody would do that differently then, if you have more 11 than one person doing it. 12 Q. Weren't they given instructions as to how they were 13 to respond and the way they were -- the language they would 14 use, and the method they would use, were to use to respond to 15 questions and to explain the meaning of these? 16 A. No, they were simply told how to introduce 17 themselves and how to word the questions that were in the 18 questionnaire. 19 Q. Doctor, you could just as easily then send them out 20 by mail, you didn't need a train personnel to do that, did 21 you, ma'am? 22 A. Some of the questionnaires were -- well, that's the 23 other survey. Never mind. 24 Q. That's the other one, Doctor. I'm talking about 213 1 the ones you selected and then you surveyed their health* 2 You had trained health people ask the questions and 3 administer the review of their systems, didn't you, m a 'am? 4 A. Yes* 5 Q. And, weren't they -- they did more than just simply 6 take a response to a question given, didn't they, ma'am? 7 A. They took the response given to the question You 8 can't do it any other way 9 Q. Didn't they even have -- didn't they use some 10 doctors to do that, administer those questionnaires? 11 A. I don't think so, not physicians 12 Q. What kind of people did they actually use? 13 A* Normally -- and I'm not quite sure really what 14 those people were that administered the questions, but 15 normally we use people that are public health advisors that 16 usually have a Bachelor's Degree,.and sometimes we use 17 nurses 18 Q. You were talking about who you use at CDC. Do you 19 know whether or not you used those people in this pilot 20 health study? 21 A X don't 22 Q* You have no knowledge? 23 A. No. 24 MR* CARR: Your Honor, how long do you want to go 214 19 2 THE COURT: Wellr I was thinking five, but do you 3 want to go -- 4 Q. (by Mr. Carr) Doctor, before we close for the day 5 I'd like to ask you the question about those problems that 6 were related on -- what page is it, Table C-6 on Page 67. 7 What is your expectation on the number of people that were 8 going to report peripheral neuropathies? You are reading j 9 before the answer, but it's all right. You want to give me 1 i 10 your own judgment before you read it? No, you don't. Okay. ! 11 Shall I just ask you a lot of questions, you want to give me ; 12 your answer? Do you want to look at the answer first to see? j 13 A. I thought -- I'm sorry. I thought you had directed j 14 me to look at peripheral neuropathy. i 15 Q. I want to know first of all what is your judgment 16 as to the ordinary. v#" 17 A. Ishouldn'tlook at this table? j i; ! 18 Q. It's all right. Ordinary random population, expect j ! 19 to have peripheral neuropathy? 20 A. I really probably shouldn't answer this question 21 anymore now. ! i 22 Q. I'm sorry? 23 A. I probably shouldn't answer this question anymore.- 24 Q. Sure, youshould. i ! ji 215 1 A* I would have said somewhere between 5 and 10 2 percent# if I had to take a guess* It against depends on the 3 age group* 4 Q. Well actually# Dr* Kimbrough# what you've been 5 doing in giving me those percentages of people that you would 6 expect to have those particular problems# you have in fact 7 been giving me your guesses# haven't you? 8 A* Yes 9 Q* Yeah. And not really based upon any considered or 10 reflective analysis of the population in general? 11 A. They are based on -- partly on my experience and 12 partly on the information that we.got in those Haines 13 studies* But I can't specifically remember exact numbers* 14 Q. Doctor# you couldn't even actually# as far as those 15 Haines studies are concerned# you really couldn't tell me 16 within 10# 15# or 20 percent of the results of the Haines 17 study without having them here on any particular ailments? 18 A* Well# one specific thing that sticks in my mind was 19 that about 50 percent of the population said that they had 20 skin problems* 21 Q. Is that the only thing? 22 A* I was impressed -- 23 Q. I'm sorry? 24 A* I was impressed by that. 216 i 1 Q. is that the only thing that sticks in your mind? 2 A. And that a lot of things like headaches were very 3 frequent. 4 Q. Yes, but you don't really remember the percentage 5 of the frequency, do you, ma'am? 6 A. Not the exact percentage. 7 Q. No, not within 10 percent, do you, ma'am? 8 A. Maybe not. 9 Q. I'm sorry? t ii 10 A. Not within -- whether something is 50 percent or 40 i 11 percent, you just know it's high. 12 Q. What you are doing when you give me the 13 percentages, you are just guessing, aren't you? 14 A. To some extent. 15 MR. CARRs Your Honor, I think it's five o'clock 16 now and I know the lady is tired.. It's six o'clock her 17 time. I'd be shooting somebody if you had me asking 18 questions, answering -- see, I'm in bad shape at five -- 19 answering questions at six o'clock tonight. 20 THE COURT: Okay, we will break. Any problem with 21 starting at nine o'clock? 22 MR. CARR: None from us. 23 THE COURT: Any problem. 24 MR. HEINEMAN: (indicates negatively.) 217 1 THE COURT: Okayr start at nine o'clock 2 COURT ADJOURNED: 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 218 2 1 BE IT REMEMBERED AND CERTIFIED, that heretofore, i 2 on to-wit: January 1C, 19B6, the matter as hereinbefore 3 sot forth came on for hearing before the Honorable Richard* 4 P. Goldenherah, Circuit Judge in and for the Tuentieth 5 Judicial Circuit, State of Illinois, and the following was 6 i had of record, to-wit: 7 CThes following Offer of Proof was had out of the 8 hearing and presence of the jury.) 9 THE COURT: You may be seated. Mr. Carr? 10 CONTINUED CROSS EXAMINATION 11 BY MR. CARR: 12 0 Dr. Kimbrough, we were discussing the Missouri 13 Health Study yesterday . UJhat in your judgment is the 14 number of people that would suffer from dizzinsss--percen15 tage of people? 16 A You mean in the study or in the general popula 17 tion? 18 In the general population? 19 A A lot. I don't really know. 20 You have no idea whatsoever as to what percentage 21 of people you would sxpect to have dizziness in the general 22 papulation? 23 A It--no, not really. It depends an ths age and-24 Doctor, the general population includes all ages. 3 1 What percentage of the general population da you expect ta 2 have dizziness? 3 A . I guess almost everyone will be dizzy at some time 4 at some point. 5 Q Doctor-- and you know that that's not what I'm 6 asking you about-- I'm asking you in terms of the Missouri 7 Health Study. You asked that question; you put that S question in there For your people to discover whether or 3 ! not the people that have been exposed to dioxin have a |10 particular sign or symptom. What percentage of people do |11 you expect to answer in the affirmative from the general 12 ! population? 13 ! A I didn't put that question in there. 14 | Doctor, you testified in behalf of Monsanto here 15 | earlier that you and others at CDC helped to design that 16 | proposal; the name of CDC is on* the cover as being one of 17 ths participants; I believe you said that CDC helped fund IB it, if not fund it entirely; you ara here as an expert '19 witnsss; you brought up ths subject of the Missouri Health 20 Study in your direct testimony. I 'd like-- if you don't 21 take responsibility far it, who will take responsibility 22 for the study? 23 A I helped design the study, as you correctly 24 stated, but I 'm not responsible for aach and every question i i j 1 on that questionnaire. When you work in a group and design | s something, you make certain suggestions, and than you 3 finally arrive at a protocol by consensus. But, that 4 doesn't mean that I have to agree with every question that's 5 on this questionnaire or that I feel that every question is 6 important. 7 Q But, when you said you arrived at a consensus, you Q did indeed participate In the proposal and you did, includ S ing you, arrive at a concensus. Now, that question is in 10 there; and 1 know that you discussed it with the people 11 before it was put in there; I know you considered it, 12 you're that type of scientist; and I 'm sure that you had in 13 your mind at that time what you would expect the general I 14 population to reveal would be a symptom of dizziness whan j 15 asked such a question. Now, I 'm now asking you today what 16 percentage of the population do* you believe would have 17 dizziness? 18 8 I believe that mast people at some point have 19 dizziness, and I don't think it was a good question. 20 Doctor, I know; w e 've said that. I ! I j i 21 A And that was my opinion-- 22 But that question, if you put in in expecting i 23 that answer, then there would be no point in putting it in, j 24 because the answer would be 100 percent. What did you I 5 1 expect to get a normal percentage of population to answer 2 in tha framework that you asked tha question designed to 3 discover'health affects? 4 A In my opinion it uias a meaningless question. That 5 was my personal opinion. B Q Now, Doctor, if you expect a hundred percent of 7 the people to have dizziness to answer in the affirmative, 8 then it would bs revealing indeed that only 15 parcent with 9 | a high risk exposure were dizzy. That would suggest to you i 10 j as a scientist, wouldn't it, ma'am, that dioxin has an i 11 j effect upon the body that would prevent a person from being IS j dizzy? i 13 | A No. 14 i Oh, it wouldn't? If you expBct a hundred percent 15 | affirmative answers, and you only got 15 parcent? 16 | A It just reveals that maybe people answered the 17 question in some way where they only considered dizziness 18 , of a profound dizziness, or I don't know how-- it's a very 13 soft assessment of a health effect. SO ; 0 Doctor, that may be, but it was ana of the Factors 21 i you used to assess health effects. And by "you" .! mean you 52 as a participant in this Hlssouri Heath Study. And, there- 23 i fore, I 'm obligated to ask you about it. If you say today 24 j all of these questions were meaningless, then what you are 5 i i 1 tailing ma is that your health study was meaningless and i a that CDC participated in s meaningless event cr scientific 3 endeavor, one that was designed from the outset to shorn 4 nothing and designed to tall the world there's nothing 5 wrong with anybody. Ule at the GDC, uie at the Missouri 6 Public Health Systam, and wa at S t . Joseph's Hospital 7 conducted this graat survey of the exposed people, and we 8 find nothing wrong with them; we find them to have no prob- | 8 lams that are not axistent in the general papulation. It ! 10 sounds to me like, and I submit to you that you can either I 11 disagree or agrae with this statement of mine, it sounds to 12 me like you created a phony study for the purpose of a i 13 publicity and taking away from the offsets of dioxin. Is |i 14 that correct, Dr. Kimbrough? ! ! j15 MR. HEINEMAN: Object to the speech, your Honor, 16 and move that it be stricken as'not part of the question. 17 Improper. j | 18 THE COURT: It was proper-- in viewing the 13 question in it's totality, it's a proper question in cross | 1 20 examination. Overruled. I 21 ft I did not say that all of these questions ware 22 meaningless. I Just simply said thatdizziness was 23 something that occurred commonly inthe generalpopu- j jI i j 24 lation, and that if you Just take one question like that out ______________ i 7 t 1 of context without evaluating all of the other things that i 2 wo did in this study that-- it just doesn't mean anything. | 3 And to ask me what I think tha prevalence of this would be * in tha general population really all by itself is meaning S less. It depends on haw persistent the dizziness is with S somebody that has this symptom. You then have to examine 7 them to sea if there are other things wrong with them. But, i Q Just by itself-- people every once in a while when they get ^ 3 up vary rapidly out of bed, they may feel that they are 10 slightly dizzy early in the morning, or they may have a : 11 hangover, or they may have some dizziness. So, It's ! 12 something that can be very common. But, in the context of 13 all of the other things, it may mean something. That's why 1* wa ask these questions. And we partly ask the questions, 15 because at the moment we really don't know-- that was also ' 16 the problem with the design of tha Ranchand Study-- what the ' 17 health effects are that might be caused by TCDD. It's like 18 throwing out a net and then seeing whether there are 19 differences and then trying to interpret that and see 20 whether there actually may be same health effects that may 21 be associated with this type of exposure. That's what 22 epidemiology of-- this type of epidemiology is all about when 23 you don't do clinical trials. 2*i Doctor, I suggest you didn't answer the question i a X that I posed to you. Idas this study designed simply to i a placate the public? That ist to let the public believe i 3 that you were doing something about the dioxin problem and i 4 then ask meaningless qusstions and coma up with meaning 5 less means taking-- lumping all the laboratory findings 5 together and getting just means? Mas it for the purpose of 7 letting the public believe that you were doing something i 8 about the dioxin problem and then announcing the results | 9 i that there's no difference between the tuio groups exposed; 10 they all have ailments that everybody has; and therefore 11 dioxin doesn't cause any problems? ! 1 j IS A No, of course not. We tried the best ina could. 