Document K63Lg1RGjo4QXpXG2wY6y0GrQ

JUvPi ^ IN THE CIRCUIT COURT TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF ILLINOIS ST. CLAIR COUNTY FRANCES E. KEMNER, et. al., Plaintiffs, VS. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NO.80-L-970 REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS Before the HON. RICHARD P. GOLDENHERSH O'* fJURY TRIAL May 17, 1985 APPEARANCES: Mr. Rex Carr 6 Mr. Jerome Seigfreid On Behalf of the Plaintiffs; Mr. John R. Musgrave Mr. Joseph Nassif On Behalf of the Defendant. Agnes C. Hackmann, CSR, RPR 24 Official Court Reporter 2 -J1 ITIl 12 i 13 M 14 V 15 r-: 16 17 * 18 19 20 21 | 22 - - 23 : \ , 24 BE IT REMEMBERED AND CERTIFIED THAT heretobefore, on to wit: Friday, May 17, 1985, being one of the regular judicial day8 of this Court, the matter as hereinbefore set forth came on for hearing before the HONORABLE RICHARD P. GOLDENHERSH, Circuit Judge in and for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois, and the following was had of record, to wit: THE COURT: Good morning. (Plaintiff#s Exhibits Nos. 1404 1 and 1405 were marked for iden tification.) JAMES D. WILSON resumed the stand, having been previously duly sworn, was further examined and testified as follows: EXAMINATION BY MR. CARR: Q I will hand you now what has been marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 1404 and 1405 and ask If you recognize those as your calculations based upon the issue of TCDD in the fat tissues? A 1404 is at least some notes and that is some calcula tions that are In mine dated the 16th of February, *84. 1405 is some more calculations and notes of mine dated the 2nd of February, f84. Q And for the Court and counsel, 1404 is the exhibit that it# h starts with the word "mean" and 1405 is the one that starts with the word "assume". Offer these exhibits into evidence if it please the Court. MR. MUSGRAVE: Just a moment, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sure. MR. MUSGRAVE: No objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Admitted without objection. (Copies of exhibits were passed to the jury.) Q (By Mr. Carr) Dr. Wilson, 1404, that is the one starting with the word "mean", you make certain calculations and in the middle of the page you point out something similar to what was testified to yesterday that there has been reporte< that there has been 5 to 30 parts per trillion of TCDD in range cattle. Isn't thatcorrect? A (By the Witness) Yes, sir. That is the same report that we discussed yesterday. Q And you also again make the note that there is less than 10 parts per trillion in beef from a Cambridge super market. That would Indicate, would it not, that the cattle that is fed in feed lots as opposed to the cattle that are on the range are less likely to have TCDD in their tissues? A 1 don't know whether that is the case or not. the Maselson report described results from cattle that were allowei 4 to graze in a specially treated plot and it is hard for me to tell whether that is representative of range cattle or not. Q Well, it certainly is significantly more than not detectable at 10 parts per trillion in beef or rather -- not detectable, but less than 10 parts per trillion in beef froni a Cambridge supermarket. Isn't it, sir? A That is correct, Q And you make some conclusions here that half-life is 3 to 5 years, that food is a source of, at least in this instance, a source of exposure to human beings and that you have no data as to the dissemination of TCDD in 2,4,5 T as opposed to being attached to airborne particulate* Is that corredt 'sir? *<r` ^ <r-<- -*-^ 'in aL" -#c o r f o s - r c f f e . A That Is correct. Q Now, the suggestion or the calculation there that a half-life Is 3 to 5 years, again, that is similar to what you found yesterday in another exhibit that we discussed. I don't have the number right now in front of me, but it was the same calculation. Was it not? A I think the one we discussed yesterday I assumed it was a little bit lower than that with an upper limit of about three years. But I think I used the range of about three months to three years in those other calculations. Q No. The one I referred you to yesterday was again * 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 l 12 li 13 j * i 14 ' 1 15 cv 16 17 18 : : 19 20 21 :-.j 22 23 24 3 to 5 years. You have used different ranges at other places. But if you need specific -- , A Yes, please. Q I don't have my hand on it right at this moment. We will pass on from that and if it becomes important I will get that out for youT A All right. Q But in any event, your calculations based upon the, well, if you look at 1403, the last page of 1403 that you have, I don't know that it was passed to the jury* A Yes. :** ,Q But the-last page ^oi 1403, iyou .say it doesnot ^appear that the data available on TCDD in air, water or food stuffs are consistent with a depuration half-life of the order of 100 days. They do seem to ,be consistent with a several-year half-life for clearance from fat. A Right. Q And several years would certainly, the 3 to 5 years would certainly be in that range. Would it not? A Right, and as I say X used 3 years as one of the cases in those calculations. Q Now, you also make a point in 1405, the document starts with.the word "assume11, that the Canadian people, that is the one8 from Ottawa and Kingston that were studied that had the \ l I 1 6 1 higher level in them, you point out that they could not t ; realistically have gotten that much from the fish and probably p r [3 not from food and this means that they had a heavy 2,4,5 T 4 exposure at sometime in the past. Don't you say that, sir? ;5 A That is not exactly what I said. 1 said the high -- 6 the ones -- the high TCDD individuals, those with approximately .7 100 parts per trillion in both studies and there were two or 1 8 three individuals with very high, well, comparatively high :*9 concentrations and it is those that I was referring to. ' flJO ` Q And what ypintiit there' and what this shows is i ; 11 ; that as we know there are several means by which one can get i` i 12 