Document GyO51nRR2KM4jOkLVK0pQRk7

------------------------------- CORRESPONDENCE N A I U H t y O t it 8 \1 P V C E M Dioxin exposure at Monsanto expected number. Hay and Silbcrgcld criticize studies ths. use chloracr.e as the criterion of exposure. S(h-- Hay and Siibergeld urge a re dence to the contention that accident- They are on firm ground when they say examination of the information about exposed workers were more heavily ex that the disease is a dependent variable of workers exposed to dioxin at the Monsan posed. I am uncertain what point Hay and exposure and that epidemiological studies to plant in Nitro, West Virginia'. They do Silbcrgcld want to make as they labour usually use some independent measure, not actually challenge the conclusions of over the conjecture that there may have such as work histories, as the criterion for two studies that there were no excesses of been no differences in exposure levels, but exposure. However, they raise no critic- cancer or heart disease deaths among they follow that effort with criticism of the h^n of the health survey* for depending on dioxin-exposed workers, but they convey authors of th$ mortality studies for separ-' chloracne as a measure of exposure. the impression that the studies are serious ating the tw b jr daps; of merimn (heir stu Apparently, a double standard is used, ly flawed. dies. The criticism is misplaced. While one studies that cannot be interpreted to show- In particular, they draw attention to the paper1was limited to workers involved in excess deaths being held to a higher one. fact that four men classified as exposed to the aftermath of the 1949 accident, the In Hay and Silbcrgcld*s words, "the dioxin in one paper were classified as not other5 included ell hourly workers who epidemiological picture cl Monsanto re exposed in the other. The first paper, terminated their employment after 1955, mains confused". The picture is more un which classified the men k exposed, de whether or not involved in the 1949 acci clear than anyone would desire, but it is fined exposure by the presence or history dent. not quite so confused as they have it. Their of chloracne1, a disease known to be Having found no evidence of excess letter shows that it is possible to locate associated with dioxin. The other, which cancer In the Nitro workers. Hay and Sil- Saws and select studies to support an argu classified the men as not exposed, defined bergeld turn the idea of dose-response ment that dioxin is possibly a scourge. exposure by a history of work assignments relationships on its head and suggest that Equally, it is possible to read the literature In processes involving dioxin1. Neither diseases such as cancer "may be expected" and arrive at a cautious conclusion that measure perfect, and they are not con in people exposed to "lower and more dioxin has not caused early death and can gruent. Although the differing classifica chronic exposures". References offered in cer in heavily exposed workers. That con tions are disquieting, at least three of the support of that idea are two books that clusion. which is widely accepted* and cancer deaths are probably independent .contain data both suggesting and oot sug draws on Information from dozens of stu of dioxin exposure. Those three were lung gesting a link between dioxin and human dies done in the past decade, might lift cancer deaths among smokers; the fourth cancer and two papers associating cancer some anxiety from people who have been was from Hodgkin's disease, for which in herbicide sprayers with dioxin. The her environmentally exposed to lower levels there Is no strong evidence for association bicide sprayers characterized as chronical of droxin. with dioxin. If the differing classifications for the four men art enough to destroy the coodustons reached by the authors of the studies, that analysis should he developed ly exposed were exposed only during one or two months a year5, for a median total exposure time of 42 days. Studies of another population, which included mere M t o t a.6 l G o u g h Congress o f the United States, Office o f Technology Assessment. Washington, DC 20510, USA by Hay and Siibergeld. From Monsanto records that they do oot further identify. Hay and Sfbergdd state that 19 workers who would be classi fied as exposed and who died from circula tory disease or cancer were not included in the second mortality study. They do not provide information about bow they de termined (be men's exposure, the number of unexpased men who died from the same causes during the same time period, than l .500sprayers who had been exposed for at least 12 months, found no cancer excess5. Furthermore, some Nitro em ployees worked for years in production processes that involved dioxin and some, not exposed through the explosion, de veloped chloracne*. Those men were sure ly chronically exposed to dioxin, many were included in the Zack and Gaffey1 study, and there is no cancer excess. The hypothesis that low-level, intermittent ex S. H*?. A . a s ^ b c fjfk t E. A W r >1 2. Zjcfc..J.A- * S ta tiM t. R_R- J. o ot*. M nL U . 