13 What I*m trying to explain to you that there are limi- I | 14 tatione to what is called observational epidemiology, and I j15 you are trying to misrepresent and misinterpret our work. j16 Doctor, what I've asked you, every question that 17 I 've asked you about so far that you submitted to the IB i people, every single one that I've asked you about so far ! j 13 you've in effect said is meaningless because you can have 20 swelling in the hands at any time in your life, because you j ! 21 can have-- everybody has headache, because everybody has j 22 joint end muscle aches, because everybody has dizziness, 23 because everybody has a peripheral neuropathy. These 24 ii questions than, every single time you've answered you've L ! ! I i r 3 ( i 1 said in effect that question is meaningless; isn't that a correct? 3 HR. HEINEMAN: Objection, your Honor, mischar- 4 ectarizas the witness* testimony. 5 THE COURT: Overruled. 6 Q Isn't that correct? 7 A No. e Which question did you say urns meaningful? i s A Far instance, I said that losing wBight, tan 10 pounds-- ovar ten pounds of weight-- 11 I da stand corrected; you did say that was mean- IS ] ingful. t jt 13 A -- was important. And I never said that any cf1 14 1 these questions were entirely meaningless. They are only | 15 meaningless if you take them out of context; and that's what 16 you are doing. See, you have to understand and you have to 17 j evaluate all of this together rather than just saying-- IB t Q Now, Doctor, before we can evaluate it all to- 19 gather, uie have tc arrive at what was found and the basis i20 for determining the validity of what was found. And I do i SI j agree that you did say the weight loss had meaning, but all i ee j the other questions thus far you've said have no meaning, S3 1 that they can't in effect use it to asses the health 24 conditions of these people; isn't that correct? 10 t il i i 1 A I didn't any that they had no meaningj I said that i 5 thie ujaa something that man vary prevalent in tha general 3 population and it was difficult to interpret. That's what 4 I said. 5 Well, you didn't interpret it at all? 6 A Or that* tuhat I tried to aay anyway. 7 Q You gave no significance to the fact that 36 and B 41 percent of the people respectively had persistent i 9 headaches, did you, ma'am, because you said what-- a hun- j 10 dred percent of the population-- was that the one you said a ! 'i 11 hundred percent have headaches-- 50 percent of the population 1 IB have headaches; isn't that right, ma'am? j t 13 A Us uiere talking about numbers here. | 14 0 Isn't that what you said? \ 19 A Us weren't talking about headaches in general. | i 15 Q Isn't that uhat you said, ma'am? 17 A I said that headache is very prevalent in the i 1 i IB general population. I ! 19 Q No, you said that half the people or battBr have \ 20 headaches? J 21 A Yes, ~J T 55 Q Twenty-five percent of the other people have | 53 swollen lege, swollen limbs, swollen fingers? 54 A That's the way it is. I mean, there's nothing I i i ______ ____ ________________________________________________________________ 1 11 1 can do about, it. ; a Q Wall, Dr. Kimbrough, I'm not asking whether or not j i 3 that's tho wag it is-, I submit to you that that's a flip 4 answer that you've given to me and not one that's meant tc 5 enlighten me. Dr. Kimbrough, I'm asking you specifically 6 aa to the meaning of these questions and as to the meaning i 7 of this study. I would appreciate if you would respond j B accordingly. Doctor-- t 9 MR. HE INEMAN*. Object to the speech, your Honor, I 10 and move it be stricken. 1 11 THE COURT: Overruled. ! 12 Doctor, what percent of the population do you 13 believe will have Id s s of sensation in their extremities in 14 the context of the study that was conducted in the way the IS question was posed for tho purpose of using and putting that 1 16 question in, what percent Df ths people in the general pop- 1 17 ulation would you expect to answer that they had loss of 10 sensation in the extremities? 19 A What do gcu mean by loss of sensation? 20 Whatever you meant in the question that you put to 21 the people? 22 A I mean, are they totally numb? 23 Q I'm sorry, whatever you meant, ma'am. I d o n 't 24 know what you meant; you were the ones that designed ths IE study, I did not; it is ycur question, not mins. Whatever j you expected to yet as a response. What response did you expect to get From the genaral unexposed population when you asked that question? A ThBrs will bs some people who will report occa- sional loss of sensation-- i J i Q Doctor, to save some-- are you going to give ms a percentage? j A Yes. Allright. , i j j A Up to somewhere between 25 and 30 percent. On the ! other hand, total loss of sensation and inability to Feel j hot and cold in addition to that would be a percentage that 1 would be around five or less. Q Weil-- and in what context did you ask tha ques tion? Whichoneof those parameters controllad the ] question you asked? A In this case, it was the broader question, as I remember. I would have to go back to the questionnaire. So, you would expect what-- SO percent of ths-- A No, I said around 25 percent. ~ Q Twenty-five percent of the people to answer in the aff irmative? A For the broader question, which is not total inca- 13 ii 1 pacity. But, I mould haves to go back to the questionnaire | 8 to sort out what additional questions there were to 3 determine whether we were dealing with the total lose and 4 whether you could actually gather that from the question 5 naire. I don't remember. 6 And you don't have the questionnaire hare, so 1 7 can't really examine you on that either; can I? 8 A No. It's really a study, as you correctly stated, i 8 done by the Missouri State Health Department. And that's \ 10 where the questionnaires and all that would bo. i 11 Q Doctor, IF you would expact 85 percent to have I 18 these kind of problems, and you only end up with 80 percent, 13 that would indicate that dioxin is doing something to the | 14 nervous system as well; wouldn't it? ! 15 A I 'm sorry, could you-- ! j15 Q IF you expected 85 percent to answer in the 17 affirmative, and you only got 15 or SO percent, that would I r ; 16 be significant; wouldn't it, m a 'am? ! 15 A N o . 80 Q You don't think so? 81 A No. It just dspands on-- you see, you are asking ma [ 88 about the general population. 83 Q Yea. 84 A And then, it depends an the age distribution and a 1 \* } i 14 1 lot of othar things. t 2 Q Doctor, you designed this study with the age in 3 mind of that very group; did you not? 4 A Of that very group, but tha general population. 5 You picked your group to mirror the general popu 6 lation; did you not? 7 A No. 8 You did not? 9 A No, because we had a comparison group; and that's 10 why uis picked-- 11 What comparison group did you have? ie A That's the low risk group. 13 Q Tha low risk group utas exposed. Uhat kind of 14 comparison group 'is that? 15 A Well, uis didn't think thBy had any exposure. IE Q Now, Doctor, you just got through telling me yes 17 terday that if they walked on tha streets of Times Beach IB they had exposure; did you not? Didn't you tell me that 19 yesterday? Didn't you tall me that yesterday? 20 A That's what you said. 51 No, that's what you said, Doctor. Did you not say that yssterday that if they walked on the streets of Times Beach they had exposure? A As far as we could determine:-- J 15 Q Doctor, answer mg question, please. Isn't that | what you said yesterday? A Could uta read back what I said yesterday? Q No, because she doesn't have it. I asked you the question if* people walked on the streets of Times Beach and wars included in this questionaire and in the low risk group, and you said they were. I said, ''Well, then they had exposure; did they not?" And you said, MYes, they did." HR. HEINEflAN: Objection, your Honor, misrepressnta the witness' testimony. I i \ THE COURT: Overruled; it does not. j Don't you recall that being asked? ! i A I would have tD go back to the record. It's on the 1 record, so you can clarify it. 0 I know it's in the record. But, now you are 3aying ! that the people had no exposure; aren't you? j A I 'm saying that it was a low risk group, and we-- i Q Doctor, that's not what you are saying now, that I they had no exposure. They did indeed have exposure m the low risk group, most oF them; didn't they? MR. HEINEMAN: Object to the questionj~ intsrprst- tsd the witness' answer; argumentative. THE COURT: Not responsive; objection le properly made; your objection is overruled. 16 1 A No. a Q Doctor, did you not say that the people in the loui 3 risk group, moat of tham had exposure? Could you answer 4 that question directly? 5 A No. 6 Are you in fact answering the question saying "no"? 7 A I 'm not understanding any mars where we are, B 0 Doctor, did you not testify yesterday that most of 9 the people in the low risk group had some kind of exposure 10 to dioxin? 11 A I would like to go back-- ie Doctor, could you answer that quaation directly, 13 please? 14 A As I recall the conversation, you said that they 15 walked across the street and couldn't they have had some 16 exposure walking across the street. And I said yes. 17 Q Yas. And you agreed that they lived in Times 18 Beach; did you not, ma'am? 19 A Not all of them; some of them, SO All right. Most of the people lived in these 21 contaminated areas, did they not, that wera in the low risk 22 group? 23 A That's the question you asked me yesterday, and I 24 said yes. 17 1 Q Yes, All right. And then, after you agreed that 2 moat of the people in the low risk group lived in the 3 contaminated areas, I then asked you, ''Well then, if they 4 juat uialkad an the streets that mare sprayed with dioxin, 5 they had exposure; didn't they, m a 'am?" And you then said 6 yea; did you not, m a 'am? 7 A I think uie had some-- S Excuse me, could you answer that question, because 3 that's exactly what I asked you. 10 A No, your question was slightly different. 11 Hew was it slightly different? i i i j ij 12 A In that they would have had to use the streets 13 sometimes; wouldn't they? |i ! 14 Yes. 15 A And I said yes. 16 And than, if they used.the streets that were 17 exposed with the dioxin, they had exposure? IS A They might have had exposure, yes. 13 Q Yes. And your answer was yes tD that question; 20 correct, ma'am? 21 A Yes. 22 Q Isn't that correct? 23 Yes. 24 All right. Then the people in the law risk group, IB mast of the people In the low risk group had exposure to dioxin; did they not, ma'am? A The amount of exposure-- Q Could you answer that question directly, Dr. Kimbrough? A There is something in toxicolgoy called a response curve-- MR. CARR: Your Honor, would you order the witness to answer that question. THE COURT: Doctor, you ars so ordered, The question was clear. You have to answer it directly. THE WITNESS: Could I have the question again? THE COURT: Could you read back the question? CTha previous question was read back by the court reporter, as requested.1 A Yes. 0 Now, Doctor, the control group than that you used here, most of the people in the control group had exposure to dioxin; did they not, ma'am? A They had negligible exposure to dioxin. Q Is the answer to my question yes they did have exposure, but you consider it negligible? A Yes. Q And most of these people that had exposure to IS 1 dioxin-- well, you compared the group that had the exposure ' a with dioxin, what you considarsd a negligible exposure, to 3 people that you considered to have not a negligible expo 4 sure j isn't that correct, ma*am? ! 5 A That had high exposure, yea. 6 la the answer to my question this group in the high 7 risk group had significant exposure or at least not negligi- | e ble? 9 A Yes. 10 Yes. Now, Doctor, what is the range of exposure 11 that you consider negligible? That is, would encompass your IS low risk people? And what*s the range of axposurs that ycu 13 would consider not negligible? That is, significant and 14 would compose your high risk people? 15 A That is in the document that you have. And the 16 criteria that uia used were, I believe, people that lived, I 17 think it was, two years in-- 18 Q Now, Doctor, I want to know the level of dioxin 19 contaminant that you considered in the high risk group and SO the level of contaminant that you considered in the law risk 21 group? 22 A The area where these people lived had spotty 23 contamination*, it wasn't uniform. And the people that were 24 living or in close proximity in areas that had 200 parts per 20 1 j billion-- I guess the cutoff was really 20 parts par billion, a but than had levels up to almost 1 part par million in the 3 j soil ware tha people that were in thB high risk group. And t 4 i they mould have had to live there for a period of time in i 5 | order to qualify for the high risk group. And they mould i r 6 ! have had to be gardening and have relatively intimate 7 ! contact with tha soil. I 8j All right. If I understand you correctly, then, 9 your high risk group consisted of people that lived in areas 10 i that mere known to be contaminated of dioxin or morked or | 11 | had extensive soil activity in areas that uisrs known to be \ 12 j contaminated with levels from 20 parts per billion up to 1 13 | part par million? 14 A Yes. IS And ycur low risk group, what? Your lorn risk grcup IB i mould be anything under 20 part's par billion? 