r 13 ' i ' 14 , TCDD itfhisbody^ ^That41can"be a direct exposure to the sub stance that contains it like soil or 2,4,5 T or Lysol or anyother chlorinated phenol that contains dioxin. A direct con 15 tact with it r indirect, that is, by ingestion of food that ol 16 has TCDD in it or water that has TCDD in it. Isn't that *1 17 i 'r 18 correct, sir? A Yes, that is correct. -[ 19 Q And so persons could have and this could accumulate, :i `1$ 20 the TCDD that is in the fat tissue that comes from food on a 21 chronic basis, that is, on a day today consumption of food 22 23 ( " 24 :1 that has TCDD in it. The 3 to 5 year half-life means that if I ate; a steak today that had 10 parts per trillion hypotheti cally TCDD in it j that five, years from now that 10 parts per 7 trillion would have been reduced to 5 parts per trillion having half-life in the body of five years. A Let me see. Assuming a half-life of five years and the amount that you got from eating that steak now, half of it would be gone in five years. Yes, that is correct. Q So, if I .took in 10 parts per trillion and assume all that 10 parts per trillion got in my fat tissue and we know that won't occur, but there will be some part of that, whether It is 10 per cent or 30 per cent, whatever it is, some part of It wil 1 get -in my fat tiesue.-^ But *five years from now there will be half of that in there. We started out with 10. There would >be 5 in^there >five years from now .and tenyears .from.s now there would be two and a half parts per trillion in there. Fifteen years from now there would be 1.75 parts per trillion and so on. Would there not, sir? A That is correct. Q Now, in the meantime though if everyday for those 10 or 20 years I ate steak that contained the same level of TCDD, that is 10 parts per trillion, that half-life factor applies to any Incoming, any new incoming TCDD ingestion as well. Does it not, sir? A Yes. So that at the end of. five years 1 would have in me not just the 5 parts per trillion that 1 started out with with 8 Che first steak that I ate, but also an amount for the next day that I ate would have a little more than 5 parts per trillion at the end of five years. What I ate the third day would be a little bit more than 5 parts per trillion and all Ii that over that period of five years that I am eating that food would be accumulating and adding up and storing in my body. l Wiould it not.* sir? \i A Yes, to a point, Q Yes. Now, if 1 didn't eat any more, if I got out of that exposure, if I didn't come into and this accumulation in the body tissue comes about not just from eating food. But from breathing air ^if there is TCDD vapor in the air -that .1. breathe or if there is dust in the air that 1 breathe that is contaminated with TCDD or if X am a baby and I put a TCDD contaminated toy in my mouth, this accumulation of TCDD comes from all manner and form of exposure, doesn't it, sir, assuming that the TCDD is there to start with7 A Making that assumption, yes, that is correct. Q So, I can get It by walking on range land that has been sprayed with 2,4,5 T and it is dusty and the 2,4,5 T has not been degraded and it is still there. I will get It that way. If I wade in a stream that has had discharges, if I swim in a river that has had dioxin discharged into it, I would absorb some through my skin thereby and if I eat the food I 9 11 ^ 111^1 1`iirnTmnni 'rn M would geC it. If X am in a municipality that has an incinera tor that has been burning chlorinated phenols, paper, cans, wood, whatever that might have chlorinated phenol or other precursors to dioxins therein and I get that air or get the dust that comes from the incinerator, that is another method 5 6 or form of me getting TCDD in my system and accumulating therein. Isn't that correct, sir? 7 A Basically, yes. 8 Q So that by the time I am 50 years old if I ever get 9 10 to be that old,vdon't smile at me (laughing). By the time I 11 get to be 50 I could have accumulated in my body because of r2 the nature o f v.the half-life andrthe,nature ,oft^he exposures, 13 I could have accumulated a significant, well, an amount of J4 TCDD consistent with my exposure and the half-life factor. 15 Isn't that correct, Dr. Wilson? 16 A That is correct. 17 Q And let me -- could you.mark this, please? 18 (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1406 19 was marked for identification.) 20 21 22 '*N,s y i,S 24 Q Hand you what has been marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 1406. Ask you if you recognize that as a document prepared by Dr. Hlleman of the Dayton Laboratory. A His name is at the top and it looks like his signature at the bottom. I do. 1 ^, 10 i i .S 2 C i5 A '1 .| 1 4i a 3 4 5 6 i7 18 S 9 10 ,jj 11 J 12 1 13 (n| 14 e| IS ;i dj 16 1 17 3 8 18 >-? v 19 J of 20 i.s; 21 :i 22 , -1i 23 1 24 1 Q And he makes the point at the very last sentence of 1406, just as you have agreed herewith, that human fat particu larly of an older individual whose body has had years to accumulate these contaminants can prove to be a real challenge to analyze. Does he not, sir? A Let me have just a minute to read this. Q All right. Go ahead. A Yes, he says that here. Q Now, this bio-accumulation factor from the food that we eat, if we are unfortunate enough to eat the cattle that have grazed on the 2,4,5 T land or from the use of the Lysol If we happen to be the ones that get 7the batches that had the^ levels of TCDD in it or from these other sources or from the municipal incineration of the chlorinated phenols, any of these other sources, we get that amount in our bodies, but we have other opportunities from time to time out of the ,,ordinary to accumulate greater, larger amounts of dioxin. Don't we, sir? And X will cite you an example that you listed in 1405. That is the Canadians where you suggest that is a past episode of heavy 2,4,5 T TCDD exposure. A There is evidence for that, yes. Q Another example would be the lady who died of cancer in Italy that had the 1840 parts per trillion of TCDD in her fat tissue and 6 parts per trillion in her blood. Do you recal