11 Y Zjcfc. I. A . a G affe?. W A. * Hsirnmn c*J srTBm m m W ICUb o f CWa r tw W Diarists m d J M o n l Canp mdi [esh T ic k e r. RJE. Y p -- *. A . C * G n j . A .e >SIS (P k a M t. He Yurt. m3). < A lk ie . Prvfe. A * Sutkind. R .R . f e w t ms * C W m*i C a vvoM Nm af Survr* .Vom ew o O ttm m d Co. fOtm. W. Vo. Uf * t t a m o j L atimsm m n (Utrf) CWcirvwrt. Ofcto. B S Ji 1 Sowi.. A rre t. I e . Cmsnr has. O S A JT X II! (iV M V A M c m v U d r f Am . t tnd. MrtL J. H I . { IWHE 7. M o * ? . L r l A c l k i Mod. J. L ?T iIW lfc L fsd d k H ntrk Kitts o f sdsr O ir e ia led ! I r m a . W.W. OUutaeeee. Lor Aftoe. CeM enne. IVMV. nor when the men died. If they died before posures bear more risk than higher-level 1955. they would oot have been mduded exposures requires substantiation. AIDSIn the study, which, because of records Hay and SilbergekTs penultimate para limitations, was restricted to men who left graph refers to a health survey5as support S ir--Misinformation on acquired im the company after that time. A telephone of a*possible connection between dioxin mune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) con call to the authors might have clarified the and an "excess of cardiovBscular-rclated tinues to abound and Ian Davidson's com reason that those men were not included. deaths". The health survey presents no ment (Nature 317, 666; 1985) is another Whatever the outcome of such a call, it new data about mortality; it does refer to example. would not have contributed to the aura of an excess of cardiovascular deaths in Mon It is wrong on two counts: (1) It is per conspiracy achieved by the sentence "No santo workers already reported by Zack fectly possible to be promiscuous and hare reason is given far not including those and Gaffey5. An editorial that accompa little risk of contracting AIDS, providing cases". nied publication of the health survey sug one avoids certain high-risk sexual pract Workers exposed as a result of the 1949 gested that the health survey might in ices: (2) Non-promiscuity does not explosion at Nitro arc gene ratty consi clude some evidence for an excess of guarantee that one wifi not contract dered to have been more bcavtiy exposed myocardial infarctions (not deaths) AIDS. Certain groups are still at risk, for than workers involved ip usual processes among men who had had chloracne'. but example wives of gay or bisexual men, and at the plant. Hay and Silbcrgcld. referring that life appropriate analysis is wanting. intravenous drug abusers. to a 1953 study4, contend that the basis for Finally, the mortality study that reported I do not know if chastity has replaced that conduacm was more severe chlor the excess of cardiovascular-related death as the "great unmentionable", but acne among the accident-exposed work deaths in Monsanto workers found no dif fiction seems to have replaced fact when it ers. While chloracne was worse among ference in death rates from the cause be comes to the ruth about AIDS. those workers, a panoply of other health tween workers exposed and not exposed P alo. C umsw ctoh complaints -- fatigue, incapacitating to efioxirt'. and the number of cardiovascu Reeding Area AID S Support Group, aches and pains, libido and potency prob lar deaths among chloraonc-strickcn PO Box 75, lems -- was also elevated, lending cre workers was less than 75 per cent of the Reading. Berks. UK fcnvirormneai Keoeetron iounaaoxon jvs - v o l - y * i * J v p a y t x J i <c UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 OFFICE OF S O U O WASTC AMO BMEHQEIUCV HFSPONSE MEMORANDUM DATE: October 20, 1994 FROM: Cate Jenkins, P kD . Environmental Scientist Waste Identification Branch Characterization and Assessment Division, OSW 260-4792 Mail Code 5304 TO: Andrew Moran Associate General Counsel General Law Branch Office o f General Counsel