17 A These mars people where there actually mas no 18 contamination and they had no intimate contact with soil, 19 but they might have walked across the street or they might 50 have-- in other words, they were in the general environment, 21 I but they had no intimate contact as far as we could 22 | establish with such contaminated soil. 23 Well, they would have been living in arBas that 24 cculd indeed ba contaminated with less than 20 parts par 21 1 billion and have activity in an area that's contaminated \ a with lass than HO parts per billion of TCDD; isn't that 3 correct? 4 A No. 5 Q No? 6 ft UJe took people that didn't have that. UJa were Just j7 careful to call them a low risk group, because us are still S trying to establish their-- i 3 Q Doctor, you are talking in generalities, and I 'm ! I 10 trying to get specific. These people that lived in Times ! 11 Beach, part of whom were in your low risk group-- now, in the 1 12 parts of Times Beach that they lived in, did they live in 13 areas that were contaminated with less than 20 parte par 14 billion? Did you select any of your low risk group from 15 people who lived in a section of Times Beach that was 16 contaminated with greater than 20 parts per billion, or were | 17 they-- all the ones that were from Times Beach-- were they all \ 18 from a part of Times Beach that was contaminated with less ! 19 than 20 parts per billion? 20 A As far as I recall, they should not have had any ' 21 intimate contact with soil that was contaminated above 1 22 part per billion. That was my recollection. 23 Q Doctor, I didn't say intimate contact with soil in 24 my question; I said lived in the section that was contami- 22 1 natsd. Ars you tailing ms that sams of the low risk people i ja could live in the section of Times Beach that's contaminated i 3 j from 20 parts per billion to one part par million, but if 4 | they did not have intimate contact with the soil they ware 5 not considered high risk and thus could ba in the low risk t 6 group? Ii 7 I, ! A They would have lived in areas that had less than 1 11 i B | part per billion. j S| Q Inareas in Times Beach that had less than 1 part 1 10 | par billion? 11 | A Yee. 12 j Then yourphrase"intimate contact" really didn't 13 ! maan anything, did it, "intimats contact with the soil"? 14 I A In order to assure more-- IS Could you answer that question? Did the phrase 16 | that you used, "intimate contact with the soil", to describe 17 ' your high risk people; did it mean anything? i 18 j A Yes. IS Q All right. Did you select people that lived in 20 | Times Beach in arses that were indeed contaminated with 20 21 parts par billion or greater but where they had no history 22 j of intimate contact with the soil or frequent working with 23 the sail or anything of that sort? 24 A Not for the high risk group.- 23 1 Q No, I maant for the low risk group? ' 2 A No. V 3 Q How many of your low risk group ware actually from i 4 Times Beech? 5 A I don't exactly know the number; ue would have to B get that from Missouri. 7 0 Well, w e 've already established that. All of the e people from Times Beach, now, whether they lived in the-- ! 9 strike that. Were there some streets in Times Beach that 10 were sprayed with this contaminated oil and other streets of 11 Times Beach that were not sprayed with it? IS A Yea, 13 Q And you could use--or did you use in your low risk 14 group people who lived on streets not sprayed with the 15 contaminated oil? 16 A Yes. 17 M a 'am; is that correct? 18 A As far as I know, but-- 19 Q Yes. 50 A But to make sure, we would have to contact Mis 21 souri . 22 Q But, these people then in that lew risk group that 23 lived on etreets not sprayed with the oil could quite easily 24 have and indeed would have access to the streets that were 84 1 sprayed with the contaminated oil; correct, m e 'am? 5 A Yea. 3 And they could drive on those streets or walk on 4 those streets, and dust on those streets uiould blow to thsm 5 and vapors from those streets could blow to them as well; 6 correct, ma'am? 7 A No; It doesn't volatilize. Q Q I 'm sorry? 9 A TCDO doesn't really evaporate. 10 Doctor, that's another side issue. We have plenty 11 of evidence in this case that it does. Ula've got sworn 15 testimony from Monsanto employees that it does. And we have | 13 statements from others that it does. W e 've got lots of-- 14 Monsanto has put on lots of testimony on that point already; I i j15 I don't want to argue. But, assume if you will, that this 16 doss evaporate, that it does volatilize. Would you assume 17 that, m a 'am? IB A Okay. 19 Q And Just insight, you are familiar with thB work of * 50 Nash and Beall; aren't you? 51 A I'm sorry? 55 You are familiar with the works of Nash and Beall; 53 aren't you, m a 'am? 54 A Yes. | i ! 5 1 And they did find that TCDD in tha air in their 5 studies; did they not, ma'am? i I 3 A That was nsvar a published and a reviewed article. 4 It mas published and a peer reviewed article. Are I 5 you not familiar with it? ! i E A I didn't ssa the peer reviewed article, no. j ! 7 Q Doctor, back to my point anyway. Tha point is that | l B people that lived on the noncontaminated streets of Times 9 Beach had exposure and would use the contaminated streets of 10 Timas Bsach; would they not? 11 A Yas. 12 Q And they would-- might visit back and forth, back 13 yards from one house with a noncontaminated staet might butt 14 right up against tha back yard of another housa on a contam 15 inated street; correct? IE A I'm not absolutely sure, but it's possible. 17 Q And your low risk group than had-- was it their IB residences that had soil with less than 1 part par billion 19 of TCDD in it? SO A Yas. I mean, the outside of the house; not the 21 ln9ide. SH Q So, you would taka people and did include people in 23 your low risk group who lived in areas where the contamlna- 24 tion was 200 parts per trillion or lass? 25 1 A No, I didn't say that. s Well, you said you excluded anybody in the group 3 tulth 1 part per billion; did you not? 4 A Our analysis, at least for some of the contract 5 laboratories, the limit of detection for TCDD in soil uae 6 around 100 parts per trillion. So, there could have been 7 nothing or there could have been something below 100 parts B par trillion in soma cases. 1 wouldn't know. B Doctor, I thought you told us that the low risk 10 group included only those people who lived in areas that 11 wsra contaminated with 100 parts per billion of TCDD or , 1 2 lass? 13 A The only reason I said that was because of thB way 14 the chemical analysis was sat up. 15 Q Doctor, is what you are saying is that your low IB risk people included people who lived in residences or lets 17 that could be contaminated with dioxin up to 100 parts per IB billion? 19 A Or there could be nothing. 20 Or there could be nothing? 21 A Right. 22 Q Is that correct that they could have lived in 23 residences where they had up to 1 part pBr billion of TCDD 24 contamination? E7 1 A U1b were only quantitating the 1 part par billion ' a and slightly bBlow that, and then beyond that, although on i 3 a qualitative base us would be able to say, "Well, there 1 4 really wasn't any TCDD" wa made no effort to quantitate it. i 5 Q Could you answer the question that I asked you? \ 6 A I can't, only uihat I told you. \ \ ! I 7 Q Doctor, I submit that you can. j B MR. CARR: And would you read the question to ' S her? 10 t CThe previous question was read back by the court 1 11 reporter, as requested.) IH A Because of the scientific limitations, I cannot-- 13 Q Could you answer that question, m a 'am? 14 A I can't really answer it. I can't givB you tech 15 nical information. IG Q Did you hear the word .''could" in that question? 17 A That's speculation. IB My question is: People you selected from the so- 19 called npncontaminated areas of the TCDD to include in your 20 low risk group could have included people who had homes 21 that were-- and areas around thB homes-- that were- contami HH nated up to 1 part per billion of TCDD; isn't that correct, 23 ma *am? H4 A That's mere speculation, and I don't speculate; 2B 1 I 'm a scientist. 2 Q Did you hear when 1 said the word-- Dr. Kimbrough, 3 the word "could" is in there. 4 8 Yes. But, I don't uant to speculate, because I 'm 5 a scientist. 6 Well, Doctor, you are required to answer that 7 question when I ask it. 8 A I can't . 9 I'm sorry? 10 A I cannot. 11 MR. CARR: Your Honor, would you direct the 12 witness to answer the question? 13 THE COURT: Doctor, you have to answer the 14 question. It's a proper question. 15 THE WITNESS: If I can't give an answer that is IB correct, then why should I answer it? 17 THE COURT: You understand the question; the IB question is a proper question to ask of an expert witness 19 such as yourself in a court of law in the state of Illi 20 nois; therefore, you have to answer it. 21 A N o . - 22 Q Doctor, do you have any-- you did select people 23 that were from Times Beach; did you not, m a 'am? 24 A Yes. 29 1 And there were variations of contamination in 2 Times Beach; wasn't there, m a 'am? t 3 A Yea. j I i 4 And you identified those areas that had contami- j i 5 nation of 1 part per billion or above; did you not, ma'am? ! *i i 6 A Yes. j 7 And you did not identify any area of being contain- ! B inatad other than 1 part per billion or above; did you not? B A Qualitatively. 10 Qualitative what? That's not an answer. 11 A That was uihat I was trying to explain earlier. 1S Doctor, could you-- do you understand what I 'm 13 asking you? Is it not a fact-- maybe I can put it mors 14 plainly-- is it not a fact that you identified areas of 15 Times Beach that was contaminated from 20 parts per billion 16 to 1 part per million? 17 A Yes. IB Q And did you then identify parts of Times Beach 19 that were contaminated from 1 part per billion to 20 parts 20 per billion? 1 A Yes. You always say ''you" . All of ths work was B E really done by the Environmental Protection Agency. 23 Well, I mean by those participants in thB study. 24 The values that you used in the study, whether you did ths 30 1 identifying or not. I 'm not suggesting that you personally i i 2 or you at CDC did; my question said the values that you! 3 all used; all right? 4 A Yes. 1 5 And 1 can understand your problem with that 6 question. There was identified in Times Beach-- whether it i 7 was by you, or by Gad, or by EFA, cr by whoever-- the areas 0 of Times Beach ware identified by level of contamination; 0 were they not, ma'am? 10 A Yes. I i 11 And there was identified those areas of Times j 12 Beach that had contamination from 20 parts per billion to 13 1 part per million; is not that correct, ma'am? j 14 A Yb s . 15 And you selected from those areas, as you have 16 previously stated, high risk participants; did you notj 17 m a 'am? 10 A Yes. i I 13 Q Now, there were areas of Times Beach that were I4 i 20 identified as having contamination of lass than 20 partjs 2i per billion and down to 1 part per billion; isn^-t that ; I i 22 correct,ma *am? 23 A And down tonothing. 24 Could youanswer the question, first of all, as I 31 1 gave it to you? i* H A Yes. * ;i i3 And did you select from the areas that uera ! j 4 contaminated, or is it possible that any oF the low risk j i 5 participants cams From the areas that ware identified ais i6 having contamination from 20 parts par billion down to 1 I 7 part per billion? |! i B A As Far as I know, we did not try to taka anybody 9 out of that middle group. 10 That isn't what I asked you. I did hot ask you I 11 what you tried to do. What I 'm asking you-- because I I i i 12 understand it was not your intention to go by this kind of ' 13 parameter For contamination-- what I 'm asking you, ma'am, is 1 14 it passible that some of your low risk participants were I 15 takBn From the group that lived in areas contaminated with 1 16 20 parts pBr billion down to 1 part pBr billion of TCDD? i 17 A As Far as I know, it's not possible. 18 All right. Now, did you also-- or was there I 15 identified at Times Beach parts of the community that had ! jS0 contamination of 1 part per billion and below, down to 21 nothing? -j 22 A Most of those analysis were reported as negative 23 or trace or-- and so, I don't really know. 24 Well, the word trace means there's something 32 1 there, although according to some people in this case it's a defined trace as being up to 10 parts pBr million. 3 A No. 4 Q Others in this case have identified as trace down 5 to 45 parts per billion. We have a wide range of testi 6 mony as to uhat is meant by trace in this context. So, I 7 you*11 forgive me if I won't accept your use of thB ward 8 trace without knowing uhat you mean by it; what you mean by 9 the ward trace. 10 A Something that's below 100 parts per trillion! 11 Something that's below 100 parts per trillion|is i 12 trace to you? 13 A Yes. 14 Q All right. 15 A I'm not talking about our own analysis; I'm only i 16 talking about the soil analysis that the EPA did. | 17 I understand that. Down to 100 pats per trillion 10 in the EPA analysis is trace. From what to what? One part 18 per billion down to 100 parts per trillion? l 20 A That again varies with the different laboratories. i I 21 Some laboratories still reported positive findings in parts 22 per trillion at lower levels, and some laboratories didn't. 23 And sometimes they would report it, and sometimes they' i 24 wouldn't. The lower you go down with soil analysis, the ! l-i 33 1 mors difficult the quantitation becomes. 2 Q I understand that, Doctor, but I'm simply trying 3 to-- 4 A So, I really am not competent to answer those,ana 5 lytical questions, 6 Well, I know, and I'm not asking you, m a 'am, ,1'm 7 asking you how you use the word trace? UJhat values were a included uihen you said these people lived in areas that had s trace amounts of dioxin in the soil? 10 A I cannot ansuer this question without consulting 11 the EPA and finding out what different laboratories did 12 uhBre. 13 Well, up to what level-- where would it get not to 14 be trace? At what level? j i 15 A As we ware told, all laboratories had a-- at least IB limit of detection of 100 parts per trillion. Nd w , some 17 had a lower limit of detection, but since we weren't IB concerned very much about that anyway, we didn't-- 19 Dr. Kimbrough, I understand that. But, I 'm trying 20 to pin something down here. In general, was trace used to 21 dBScribe contamination that would bs below the iimits of 22 detection for any laboratory involved? 23 A I 'm not clear. i 24 Q Well, that's the reason I 'm.trying to find out 34 1 what you are talkinQ about. Uthan the word trace is used by 2 you as you've adapted it from the laboratories, do you mean I 3 to. say that trace is that quantity which uia cannot accur 4 ately identify quantitatively or qualitatively? i 5 A Yea. And also uib are not absolutely sure that I i 6 that's really the 2,3,7,B-tetrachlorodibanzo-para-dioxin. 7 Q So, any time you can't be sure of what it is, then I B you-- or the amount that it is, it's then-- and by "you" 1 iii 9 mean the laboratory, the chemists involved, the analytical 10 chemists involved-- it is then that the word trace is used. 11 Is that correct? 12 A By some laboratories, yes. I don't know what all 13 laboratories do. 14 But you used the word trace, m a 'am. And haul were 15 you using it? IB A I was using it in that- context, yes. 17 All right. If it can't be accurately quantitated [ IB or identified as to the isomer, than it's considered trace? 19 A That's what the chemists have explained to me 20 Q All right. But, above that-- and that's the way 21 you used the word; correct? - 22 A Yes. 23 But, above that it is not tracB? i ! 24 A Yes. \ 1 Now, the participants in the Idui risk group, whi s was the-- strike that. Haui much of Times Beach-- or how mi 3 streets WBra thBre in Times Beach, Dr. Kimbrough? 4 A I dan *t know. i 5 Hotu many streets-- mere all the streets sprayed! I 6 Bliss? Did all the streets receive the contaminated oil 7 A Not as far as I know. B Well, what part didn't? j a A I sort of, if I remember correctly, it's sort b 10 third maybe maybe. But, I mould have to go back to thej li maps. I | 12 All right. UJhat you are doing now is trying tc 13 resurrect you memory, and again you're-- | 14 A But, I Just can't relate to that. 15 And you don't really know; is that right? 15 A Right. 17 Well, to get it down to uthat you do know is the IB thB high risk group had to live and have intimate contal 13 in soilof 20 parts per billion and above, and your Idw 20 risk group was taken from people who lived in areas at 21 least less than that. Is that right? - 22 A Less than 1 part per billion. r i 23 All right. Now-- and were people-- tharB were mj 24 than one sitB involved in this study-- what was it; Mink' 36 1I Stout, Quail Run-- thBrB werB a whole number of plaas tlhat were included in your contaminated sites. From what areas-- we've already identified the Times Beach area. Did j you select volunteer participants from the Quail Run arjea? A That's a different study that's still in progress. Now, I'm talking about the Missouri study, the one that we are talking about now. Did you take anybody fpam that area? A No. Q Were the-- | A Not as far as I know. 1 Q Uiere the people that you took Just from the Times i Beach area? As far as I know it was a Times Beach area study All right. And none of these other-- not Minker Site or Minker Stout; is that right? A Yes. All right. And all of these-- did all of thesa participants in this study actually live in Times Beach then? A I 'm not absolutely certain. There may-have been some controls who were slightly outside or who had moved away. 1 mean, nobody really lived at Times Beach at the time. ; II 1 Q At the time of the study? 2 A Yes. 3 Wall, that was inaccurately put. The participa i 4 in the study ware drawn all from people that had lived J i | 5 Times Beach-- that had lived in Times Beach or near Times 6 Beachj is that correct, ma'am? 7 A Yes. 8 All right. And that's 100 percent of both grot. ! a ieither lived in Times Beach or near Times Beach:* is thal 10 correct, m a 'am, to the best of your knowledge? il A To the best of my knowledge, yes. 12 Q All right. And how often thB people that actu; 13 went on the contaminated streets is unknown to you? 14 A Yes. 15 Q All right. UJhat you did do was try to select 16 these people, put the-- divide them in two groups, tha 17 people that had the less known or less obvious or less IB often or less intense contact with the contaminated-- ac 13 contamination in one group and those with the known, mo 20 intense, more active, morB frequent participation in th 21 contaminated-- actual known contaminated arBas in- the at 22 group; is that right, m a 'am? 23 A Yes. 24 Q All right. Now, in the-- in order to speed :| 3E X a little bit, if I mere to ask you the questions about h< 5 many people would be expected to have persistent feeling: 3 of pins and needles, and cramps, and loss of power, and 4 burning in body, and tingling in fingers and toes, mould 5 be your answer that you have no judgment that mould be 6 any significance in this case? 7 ft You mean all of these things together or JustB Q Or independently? a A -- or independently? 10 0 Yes. n ft Independently I mould say thst 25 percent of tY 12 people of the total general population might report some 13 thing like that, but they wouldn't have all of these 14 things. 15 At the same-- all right. What you are saying ii 16 percent of the population mould have persistent feelings 17 pins and needles in the body, within 'the meaning of the IB question and the may it mas asked in the Times Beach pi. 13 study? HO ft No. Maybe 5 or 10 percent mould say that, anc, 21 some others mould say they had heart burns and-- 22 All right. But, anyway, mhat I 'm asking you 23 specific question. You say 5 tD 10 percent cf the psojji H4 mould respond yes thBy have persistent feelings of pins 135 needles in the body; is that mhat you are saying? A In their hands or in their Feet. Q . All right. And what about cramps? UJhat per-' centage of people mould respond that they have muscle cramps? 1 i A Judging From tha experience yesterday, I mould say-- strike that. cramps. At some time everybody has muscle j i i Yes, Doctor, u b 'v b established that already. I'm asking you again, in the may tha question mas asked by the people that did tha asking, and they had Follow-up j questions to pinpoint thB problem as you've suggested this morning. In the context oF this health study, this re\jiem that ment on, the inteviems that uient on, in thB context oF that question posed in that may-- and so I need not say it again-- mill you assume that all of these things that I m asking you is put in that context about thesa symptoms and findings and problems-- mill you do that ma'am? A All right. Uhat percentage of people mould have cramps? A Persistent cramps? - I'm sorry? A You mean persistent cramps? The word cramps mas used. I don't knom uihat 4 1 question-- I don't have thB advantage, the same advantage a that you have. You read the questions; I did not, fill 3 have are the results, see. So, you have an advantage o\ i 4 me. In the way the question bias asked, as I've already i 5 told you, m a 'am, what percentage of people would report 6 that they had cramps in the general papulation? 7 A Persistent cramps could be reported in 10 to IS a percent of* the population. 9 find loss of power? What percentage would rspoi j 10 loss of power? i 11 fi That would be lower; somewhere between 1 and 5 12 percent. 13 B find burning in body? 14 fi I can't answer that; I don't know what burning 15 body-- that's one of those catch all questions where we 16 to know-- 17 It's one of the questions you threw in to test 16 I 'm not going to say honesty, because they were all hoi 13 presumably-- but to test the subjective view of their 20 health; is that right? 21 fi Partly, and also to try and evaluate their unfc 22 standing of the question. 23 fill right. So, that's a question that would 24 no-- that wasn't designed to hrlng out a health effect; 41 1 understand what you said before? 2 ft Well, that's not quite right. If they may ansjwE 3 that, we may then go back and see what else they are, am 4 see horn that all fits together. And us may want to go bi j S and examine them more if us think they haven't properly iI 6 answered the questionnaire. j i 7 Q All right, rtoreso than thB other questions, it a \ can't stand by itself; it's a more unique question than ,\ s others, and you would definitely have to do other things | 10 order to give the answer to that question meaning; is tih u right? 12 ft Yes. 13 Q All right. UJhat percentage of the people 14 you expect to respond that they had tingling in fingers 15 toes? 16 ft I 've already answered that earlier. 17 No, I 'm sorry, but the question that was askeci ia before was persistent feelings of pins and needles in tic 19 This is a different question. ao ft Okay. That's again, the tingling and pins anci 21 needles-- - 2a Q I didn't make the questions; don't look at me. 23 didn't design the study. Tingling in fingers and toes! 24 What percentage of the general population uould respond i 1 that they had tingling in fingers and toes in your esti 2 mation? I 3 A It's the same thing as pins and needles; it's | 4 same question asked in a different uay. 5 fill right. What percentage then? j 6 A And I said, it was somewhere between 10 and IE 7 percent. B All right. Now, an-- in the general population a what percentage of people would you expect to respond 10 they had prolonged infections? 11 A Gould be up to 25 percent. 12 And as far as findings are concerned in the 13 immune, hew many-- in the general population, what would 14 expect to find to have marked depression in lymphocyte 15 liferation? 15 A That's not very well known; and I can't answer 17 that question. IB You have no judgment at all? 19 A No. 20 a Could bB anywhere from 5 percent to 100 percan 21 A I don't know. - 22 You have no judgment at all? 23 A No. 24 Would you expect 100 percent.to have it? 1 I d o n 't know. 3 You've done no uiork in this area at all? 3 A I have read the literature, and I 've reviewedji i 4 1 had first got involved with that when I was dealing uii 5 Lo v b Canal, and there just isn't enough information .at B moment. 7 What you are saying then is that any figure idol B be meaningful; but, on the other hand, any figure would 9 necessarily have any meaning? I 10 A Right, until ids get more information. That 'SjE 11 area of research that uie don't have good information irl 15 yBt. 13 And so, it could be that if as much as 10 perci 14 of the papulation had a marked depression in thBir lym 15 phocyte proliferation that that could have real signifi 16 cance; couldn't it? 17 A I just cannot answer those questions at the IB moment; I Just don't know enough about it. 19 Doctor, I submit that if you don't have any sc 50 tific basis to disputa it, than what I say to you, anyt 31 I say to you you will have to accept as true unless you 53 have some scientific basis to dispute it. And that's t 33 reason-- I'm asking this question to test whether or not 34 in fact have any scientific basis as you say you do not 44 1 have. Could be, could it: not, m a 'am, that if 10 percent s of the exposed population have a marked depression in 3 lymphocyte proliferation, that could be significant; 4 couldn't it, m a 'am? 5 8 Lymphocyte proliferation is effected by so many 5 things that-- significant for what? I mean, I don't under 7 stand . 8 In determining whether or not ana has had an 8 adverse health effect from exposure to a chBmical involved? 10 A N o . 11 Pardon? 12 A N o . 13 Q It could not be then? It could have no signifi- 4 14 canca? You are saying that-- 15 A You cannot answer that question in a vacuum like 16 this. 17 Doctor, if I ask you and you have no knowledge, if IB I ask you it could bB that there are a million planets in 19 this universe that have human beings, or humanoids, or 20 creatures likB humans, you could not dispute that; could 21 you, ma'am? 22 A I sure could. 23 How so? 24 A I can also say that I believe that's not true. ai/io (&& 45 1 No; but I'm not asking your belief. I 'm asking 2 you is it possible, m a 'am, that there are a million planets 3 in this universe that havB humans on it? Is that possible? 4 A I'm saying no. 5 And uihy are you saying no? E A Because I don't think it *s possible. 7 Why do you think it's not possible? a A Because of my experience that I've had and the 3 general knowledge that I have acquired. 10 All right. What is that experience and general, 11 knowledge that tBlls you that there cannot possibly be a 12 million or a hundred or a hundred million other planBts in 13 this universe that have humans on them? What is your 14 background? Is it religious, or is it scientific that 15 tells you that that's no so? 16 A Both. 17 From a religious viewpoint you believe that then 18 there couldn't be anybody-- any place except earth that's 19 got humans on it? 20 A I didn't say that, 21 Q All right. Do you believe that there could be 22 another planet in the universe that has humans on it? 23 A I don't know. 24 I 'm not asking you of your knowledge; again, I'm 46 1 testing the way you are using the words that you are using, 2 Dr. Kimbrough. Is it possible, Dr. Kimbrough, that in the 3 billions and trillions and billions of other solar systems 4 that exist in this universe, is it possible that there is 5 one single other planet out there that have human like 6 beings on them-- on it? 7 A There may be another planet that may have some B life on it, but I don't think there would be humans. 