Mail Code 2379 SUBJECT: Threatening messages from Don Nantkes regarding reversal o f determination that testimony not in interest o f EPA I am requesting clarification from you concerning a series o f three voice mail messages I received on October 1S from Don Nantkes of your office These messages concerned an apparent misunderstanding regarding my willingness to testify for either the plaintiffs or defendants in a case that does not involve EPA, On October 18, you faxed me a letter from yourself to the counsel for the plaintiffs in the case. This letter stated that you served as the Agency designee who determines whether testimony would clearly be in the interests o f EPA, You stated that providing me as a witness could not be found to be clearly in the interests o f EPA. It is my understanding, both from your letter and from a reading of the regulations contained in 40 C.F.R. Part 2 that it is in fact EPA, not myself who would make such a determination as to testifying, if the testimony concerned information obtained in the course o f my official duties. My confusion stems from the feet that the telephone messages from Mr. Nantkes stated that I had broken a commitment to him that I would not be testifying on behalf o f the defendant in the case . I had never made any such commitment, since I had already been informed that only EPA could make such a determination I had told Mr Nantkes that it was ray understanding that if EPA refused to provide me as a witness to the plaintiffs, then obviously the defendants could not use Printed on Recycled Paper Environmental Research Foundation 2 4 -O ct - 94 12:36 page 2 of 2 me as a witn<iss, since witness have to be made available to both sides in a case. I said that I also assumed that ERA would also refuse to provide me as a witness to the defense as well. I had told Mr. Nantkes that any statements on my part regarding my availability to testify were obviously irrelevant &> ' \ % *' $: i*V*v / . ' In Jib first message, Mr. Nantkes incorrectly claimed that I had reneged on an agreement not tty..: > testify fix the defense. He then threatened that if I did not affirm some commitment not to testify y on behalf of 1he defense in this litigation, he would call up the plaintiffs counsel and tell him th a t' were at complete liberty to reschedule the deposition o f myself (I did not have a chance to respond to this voioe mail message.) * ' * Mr. Narrtkes left me a second message, that said that since he had not heard from me, he was going to call the plaintiffs counsel. He said that unless I heard from him, he was certain that I .;* could assume that I was under an existing, valid subpoena to appear at the deposition, as - scheduled on October 19, and I would have to appear. In other words, he was. saying that your letter to the plaintiffs in this case would be invalidated unless I made some type o f verbal ; conuratment to him. He then said that he would get back to me with any news. (Iw as also -><- .... / s ':A v unable to resjxjnd to this message.) ' - ' : ' ' * w , v'/. .a- Mr. Nantkes left a third voice mail message for me, stating that he had spoken to the.plaintiffs :*:? - ,!:\ counsei. He said that the only reason I was not now required to show up for the deposition <W M ?.V: ; October 19 was that plaintiffs counsel had already cancelled some ieseo7!tioi&*He stated that: J j f :Q plaintiffs counsel was extremely angry, and would pursue everyjemedy they possibly can in 1 h |j |j ; vr ;-y matter. Mr. Nantkes said this was the upshot o f my attempt to add what he caBecl^hktlittle: ! qualification." (I am unsure o f the meaning of his test statement.) V ; - " V * '- S . ' *'r !r V The messages from Mr. Nantkes were insulting, threatening, and confusing as*they contnabcted; your letter: Does Mr. Nantkes have the authority to reverse the decision-stated in your letter, as ; - v . he represented himself to me? I .would very much appreciate your clarification in this natter. I f :ri ". ,vou are interested, I have saved the three voice mail messages, and can play them back to.you. -------- " * > .. - r*, ; cc; EPA In sp ecto r___`___W, `S . v^ ; Ed Abrams. Waste Identification Branch, CAD V viy-H '-uC -.--' * I . .. .V.-`- . - " , \ *:'i -V. , . %' ." \ ! / ' f ./ *' : * v- ' . . -*J -if.- ' . . - >- '. , ** -i.- j L*v '. : &*; ; - v .. v .. . :W ' f." ' 'V.,... ; r : .. ' t c J i v*4W . ; ; . " > - 'V . *i".-/ .. ' :-v- . ** y - i , v - ;.x,- v' ' ' -V- . .