9 Or human like? 10 A Human like creatures. 11 And now, are you giving that answer from a scien 12 tific viewpoint or from a religious viewpoint? 13 A That's from a scientific viewpoint. 14 All right. Now, what in science tells you that in 15 all these countless--and they are countless-unimaginable IB number of solar systems out there-- haven't yet reached the 17 end of the-- we don't know yet the end of the universe-- wa 18 don't even know, there might be more than one universe out 19 there. Ulhat in your scientific knowledge tells you that it 20 isn't possible that there could be another planet out there 21 with human like beings on it? 22 A You changed it slightly; you said human like. 23 Q No, I said that before, ma 'am 24 A Oh, I 'm sorry; I didn't hear that,. I wouldn't 47 1 think that the evolution in any one planet would be just 2 exactly the same-- 3 Q And I carefully did not say-- 4 A Okay; I didn't catch that. 5 Initially I did say humans, and you were correct 6 in humans. But, then I said-- my next question said human 7 like. a A Dh, I'm sorry; I didn't hear the "like" . 3 So-- by your hesitation here and by your inquiry 10 here, are you saying that you believe it is possible that 11 there could bs another planet out there that has human like 12 beings on it? 13 A That could be possible. 14 Is it possible there could be a hundred planets 15 out there that could have human like beings on it? 16 A I don't know. 17 G I'm sorry? 18 A I do not know. 13 No, I didn't ask you whether-- 20 A I mean, I csn't even guess. ei Q Dr. Kimbrough, I suggest to you that if- there 22 could be one out there, as you've agreed that there could 23 be, then there could be two; couldn't there, m a 'am? 24 A ThB earth could be flat. 4B Dl/io/Sfc 1 0 UJb II, but us know the earth isn't flat; us don't s know what's out in tha universe as far as life is con 3 cerned; do we, ma'am? 4 A Not-- we know a little bit, but we don't know a 5 lot. 6 We don't know enough to say that thers couldn't be 7 human like creatures out there; do we, ma'am? B A No. 3 We don't know enough to say that there ecuId not 10 be a hundred planets out there with human like creatures; 11 do uie, m a 'am? 12 A Since this is totally out of my area, I'm not 13 really qualified to discuss that; but, I think a hundred 14 would be an exaggeration. 15 Q Why, m a 'am? Haw many millions of planets-- or how IE many millions of solar systems would you have to have to 17 produce one with atmosphere and conditions like uie have on IB the earth? 19 A I don't know. 20 You haven't the vaguest idea, and nobody else has, 21 m a 'am. Nobody knows. There could be, it's possible that 22 there could be billions of solar systems out there that 3 have a planet that goes around that sun the some way this 24 earth goes; isn't that possible, m a 'am? Could be billions  1/ 49 1 of such out there? 2 A IF you-- j 3 Q On the other hand, there could be none; isn't that 4 right, m a 'am? 5 A There could not be any othBr solar systems. 6 No solar systems with planets that have the same 7 conditions that cause human life to evolve an this planet? B A Yes. 9 Q TherB could be billions of such planets; couldn't 10 there, m a 'am? 11 A Billions? 12 0 Billions of such planets out in the countless 13 universe? 14 A That's-- I don't think so. 15 UJhy not, m a 'am? 15 A Some of those crBaturBS might have madB contact 17 uith us by now. 18 You are saying might have. Again, they might not 19 have as well; is that right, m a 'am? 20 A I would think they would have. 21 Doctor, what makes you think that they-would have 22 evolved any more rapidly than we? 23 A Because I 'm an optimist. 24 Q Doctor, I 'm not talking about your optimism; I 'm 50 Oz/io/tfe. ' 1 asking strictly-- and I know this gets to be ludicrous-- 2 strictly in possibilities, m a 'am. UJhat it boils down to, 3 uihat I 'm saying is, it is possible, even though you might 4 say that it's not likely, it is possible that there are 5 hundreds of planets out there, billions of planets out 6 there with human like creatures on them; isn't that right, 7 m a 'am? a ft I have problems making these sweeping statements, 9 because they don't mean anything. 10 Well, I know they don't mean anything, but that's 11 the reason I 'm asking the question, m a 'am, to establish 12 that what you'vB said about your marked depression in lym 13 phocyte proliferation. If you havB no knowledge as to the 14 significance of it, then you can't say that it does not 15 have significance, if you have no knowledge one way or the 16 other? That's the whole paint of this exercise, Dr. Kim 17 brough . 18 A I didn't 3ay it had no significance; I said that 19 thBre were many things-- I was trying to say that there are 20 many things that effect the immunB system, that at the 21 moment we have not sorted that out and we need to do more 22 work in science-- 23 G And that's the reason I asked you, m a 'am; it is 24 possible, is it not-- and I used the word ''possible" m a 'am-- o ifi*[&> 51 1 it: Is possible that a 10 psrcsnt depression in lymphocyte !I 2 proliferation may be? And I usBd two words-- it's possible, j j3 might be; and I said it may have significance in shaming 4 dioxin exposure. Now, isn't that passible, ma'am? 5 A It's also possible that something entirely i j 6 different could-- 7 I agree. I agree, and have no dispute on that B point. One is possible; the other is possible; isn't it, 9 m a 'am? 10 A Well, if one is possible, then the other may not 11 be possible. ia No, both could be possible. Thera could be a < 13 thousand passible solutions to the problem. When in fact 14 there's only one real solution, there are a thousand-- until 15 u b identify it, there are a thousand possible solutions. IB In this particular case, m a 'am, do you not agree that if 17 one is possible, the other might also be possible? Perhaps IB not as likely, but possible? ! 19 A That's putting it a little too loose. I think by 20 carefully reviewing these people's records and the find 21 ings, doing some follow-up, and doing some other things, uie 22 could limit damn the possibilities. 23 Q Yes; but that hasn't been done, and I'm using-- has 24 it, ma'am? 52 1 A No. \* a Q I'm obilooted hare to prove this case with what I j 3 we've got; not what uie might have someday; but what we have yj 4 at this time. Could be absolutely wrong; could be a ]. t i 5 thousand percent wrong. But, I'm using the tools that we 6 have. And I*m suggesting to you that a marked depression 7 in lymphocyte proliferation might have significance in this e case; might it not, m a 'am? s A It might. i | 10 Yes. All right. Now, Doctor, how about the T4:T9 I 11 ratio being less than one. What percent of the population j 12 would have that ratio of less than one of the general popu- I 13 lation? i 14 A W e 'rs just going to go through the same thing. It 15 all goes together. I don't know. 15 Would your answer be then that you don't really 17 know thB significance of that related to this case, but it IQ might possibly have significance? Is that the answer to 19 the question? 20 A Yes. 21 All right. What about porphyrins, m a 'am? I know 22 that you've worked with porphyrins. What percent of the 23 population would you expect to have chronic hepatic 24 porphyria as defined and used in the Missouri Health Study? 1 53 V 1 A Now, there is a human disease called porphyria s cutanea tarda-- ! 3 Noui, Doctor, I asked the question specifically, 1 i 4 chronic hepatic porphyria as used in the Missouri Health | 5 Study that you helped design? I don't want to gat into all 6 kinds of porphyria that there might be; I 'm asking you a { i 7 specific question an the study you designed/ What percent I 0 of the general population mould you expect to have chronic 3 hepatic porphyria? 10 A The disease, which is porphyria cutanea tarda-- 11 Doctor-- Doctor, did you understand my question? IS I'm talking about the chronic hepatic porphyria defined, 13 discussed, identified, used in the Missouri Health Study 14 which you helped design. What percent of the general 15 population would you expect to have chronic hepatic 15 porphyria? 17 A Since we seen to have difficulties with sematics, IS I'm trying to explain uhat I mean by my percentages. 13 Doctor, I don't want an explanation; all I want 20 for you to tBll me is in this study that you designed-- that 21 you helped design-- and I know you had a great daal of input 22 on the porphyria section; did you not, m a 'am? 23 A Yes. 24 In that study, ma'am, in the way you used the term 54 1 chronic hepatic porphyria, they uiay you defined it then, i 2 the way you took it then, the tables you used and every- j | 3 thing you did in that study, what percent of people did you 4 expect to Find had chronic hepatic porphyria in the general 5 population? 6 A What I mean by chronic hepatic-- I j7 MR. CARR: Your Honor, would you direct the B witness to answer the question as I've posed it. 9 THE COURT: Doctor, you have to answer the 1 10 question, Doctor; it was directly posed; it did not call 11 for an explanation of the term. 12 A The percentage would be very low; it would ba one 1 13 in a thousand or lass. 14 Doctor, how much time did you all spend at least 15 that you are aware of in discussing what kind of parameters IS to put up in your tests dealing with chronic hepatic 17 porphyria? IB A I don't understand the question. 1 19 How much-- what I mean is houi much time did you 20 devote to that-- to setting up or designing that as part of 21 your study? y f 22 A We started several years ago to set up a method, 23 and w e 've done a lot of work in that area with other pop- \ 24 ulations, and so it is something that wa now routinely do. ; 55 1 All right. And as far as ths Missouri Hsalth j 2 Study is concerned, then, you had a great deal of back 3 ground when you designed and suggested and had made the 4 porphyria protocol part of that study; is that correct? 5 A Yes. ! 6 Q It wasn't dona as an off-the-shelf kind of thing; 7 it uias dona after careful and deliberate thought? 8 A Yea, and also because we put time into developing * i 5 the hot pressure liquid chromatologu method. i 10 All. right. And as a pathologist, you were well 11 versed in the various kinds of porphyria? ! 12 A Yes, to same extent. | 13 Yes. And you knew all about Doss and Strik and i 14 their work; did you not, m a 'am? ! 15 A Yes. i16 Doctor, what percent of the general population 17 would you expect to corns up with the results that would not IB be typeable in your porphyria exam as far as the type of i 13 porphyria they may have? 20 A There are-- all the porphyrias- that would not fit 21 into this classification; is that-- 22 Q No. 23 A I don't understand the question. 24 Q No. All right. In your Missouri Health Study, 56 1 you put down ths number of people that had various kinds of 2 lab results and you determined whether or not that was or 3 was not an indication of hepatic porphyria-- or chronic 4 hepatic porphyria. All right? ; 5 A Yes. ii! 6 Thera was a category that you put, not in the | 7 normal-- you had two sections, you had the normal and you a had the chronic hepatic porphyria section. And then you 3 had an untypeable section. Do you follow me? You had 10 normal, you had chronic hepatic porphyria, and then you had 11 untypeable. 12 A Yes. 13 Uihat percent of people do you expect to be-- to 14 fall into that untypeable classification? 15 A There are-- there's probably about a third of the 16 population that has some variance from the rest of the 17 population. UJe feel that i t 's a variance in the general IB population which has nothing to do with disease. 19 That isn't what I asked. 20 A Is that-- 21 Probably not, but I think it would be so long to 22 get an appropriate explanation to you so that I could get 23 an answer that would fit my needs; I think it would prob 24 ably be best if I use this time for something els. And do 5' 1 lot me pass on to something also, Doctor. You have 2 testified here yesterday as to thB means and methods by 3 which you could be used to testify in other cases. And you 4 mentioned that you were in one case in Missouri, did you 5 not, by way of deposition? To refresh your memory, you 5 gave a deposition, did you not, in the case of Patricia 7 Drinkard, Paul Drinkard, Lori Platt, and Andrea Platt 6 versus Independent Petrochemical Corporation, which was on 3 file in the Circuit Court in the City of St. Louis, State 10 of Missouri, case number 702-558. You gave such a depo 11 sition; did you not, m a 'am? 12 A Yes, I guess so. 13 You didn't mention it, but-- 14 A I 'm sorry, but-- 15 Q That's all right. You see, this is your depo 16 sition, deposition of Renate Kimbrough. 17 A Yes. 18 And it took place on the 18th day of February 18 1383, as a matter of fact, Just 12 days after this case 20 started. No-- did we start in 'B3 or '84? 21 THE COURT: Ue started February of '84. 22 Q All right. Your deposition was given a year, 23 then, before this case started. 24 A Okay. SB 1 All right. Do you remember that now? a A Yes. Thera mere a number of things we went round 3 and round about it, but I'm not really quite sure-- * Q No, all I want to establish is that you gave an 5 evidence deposition in that case. 6 A Yes; okay. 7 Did you not, ma'am? e A Yes. 9 And you gave an evidence deposition in the case 10 filed in the Circuit Court of Pike County, Missouri. You 11 gave it a long time ago. That was the SBth of February IE 1575. Did you not, ma'am? And I could forgive you for 13 forgetting that one. 14 A Yea. 15 That was the case of Frank J. Hampel and Judy 16 Piatt versus Russell Bliss and a whole bunch of others, and 17 same chemical companies. Do you recall that? IB A Yss. Now I remember the lawyer's name again, too. 19 Q That's all right. And that was also an evidence 90 deposition that you gave; was it not? SI A Yes. SS You also gave an evidence deposition in the case S3 of-- E4 A Evidence deposition means what? 59 1 Ulill be read in the proceeding that' follows with a out your coming in parson like you have here, for instance? a A Okay. 4 In other words, you give your testimony in Atlan 5 ta, Georgia, as you did in the two cases I'va just talked 6 to you about-- 7 A Yes. Q And it's subsequently read at the trial. 9 A I don't know that; you see, that would be some 10 thing you would have to talk to-- 11 Q Okay; I 'll just eliminate the word "evidence" For ie now. And you did-- well, I 'll have to say evidence 13 deposition, because that's what it was-- you gave an 14 evidence deposition in the case of Jerry Russell Bliss 15 versus Fred Lafser, State oF Missouri, Number HUJ 81-1A, did 16 you not, m a 'am, on December 8, 19B2? 17 A Yes. ie Is that correct, m a 'am? 19 A Yas. 20 All right. Now, in that-- in -the situation of the 21 Missouri Health Study, there is such a thing as a-- strikB 22 that. Uihat health affects do you expect to come from long 23 time and or low dose exposure tD TCDD, if any? 24 A There may not be any j that's-- , BO 1 Q Well, there may be some? 1 5 A -- that'a what we hope. i 3 Well! what are the signs that may bB present, or ! 4 is it simply you do not know uihat it may be? j i 5 A bis don't know. \ t 5 And the reason you don't know, m a 'am, is why? Why ! ! 7 don't you know what the effects of long term low dose expo B sure to dioxin may be in human beings? ' \ 3 A Two reasons. One is that different animal species 10 respond quite differently; wa don't know where humans are. 11 And then, the only experience that we* vs had has been in 12 workers that have been Bxposad to vary high doses and often 13 over short periods of time. And even there, any chronic 14 health effects that have been reported, if you really 15 examined all of that information, it isn't vary clear, and IE seme of it may actually be chronic disease that you get 17 with aging. And so, it's-- that's also because of that. IB And it's very difficult tc design epidemiology studies, and 19 you have to sort of throw out a big net and then try and 20 sea whether there are any differences* between that and a 21 comparison group. The things that rine have concentrated on, 22 partly because of the animal data, has been the sensory 23 nervous system, the Immune response, and the porphyria 24 cutanea tarda. And there are things in the workers with 61 1 acute exposure that have had some general malaise, and sa | 2 us have Included all of those things, too. 3 UJell, to get It back to uihat I thought I uma 4 asking, is that gou have not reached-- and bg gou I mean the 5 scientific and medical uorld in general-- you have not | 5 reached yet a state uhere gou can be absolutely sura as to 7 uhat the chronic health effects in humane mill be because B of, one, the human life span is so much longer than the-- 9 most of the animals that you tested and studied, and there 10 there isn't yet a sufficient history length of time to come 11 to any results positive-- or absolutely sure results in the ! 12 case of long time leu dose exposure in the case of human i 13 beings? 14 A Yes. The only thing is chloracne. 15 And chloracne may be present in some instances, 16 and it may not be present in others; isn't that correct? 17 A That's a very complicated question, dost people IS that have had-- most uorkers that have had exposure to high 13 concentrations have developed chloracne. 20 Yes. But you are talking about a high concentra 21 tion; aren't you? My question is aimed at chronic long 22 term lou dose exposure to dioxin. Ma'am? 23 A Could I get the question again? 24 UJell, you said chloracne. 55 1 A Yb s . H Q And whan I asked you what were the findings from i 3 long term low doss exposure, in that general area, you said j 4 chloracna was one of the things. But, in point of fact, 5 the chloracne that you are familiar with had been acute j t 5 high dose exposure to dioxin; isn't that correct, m a 'am? 7 A Yaa. B Q Yes. And whether-- and chloracne is not-- 1st me 9 ask it another uiay as well. Even in those instances, 10 chloracne is not a constant finding,* is it, m a 'am? 11 A In most people it is; not in everybody, but in 15 most people. 13 Ply question is: you know a number of cases where 14 they didn't have chloracne, far instance; don't you, m a 'am? 15 A They are rare. 16 Pardon? 17 A They are rare in thoee situations. 16 But, my question is: you know of cases in Europe-- 19 you know of cases in this country where people working side 50 by side in the same plant, the one guy gets chloracne and 51 his fallow right next to him doesn't gBt chloracnB. You 55 know that; don't you, m a 'am? 53 A As far as the S,3,7,B-tetrachlorodibenzo-para- 54 dioxin is concsrned, there were a few workers, maybB two or 53 1 three, in the Spulana factory that Dr. Jirasek reported 2 that didn't have any chloracne. 3 Q Yes, but as a matter of fact, what happened there, j I t 4 as you pointed out in one of your statements or papers, ! 5 something that I read, they just really studied the people G that had chloracne. Those uiare the ones that they thought j 7 uiere exposed, and those mare the ones they went after; i 6 isn't that right? 3 A That's trua. 10 So, actually what that study mas and uihat so many 11 of these studies were, Including the Suskind 49 studies, 12 these are studies of people that have chloracne; isn't that 13 correct? 14 A Yes. 15 And thay are not studies of people mho had 1G exposure to 2,3,7,0-tetrachlorodlbenzo-para-dioxin per say; 17 are they, m a 1am? IB A They also had exposure to TCDD. IB Q Who? 20 A The people with chloracne had. exposure to TCDD. 21 Right. I didn't mean to say they did not. 22 A Yes. 23 Q What it was a study of-- uihat most of these studies 24 if not all of the studies urns were studies of people who 64 1 wars exposed to 2,3,7,0 TCCD and got chloracnB; isn't that s correct, m a 'am? 3 A Yes. 4 Q They uara not studies 'of people tuho uiara exposed 5 to 2,3,7,B TCCD period; mere they, m a 'am? 6 A No. 7 a No. 8 THE COURT: Is this a point For a short break? 9 M R . CARR: Sura, your Honor. 10 THE COURT: Okay. M e 'll taka a short break at 11 this time and resums testimony. 12 CAt this time a short break was taken.) 13 CTha following proceedings were had out of the 14 hearing and prasanca of the jury.) 15 THE COURT: hr. Carr? 16 Q Doctor, on the point that we ware discussing on 17 the affect of long term low dose exposure, there's been a IB population that has been considered to fall into that 19 category, but in fact that have not, and that's the Saveso 20 group of people; isn't that corract, m a 'am? 21 A They have not had long term exposure? 10 22 Right. They've had law dose exposure, but not 23 long term? 24 A They had initially a relatively high exposure, and 55 1 thBn they really haven't had long term exposure. s Jel1, what was the extent of the exposure that you ; 3 mould call high initially? 4 A The exposure to the cloud and the vsgetation 5 during the first tuio weeks after the accident. t j 6 I understand that. But; I want to know thB level. 7 A I'm sorry. 8 The level of contamination? S A I don't knauj what the contamination in the cloud 10 mas; on the vegetation there are some measurements of 15 11 parts per million. 12 Q And there mere-- are you familiar with the studies 13 that-- the tests that mere performed later on showing-- I 14 think there's exhibits in this case which if I had time I 15 could pull it out and show you-- but are you familiar with 15 thB studies that showed that the contamination in general 17 was much less than that, down into the low parts per IB billion or even down in the parts per trillion? 13 A In the soil measurements-- or there are three 20 zones; and except for Zone A, all of the soil measurements 21 in Zone B and Zone C were in parts per trillion. 22 Q Yes. And the people living in those areas, 23 including some of them in Zone A-- ZonB A, if I remember 24 the map, was that small area that was in the direct path of 55 1 this cloud, and I 'vs seen the drawings that 1 have, like a 2 large long teardrop of water. That would be the Zone A 3 that you are speaking about? 4 A It was adjacent to the plant. 5 Yes. 6 A Now, recently they have redefined the zones, but 7 I'm talking about the original zonae. 8 Actually, as far as those people are concerned 9 than, they did not actually have long term exposure; did 10 they, m a 'am? 11 A The people that lived in B and C, no. 12 Q Well, in A, B, and C. None of the people in 13 Seveso had what's considered long term exposure; did they, 14 sii-- ma'am? 15 A N o . 15 Is your anstusr to my question yes, that's correct, 17 they did not have long term exposure? 18 A Yes, to-- 19 I 'm sorry? 20 A To Ib v b Is that would be important. El By your definition of importance? 2E A Yes. 23 Q Well, none of those people would have those E4 levels. What do you consider important; what levels? 67 1 A Thera Is some-- there is some contamination in tha a part par trillion range. 3 Q Wall, but you don't consider that important; do 4 you? 5 A No. 6 Q Well, I want to know uihot you do consider impor 7 tant. In uihat range? 8 A Ule have developed this paper that gives you all of 3 thB rational on soil levels. 10 I understand tha rational; but, I'd like to know 11 uihat level of contamination is it that you consider impor IS tant? 13 A Uia said that anything below 1 part per billion. 14 Q I know what you said, ma'am, but my question is 15 uihat do you consider important level of contamination? 16 A Below 1 part per billion is negligible. 17 And do you mean, then, that exposure to-- or strikB 10 that-- contamination above 1 part per billion is important, 13 and contamination levels below 1 part per billion are not SO important? 51 A Levels below 1 part per billion are negligible. SS They are not important in residential areas. S3 Dkay. Then, the answer to the question is they 24 are not important if they are below 1 part per billion? 5B 1 A In residential areas. s Well, in any other area are they important? 3 A IF you had pastures where cattle was grazing, you 4 might have to go down to lower levels. It depends on the 5 circumstances. 6 What about lakes or ponds where Fish are located, 7 where you have drain oFF into those ponds-- run off? 8 A That is not really my area. This is the responsi 9 bility of the Environmental Protection Agency, and I have 10 hot evaluated that. 11 Doctor, you have evaluated and you do know, IS however, that iF one eats fish contaminated, that his 13 levels of dioxin-- that one can accumulate in one's body 14 levels of dioxin from eating just that contaminated fish. 15 You know that; don't you, ma'am? 16 A Yes. 17 And you can get that significantly high concentra 10 tions simply because of eating the contaminated fish and 19 absorbing the dioxin from that fish; correct, ma'am? 20 A It depends on the level of contamination. 21 Dioxin accumulates in the body; doesn't it, m a 'am? 25 A Yes. 23 Q And any time you are exposed to dioxin, you-- and 24 you ingest it, absorb it-- you are accummulating some of 63 1 that dioxin; aren't you, m a 'am? a A Yes. 3 Because of it's half-life? 4 A Yas. 5 And every day if you are exposed in a fashion that 6 you mill be ingesting or taking into your body portions of 7 dioxin, you are accumulating some part of that uhich you 6 are ingesting or taking in daily; isn't that correct, 9 m a 'am? 10 A Yes. 11 And, depending upon it's half-lifa, you mould ie continue to accumulate until such time as you raach a point 13 or the amount that you are excreting or disposing of on a 14 daily basis becomes equal to thB amount that you are taking 15 in-- equal to or greater than the amount that you are taking 16 in on a daily basis; isn't that correct, ma'am? 17 A Yes. 18 And that to a great extant depends upon the half19 1ifs of the dioxin? 20 A Yes. 21 In human tissue; isn't that right? 22 A Yas. 23 And all during that period of time, whether you 24 are exposed to it in the air, in the soil, in the dirt, in 70 1 liquid, in fish, in beef, in chickens, and however you E might be getting it into your body, you are accumulating 3 dioxin; aren't you, ma'am? 4 A Yes. 5 And you'll accumulate it until you reach a point 5 where your excretion becomes greater than your intake*, 7 isn't that correct, ma'am? Q A Or equal to. S Q Qr equal to. 10 A Greater or equal to. 11 Q Equal to or greater than. All right, m a 'am. IE That's one reason that the F.D.A. or whoever made the rules 13 on sating.fish said there's a certain level of fish that 14 you should not eat; correct, ma'am? 15 A Yes. 16 Because of the bio-accumulation effect? 17 A Yes. ie Q Ail right. And of course, that's a reason that 15 you at COC set the level in soil, again, because of the SO bio-accumulation factor? El A Yes. EE Q New, a lot of this depends upon half-life in S3 humans then. What is the half-life of humans that you 54 believe to be the appropriate half-life in fat tissue in 71 1 humans? 2 A TherB is really not enough information. There*a 3 one scientist who took some TCDD-- 4 Dr. Froyer. We know that. ! j 5 A Right; 1 heard that story, too. And that's all X ! 6 know. Ii ii 7 Q Well, you know that the voluntser wasn't described a as a scientist, but in the abstract that cams out, it urns a 9 voluntser took some radiomarksd TCDD and measured the half 10 life of that TCDD in his tissue; correct, m a 'am? 11 A Yss. 12 Q And that it was concluded by Poigar and Schlatter 13 at that time that half-life was right at four and a half 14 years, fivB years-- what is it; I forget now? 15 A Something like that. 15 Q Yes. And dQ you have any reason to doubt the 17 validity of their experiment and the result? IB A No, except that it was a single dose and just one 13 person. 20 That I understand. But, my question is: do you 21 have any reason to doubt that validity of that single 22 experiment with that single person? 23 A N o . 24 And you used and relied upon works and experiments 72 * 1 of Poiger and SchlattBr in other instances; have you not, 2 m a 1am? 3 8 Yes. 4 For instance, in your book-- in your health assess 5 ment document, 1 noted that you relied upon a number of 5 Poiger and Schlatter results; did you not, ma'am? 7 A Yee. 8 Now, dioxin is by consensus, and by yourself as S well I 'm sure, the most potent or one of the very most 10 toxic-- I shouldn't say potent-- toxic chemicals mads'by man; 11 isn't that correct? 12 A Yes. 13 And, however, it is not the most toxic substance 14 or material known; is it? 15 A N o . 16 The botulina toxin is more potent than dioxin; is 17 it not, m a 'am? 18 A Yes. And there are some chemical war gasses. 13 Chemical war gasses that I guess the rest of us, 20 we don't know about yet; correct? 21 A Yes. 22 Q All right. But, the difference betwesn the 23 botulina toxin and^dioxin is that the botulina toxin will 24 not bio-accummulate; will it, m a 'am? * 73 1 A Ysa. 2 la that correct, ma'am? j j 3 A Yes. 4 So, the toxicity of dioxin can be greatly expanded 5 and magnified over and above the botulina toxin toxicity 6 because of the difference? That is, one accumulates in 7 the body and the other-- that is, the botulina toxin-- does 8 not accumulate in the body; isn't that correct, ma'am? 3 A That doesn't necessarily follow. It's Just a 10 difference. 0ns causes chronic toxicity, might cause 11 chronic toxicity, where the other might not. There is i 12 also, in humans at least, a protective mechanism in that t 13 they-- the human-- while he has a lot of trouble excreting 14 it, stares it away in fatty tissue where it is not as 15 effective on the cells. 16 Q But, that's-- most cf that is speculative; isn't | 17 it, ma'am? 18 A Yes and no. Monkeys, for instance, and also ' 13 guinea pigs have very little fatty tissue, and they are t 20 extremely sensitive to these types of compounds. And that I I 21 may be one reason why they are. j i 22 All right. That's not an important point that I J 53 really want to pursue. You made a mention about dioxin In ! i 24 the half-life in soil. It is a fact, isn't it, m a 'am, that ! 74 1 as far as whan uie'ra talking about half-lives, that in the j 2 soil dioxin doesn't readily decay in the environment and ! i 3 it's extremely persistent in soil? | / 4 A It's extremely persistent wherever it does not 5 came in contact with UU light. S Well now, Doctor, that's not exactly correct. j 7 It's got to be in contact with UU light and it has to be .j a associated with some kind of solvent as well; doss it not, 1 9 m a 'am? 10 A It has to have a hydrogen donor. 11 Q . Yes. 12 A But, they ara also in the environment. 13 Q Doctor, didn't Crosby point out that there has to 14 be this solvent as well? 'a'v' 15 A No. I mean, I don't know what Crosby pointed out, 16 but you need to have a hydrogen donor; any hydrogen donor 17 will do. 18 Didn't he study half lifB in soil, and haven't you . 19 agreBd that half life in soil is anywhere from what-- one 20 year to ten years? 21 A Crosby published a paper where he, I think, 22 measured the degradation on vegitation which was exposed. 23 And we may be talking about different papers. 24 May well. But, I want to talk about the soil and \ f;' c 75 1 not the vegitation anyway. a A 1 don't know about Crosby's work in soil. 3 All right. And, Doctor, you have stated in the 4 past, havB you not, that tha half-life in soil is what? 5 Ten years? 6 A I 've estimated that; nobody really knows. 7 Q Yes. And is that still your beet judgment that e the half-liFB in soil, or you best estimate I should say, s is ten years? 10 A Yes, in soil that is not exposed to UU light. 11 Well, an exposure to UU light takes precious 12 little shading or a very thin layer of soil to prevent that 13 sunlight from reaching it; doesn't it, m a 'am? 14 A Yas. 15 Q And nobody knows yat what happens to tha dioxin IE vapor in the air-- you don't agree that it turns into 17 vapor-- but if it does turn into vapor in tha air, nobody IB knows what happens to it in the sunlight in that form; do 13 they, m a 'am? 20 A I don't know. 21 And others have testified in this case on that 22 point. You have nothing to add, I takB it, to what they've 23 said on the point; isn't that correct? 24 A (Jell, I don't know what they've said. 7E 1 Well-- 5 A But, I don't know anything about it. 3 Q You don't know anything about the subject? 4 A Yas. 5 la that correct, ma'am? 6 A I'm sorry; ia what correct? 7/ Q That you don't know enough about the subject of a the resistance or lifs of dioxin in the soil or in the air 9 i to make-- to give us an expert opinion on the view on the 10 | issue? T 11 j A That's correct. IS , Q All right. Now, Doctor, to sum up your knowladge 13 i as to the long term low dose exposure to dioxin-- wall, 14 I first of all, you consider low dose to be in tha lower 15 : parts per oillian, do you not, m a 'am, and below? Or is it 16 [ fair to say that you consider anything above ons billion a ! 17 | high dose exposure-- one part par billion? IB i A This is in soil, or where people ingest it, or-- I 19 mean, what-- SO Q Well, whatever? Well, in soil, for instance? SI : Anything above 1 part per billion in soil, do you consider SB S! that to ba high exposure? S3 A N o . 24 Q All right. What is tha level of contamination in 77 1 the soil that you would consider to be high exposure? a A That would depend on the circumstances. il 3 Q In a residential area where people will be exposed 4 ta it? | 5 A I would call anything-- anything below 1 part per 6 billion I would not be concerned about at all. That's one 7/ > The next category of low exposure-- and you were a asking me about low exposure or high exposure? I 9 Q High exposure. 10 A High exposure. Then, anything above 100 parts par 11 billion I would consider high exposure. 15 In the soil? If the soil is contaminated with 13 that? 14 A Yes. And that would be of great concern. Any 15 thing above 50 would be in sort of an intermediate range, 16 between 50 and 100, as far as I 'm concerned. 17 All right. IB A Now, there are other variables. In Missouri, and 19 that's why we ware always-- we always said that whatever we 20 evaluated was for Missouri. In addition to the 5,3,7,B- 51 tstrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin, this material was also 55 mixed in oil. And it's possible that that would increase 53 it's biodegradabi1ity versus other areas where you would 54 not have this addition of the oil. 78 1 Q All right. You mentioned from 20 to 100 is an 2 intermediate zone. And from 20 parts psr billion and 3 below, down to 1 part par billion, what do you consider 4 that zona? 5 A In a residential area with small children, I mould 6 also ba concerned. In an industrial sits, depending an the 7 situation, and depending on tha type of exposure-- and of 8 course, all of this is explained in our paper-- 9 Q I know. 10 A I would not-- you might not have a lot of concern, 11 and your actions might be different. 12 Q I'm talking about residential zones right now. 13 And from 1 part psr billion and baloui is what you cansidar 14 low doss or-- 1 * 0 sorry, not low doss, but exposure-- well, 15 yes, I do mean low dose exposure. Correct; m a 'am? 16 A I consider that as of no concern. 17 Q And you consider-- well, all right. You consider IS it of no concern. But, you have no knowledge as to what 19 the long term health effects will be from exposure to 20 levels of 1 part per billion and below; isn't that correct, 21 m a 'am? 22 A Based on tha knowledge that I have, and based on 23 animal experlmente, and my own experience in the area of 24 toxicology, I don't think there will be any health effects, 79 i or I don't think there era any health effacts. That isn't really what I asked you. Vcu don't 3 know the health affects from that kind of exposure*, isn't 4 that correct, m a 'am? 5 A Yes, I do; they, are none. 6 I'm sorry? 7 A I do. Thera ara none. S Q There are none? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Where have you had human long term exposure to law 11 doses to allow you to corns to that conclusion, m a 'am? 12 A The general population has bean axposed to low 13 doses. 14 And how do you know that the general population 15 hasn't been effected by it? 16 A The health of tha general papulation-- ths health 17 of the general population seems to be improving. UJe live IB longer now and our life expectancy is increasing. 19 Q Doctor, that doesn't mean that our health is 0 I improving. You can have---you can llvs 90 yaars with pains 21 in the back; you can live BO years with Joint pains; you 22 can live SO years with having colds; you can live 90 years 23 i having headaches; you can have all kinds of health effects 4 and have long life,* can you not? t BO 1 MR. HEINEMAN: Object to the question as argu 2 mentative, your Honor. 3 THE COURT: Overruled, It's proper cross. 4 A These sorts of health effects have always bsen 5 there. They've bean there before, 6 Thera's no doubt about that, ma'am. But, if they 7 are increased or exacerbated by exposure tD dioxin, that 5 still is a health effect caused by dioxin; is it not? 3I A They are not increased or exacerbated, 10 j Q How do you know that? 11 j A If you compare what data we have from years in the i 12 ! past, and I've sometimes triad to do that, to what us knew i 13 I now, there either ia no difference, or there is something 14 j like the increase in cancer of the lung because of smoking, 15 or there are declines in health effects. IS j Q Well now, Doctor, you are talking about signifi- ! 17 | cant health effects when you talk about lung cancer. I'm IB | talking about just general health. Let me put it a differ 13 ent way. Isn't it a fact that whether or not there mill be 0 chronic health effects is not known yet, because it takas a 21 long time for such a health effects to show u p ,_and because 22 j of the life span in humans is vary long? 3 A If you are talking about the low lave! background 24 ; contamination in our environment, we have now had that, as i B .1 Far as commercial products ara concarnari, Far-- 2 Q Pardon? ! 3 A As Far as commercial products ara concerned, For | 1 at least since right after the Second World War. And as j I j5 Far as the Firs and combustion and incinerators are con- B corned, we've had that longer than that. j 7 Doctor, mould you answer my question? B A Thera has been enough long term exposure that, 3 3 this loui level long term exposure, that you could make some 10 judgment. 11 Q And when did you make that judgment, ma'am? How \ 12 long have you had that opinion? 13 A I 've had that opinion for several years and For 11 some-- For quite a number of years. 15 Horn many would that be? IB A Five or six, maybe. I don't ramembar. There's a 17 paper that shams the contamination mith TCDD in different IB areas of sediment, I think in Lake Michigan, mhich giva us 13 also some information about some of this background contami 20 nation . 21 No; but, you've had this opinion as to the long 22 term health effects-- chronic health effects-- for at least 23 Five years or seven? 21 A I have started looking at that in connection 82 1 with-- in the publications-- 2 Can you answsr-- 3 ft I don't quits know tha year, you see. UJhen the { i 4 papers came out about the incineration, and also this paper | i 5 about the various levels of TCDD that were found in the 6 sediment in Lake Michigan where they found an appreciable 7 increase over a period of time and then tried to relate B that to the period when the sediments were put down. ! 9 Did you have that opinion at least by the time you 10 wrote your article ''Health Complications of 2,3,7,B-tetra- 11 chlorodibenzo-para-dioxin Contamination in Residential 12 Soil"; you and Falk and Stshr wrote? 13 ft Yes. i 14 You had that opinion at that time? IS A After-- 16 Could you answer that question? 17 ft Yes, IB Q And that-- published that in *84. Did you have IS that opinion in-- are you talking-- when you talk about your 20 sediment in Lake Michigan, you are talking about the 21 Kingston Ottawa Study? 22 A I think that's the study; I 'm not-- 23 Q With the fish? 24 A I-- B3 1 Now, Doctor, in your deposition that you gave in a 15B2, did you have that opinion then? 3 A I probably did; I don't remember whether it came 4 up. 5 Well, let me read you what you answered at that 6 time. And this is-- I'm giving it tD you as part of your 7 answer-- 8 ns. HEINEMAN: May I see it, please? 9. HR. CARR: In a moment. 10 Q ''Whether there will be chronic health effects is 11 very-- not known yet, because it takee a long time since the IS life span in humans is very long." Did you make such a 13 statement? You recall that; don't you, ma'am? 14 A But, that's in connection with high Is v b I 15 exposure, and you are asking me about background exposure. 15 No, I'm asking about low level exposure. 17 ft You were talking about 1-- below 1 part par 18 billion. 15 I was talking about low level exposure-- chronic SO long term low level exposure. SI A To me that goes into the background exposure that ss the general population is getting, and that I don't-- has no S3 effect on the general well-being of the population. 24 Q Well, what about exposure like at Seveso? 84 1 A The Inna term exposure is generally in that-- first 2 of all, that population hasn't had any long term exposure; 3 it only had short term acuta exposure. They were than 4 removed, the place mas cleaned up, they mere moved back in. 5 Doctor, the question mas asked you relating to S Ssveso, on page 57, "Were there any reported-- anything 7 reported in connection"-- and this is at the deposition in 6 December 1382 where Bliss is suing Lafser-- the question 3 asked you, "Were there reported-- anything else reported in 10 connection with the Seveso, Italy Incident with which you 11 agree?" You answer was, "There were some abnormal liver 12 function tests, and thre were some abnormal nerve con 13 duction tests. I 've not actually reviewed that in detail. 14 Whether there will be chronic health effects is very-- not 15 known yet, because it takes a long time since the life span 16 in humans is very long." Do you recall that answer at that 17 time? IB A That population had-- 13 My question is: do you recall that being your 20 answer? 21 A I d o n 't recall that answer, but-- * 22 Q That would have been the truth at that time? 23 A Yes, that's what I said; but that was talking 24 about the population in Seveso, which was a population that BB . 1 THE COURT: Your objection is overruled. I don't 2 think it's out of context. 3 Now, Doctor, your answer there regarding the 4 Seve90 people were based upon people who had a short term 5 exposure, and you responded that whether or not there are 6 going to be chronic health effects from the exposure the 7 people of Seveeo had is not known yet, because it takes a S long time since the life span in humans is very long. 9 Isn't that what you said, ma'am? 10 A Yes. 11 Q And you ware referring to the fact that these 12 people in Sovbsd had this exposure at that point in time 13 and that because human life is so long, it had not yet had 14 time for long term health effects to show up. Isn't that 15 correct, m a 'am? IB A For that population. 17 Yes; right. Now, m a 'am, on the high dose or high 18 level exposure, what are the health affects that you expect 19 to be-- show or develop from this high level exposure, and 20 exposure to higher levels or concentrations of dioxin? 21 A The thing that hasn't been worked out properly 22 is-- the one question is cancer. 23 All right. That hasn't been worked out yet. So, 24 there's a question-- you certainly would worry about cancer; 87 1 mould you not, m a 'am? 2 8 That mould be a chronic health effect that you 3 would-- 4 I'm sorry? 5 A Yes. 6 Q And, what other health effects are there from high 7 levels of exposure to dioxin? i 8 A There are no health affects that we know of. The 8 things we would worry about would ba things like cancer. 10 Are you saying that there are no risks involved 11 with exposure to high levels of dioxin other than the risk 12 of cancer? 13 A Thera have not been any demonstrated health 14 effects other than chloracne. 15 Q My question is that sofar as you, Or. Kimbrough, IB is concerned, there are no health effects connected wltln 17 high dose exposure other than chloracne and the possible IB worry about cancer? 13 A We're not talking about chronic health effects-- HO Yb s , we're talking about any kind of health 21 effects, Doctor, from exposure to high levels of dioxin. 22 A Any kind of health effect is different From 23 chronic health effect to me. 24 Well, then, let me Include it to any kind of BB 1 health effect. What arB the health effects that are conse a quences of exposure to high levels of dioxin? 3 A There have been in workers acute health effects 4 which have been described. 5 And those are what? 6 A And some of-- there's the chloracns; there can be 7 hyperpigmentation; there have been things like general 0 malaise; and there have been some abnormal liver function 9 tests. Thera have been some complaints in the 61 system; 10 and there have been problems with sensory neuropathy. 11 Those acute effects have usually resolved themeelves over 12 the years. 13 Usually, but not always? 14 A Except for the chloracns, which seems to be 15 extremely persistent. IS Now, the others, you say usually they resolve 17 themsevles. But not always? 10 A Not always. 19 Doctor, in addition to those that you mentioned, 20 there are other organa that arB affected, which are the 21 liver, the thymus, the kidney-- 22 A I mentioned the liver. 23 Q Oh, you did? 24 A Y e s . 09 1 Wall, what about the thymus and the kidneys-- the 9 thymus and the kidneys? Aren't they also effected? 3 A Ule don't know about the thymus; and as far as the 4 kidney is concerned, the only acute effect that we saw was 5 in that one girl in Missouri that had the hemorrhagic 6 cystitis. But, that has not been reported in any other 7 people-- in workers. e Doctor, didn't you testify in this Lafser case 9 when they asked you, "What are the symptoms that you as a 10 toxicologist would look for or expect to see when an animal 11 or human, ate., was exposed to dioxin. Aside from hypar- 19 caratosis and the chloracne, are there other symptoms?" 13 And you said, "The symptoms and signs in different species 14 vary. The organs that might be effected are the liver, the 15 thymus, the kidneys. In addition, there seems to bs a IB general effect which produces severe weight loss; and often 17 loss of adipose tissue, fatty tissue. If the exposure 18 occurs to high degrees or high concentrations of dioxin, \ 19 there may be an affect on reproduction. From long term 90 exposure, you worry about cancer." Wasn't that your answer 91 to that question at that time? __ 99 MR. HEINEMAN: Excuse me, your Honor. Excuse ms, 93 Doctor. May Counsel approach the bench, your Honor? 94 THE COURT: Sure. 90 1 CThe following proceedings were had at the a bench.) 3 HR. HEINEMAN: Your Honor, I object tc that 4 questioning as not being impeaching and an improper use of 5 a prior deposition, because it clearly states that she was 5 asked at that time about both animals and humans, and on 7 this ocassion she was asked about humans. And therefore, B that's not impeaching. And I object to it as an improper 9 use of the prior deposition. 10 MR. CARR: Her ansuier, shB did not limit it to 11 animals; her answer was a response to a question that said 12 animals and-- or was it or-- an animal or a human. It 13 doesn't say just animals; is says animals or humans. 14 THE COURT: She had the opportunity to limit it 15 if she wanted to limit it during the answer. Apparently IB she didn't. I don't think that the fact that it was asked 17 of either or takes away from it's value as impeachment IB given the answer that was made. Overruled. 19 CThe following proceedings were had out of the 20 hearing and presence of the jury.) 21 And Doctor, when you said ''and for long term 22 exposure you worry about cancer" your answer there 23 certainly was directed to a human bBing-- worry about human 24 beings; wasn't it? 91 1 A It was directed to the animals and human beings. 2 And we have found cancer in animals. 3 Wall, my question is that your answer related to 4 animals end human beings; did it not, ma'am? 5* A Mu answer related to animals and human beings, 6 yes. 7 All right. And you said For long term exposure B you worry about cancer; didn't you say that, ma'am? B A Yes. $ 10 Q That was the truth at that time; wasn't it, m a 'am? 11 A Yes. 12 Related to human beings; wasnt it, m e 'am? 13 A Also, yes. 14 Q Now, Doctor, in point of Fact, you haven't really 15 dona any study or any work to see what soma of the lesser 16 type ailments might be that result from dioxin exposure 17 such as headaches, and peripheral neuropathies, weakness, IB and the joint aches, and general malaise? You really 19 haven't done any studies or work connected with dioxin and 20 thosb being the symptoms you are looking far; have you, 21 ma'am? Other than the Missouri Study? __ 22 A When you say "you" do you mean all of CDC or do 23 you mean me? 24 1 mean CDC. 92 1 A Us have-- NIOSH is part of CDC. a Q Well, NIOSK just works on cancer. a A No, they also do cross sectional studies. 4 Q Did they do soma studies on dioxin exposure and .5 these other types of problems? 8 A Thera hasn't been anything published. 7 Q There's nothing that ue can see or read or that's B available to us? 9 A No. 10 Q Actually the only study that we've got in which 11 they went out and asked questions and triad to expose these 12 general kind of problems that I 've discussed to you are non 13 specific or less specific kind of problems that I've dis 14 cussed with yo. The only thing we've got is this nissouri 15 Health Study; is that correct, ma'am? 16 A That's the only thing that has been published. 17 Q Yes. And insofar as your-- the study that you IB published in 1SB4, that is, "The Health Complications of 13 2,3,7,B TCDD Contamination in Residential Soil" , the only 20 really thing that you used in estimating your risks and 21 arriving at your levels was the risk of cancer; and then 22 you used just the risk of cancer in animals as a criteria; 23 isn't that right, ma'am? 24 A Y e s . 93 1 So, actually when you set a level of 1 part par s billion as being below that-- or above that of concern, 3 you're actually talking about of concern for risk of 4 cancer; aren't you, ma'am? 5 A Yes. 6 And you are not talking about any other single 7 health effect; are you, ma'am? 8 A All other single health effects uou could proba 3 bly have-- for other single health effects, you could have 10 higher doses and you mould not have a problem. 11 That isn't uihat I've asked you, ma'am. This IS study, this publication that you had, purports to and deals 13 only with the single ailment, that is, cancer, and related 14 only to the risk of getting cancer from exposure to these 15 levels of dioxin; isn't that correct, m a 'am? 16 A Yes. 17 And there are a world of other health problems-- IB heart attacks, brain disease, paralysis, porphyria-- there's 19 any number of other health problems besides cancer; isn't SO that correct, ma'am? SI A Yes. __ SS Q And this papsr of yours did not address the health S3 complications of any of those other problems; did it, S4 m a ' a m ? 34 1 A There uias no raason to do that. a HR. CARR: Your Honor, would you tell the witness 3 to answer that question. 4 THE COURT: I don't think that was responsive. 5 You have to answer the question, please. 6 THE WITNESS: Could I have the question again, 7 please? 8 CThe previous question was read back by the court 8 reporter.) 10 A Yes, it did. 11 And what other problems did it address in addition IB to cancer? 13 A It addressed reproduction, and it also discussed 14 the human health effects. 15 What level did-- where did you-- well, you discussed IB those things, but-- maybe my question was imprecise. XhB 17 risk assessment that you undertook for just related to 18 cancer; did it not, sir-- ma'am? 13 A No. We also looked at the effects on repro BO duction in monkeys. 21 Q All right. You are correct. You said, "The 22 exposure assessment used was for estimating risks being for 23 carcinogenicity and reproductive health effects." Correct, 24 m a ' a m ? i 35 1 A Because those seemed to be the most sensitive. a Excuse me, could you answer my question? Just 3 those two things that you used in your exposure assess4 monte? 5 A No. ji jr i j 6 Isn't that what you said? Didn't you use and ` 7 didn't you say on page 00, m a 'am, "For these reasons this 8 study was not used For risk assessment calculations, but a only the chronic toxicity studies which demonstrated a 10 carcinogenic response in rodents were used." Didn't you 11 say that, m a 'am? 12 A But, I have reasons For that. 13 Q Excuse me; my question is: didn't you say that, 14 m a 'am? 15 ft I said, "For these reasons", yes. 16 Q And on the next page, didn't you also say, "It 17 must be stressed that the exposure assessments used in IB estimating risks for carcinogenicity and reproductive IS health sFFscts contain critical assumptions that are not 20 likely to be actually encountered." Isn't that correct, 21 ma 'am? __ 22 ft Yes. 23 And did you also discuss about these are 24 calculations For-- that you made for long term risk as far 95 1 as cancer is concerned? a A Yes. 3 THE COURT: Is this a good point to break? i 4 M R . CARR: Yes, your Honor. 5 THE COURT: Okay. W e 'll start Monday morning at 6 9:30. Thank you, Doctor. 7 CAt this time Court adjourned for the day.) a 9 10 11 IS 13 14 15 15 17 10 19 SO SI SS S3 S4