Document KJmGw9R84O1nYgkd2yo3q7Zr0

1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF ILLINOIS 2 ST. CLAIR COUNTY 3 4 FRANCES E. KEMNER, et al., 5 Plaintiffs, 6 vs. 7 MONSANTO COMPANY, 8 Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CAUSE NO. 80- -970 9 10 REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS 11 Before the HONORABLE RICHARD P. GOLDENHERSH 12 Testimony of Dr. George Roush 14 July 23, 1985 15 Volume I 16 APPEARANCES: 17 MR. REX CARR, Attorney at Law, and MR. JEROME SEIGFREID, Attorney at Law, 18 On Behalf of the Plaintiffs; 19 MR. KENNETH R. HEINEMAN, Attorney at Law, and MR. JOSEPH NASSIF, Attorney at Law, 20 On Behalf of the Defendant. 21 22 23 Pamela L. Simpson, C.S.R. 24 Official Court Reporter 1 INDEX OF WITNESSES 2 PLAINTIFFS' WITNESSES Page No. 3 DR. GEORGE ROUSH 4 Clarification Examination...................... 2 5 Cross Examination....... 21 6 Clarification Examination..................... 25 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 i 1 EXHIBIT INDEX 2 PAGE DEFENDANTS' EXHIBITS INTRODUCED 3 No. 913 (Computer Printout of 4 Marsh PMR Program)................. 7 5 No. 914 (Article Written by Dr. Dunagin........................26 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 PAGE ADMITTED ii 1 BE IT REMEMBERED AND CERTIFIED, that heretofore, on 2 to-wit: July 23, 1985, the matter as hereinbefore set forth 3 came on for hearing before the Honorable Richard P. 4 Goldenhersh, Circuit Judge in and for the Twentieth Judicial 5 Circuit, State of Illinois, and the following was had of 6 record, to-wit: 7 GEORGE ROUSH, 8 (being called as a witness, having been duly 9 sworn, on oath testified as follows:) 10 CLARIFICATION EXAMINATION 11 BY MR. HEINEMAN: 12 Q Dr. Roush, in the examination of you by Mr. Carr, 13 there was some discussion with respect to when laboratory tests 14 are done, whether or not a certain percentage of normal people 15 are expected to have abnormal results, is that right? 16 A. Yes, sir. 17 Q Would you explain that? 18 A Any single laboratory test that any one of us have 19 done, the results of that laboratory test, if it's a blood 20 count, the doctor looks at it in terms of some range -- 21 reference range he uses for deciding whether that's normal or 22 not normal. That definition of normal is based on taking a 23 population that's normal and taking five percent of that, 24 just statistically calling it abnormal. It may be normal, 2 1 everything says it's normal. For a way of handling it, we1re 2 quite comfortable with the normal range that two and a half 3 above or two and a half percent below or five percent above 4 and five percent below, depending on who's doing it. That 5 means it's abnormal, listed as abnormal because of the 6 statistical way of handling it. So when you go to a doctor 7 there's a, five percent chance, if you get any tests run, that 8 it's going to be abnormal just by virtue of chance. Now, if 9 you do five tests, five different tests, there is a 22 percent 10 chance that one of them will be abnormal. So if you go -- if 11 you do five tests, one of those is going to be abnormal just 12 by chance in 22 percent of the testing and the bigger the 13 number it gets, the more tests run, the more likelihood it's 14 going to be abnormal, it doesn't mean it has any health 15 significance, all it means -- the doctor has to look it over. 16 What he does if you have a white count out of the range of 17 normal, you say that may be abnormal. What he'll do the next 18 time you come back, I'll repeat that blood test and do the 19 blood count. And if the blood count comes back and then he 20 makes a judgmen-t of whether he sees lots of them that are like 21 that. If it stays abnormal and if everything else about the 22 blood count -- if he did a blood count, if the red cells are 23 the right size and they're the right shape and the hemoglobin > 24 content is right, it can't be important because it's just a 3 1 chance in variation. But quite often the doctor will follow 2 people with white,counts that are over 10,000 which some 3 people say is abnormal. There are few people that will carry 4 white counts 11,000 all of their life and nothing is ever 5 found. So every single number that's taken, the doctor has to 6 make a judgment on those that are outside of normal range and 7 what he usually does is to repeat that test. 8 Q Now, sir, I want to address the subject of whether 9 or not there can be -- the larger the number of tests you do, 10 the more chances there are that there's going to be an 11 abnormal result. You're familiar with the Todd & Sanford 12 Text? 13 A It's a .generally accepted text, laboratory. 14 Q Diagnosis and management by laboratory methods, 15 Todd & Sanford? 16 A, Yes, sir. 17 0 And it's an authoritative work, is it not, sir? 18 A Yes, sir, often quoted. 19 Q '1 l s * defense Exhibit 144 which has been previously 20 identified as representing a table from the Todd & Sanford 21 Clinical Diagnosis and Management by Laboratory Methods, 1984 22 Edition on Page 54. Do you see that, sir? 23 A Yes, sir. 24 0 Now, this table is entitled Relationship of Expected 4 1 Abnormal Results to Number of Measured Constituents. Is this 2 table talking about the same kind of principle you were just 3 talking about? 4 A Yes. And it says that if there are 20 different 5 studies done the likelihood of you having one abnormal is 64 6 percent chance. In other words, if you had -- j^f you go in 7 there and you get a blood test, there1s a standard thing that 8 they run through an autoanalyzer that will give you 20 9 different measurements and -- all done at the same time. They 10 do 20 of them and the likelihood, if he does 20, one of yours 11 is going to be abnormal. When they say abnormal they don't 12 mean abnormal, see, it's in quotes, that doesn't mean abnormal, 13 abnormal, saying that's a normal range. What we're doing now, 14 better to say rather than abnormal, normal, that five percent 15 from a normal population. What they're saying, that abnormal 16 really means reference range and a reference range means it's 17 outside of that range. Doctors do something about it, decide 18 whether it's abnormal or normal. 19 Q So if you have 20 constituents measured there can 20 be -- there's a 64 percent chance, 64 chances out of 100 that 21 you're going to have one or more abnormal results? 22 A That's right. 23 Q If you have as many as 20 tests done? 24 A That's right. 5 1 Q And the standard blood test that you're talking 2 about runs 20 different tests? 3 A That's right. 4 Q Thank you, sir. Nov/, yesterday we were talking 5 about the Zach-Siskind and Zach-Gaffey tests. Do you remember 6 that, sir? 7 A Yes, sir. 8 Q Those studies? 9 A Yes, sir. 10 0 Putting the two figures together, do you recall 11 that? 12 A Yes, sir. 13 Q And in connection with the Monson Computer Program. 14 Is this a computer program that is employed by Monsanto 15 Company in your Hepademiology Department? 16 A Yes, sir. 17 Q And did you cause certain tests or certain computer 18 runs to take placje on that program? 19 A Yes, sir. 20 0 When did you do this? 21 A Yesterday afternoon. 22 0 All right. Now, tell us what you did, sir? 23 A I didn't have to do much. We have the data base, 24 which means each one of the health records and work records on 6 1 each one of the 32 deaths recorded in the Zach-Suskind Study, 2 there were 32 deaths. All of that data was already in the 3 computer base and also in that computer was the mortality 4 experience of the 58 people that were recorded in the Zach5 Gaffey as having died. So that was already there. We also 6 have a program in the computer, and it wasn't as simple as 7 what Mr. Heineman said, we use the Marsh Proportional 8 Mortality Program which means if youfve got the data base in / 9 there like I've said, and if we have that computer program, 10 all we've got to do is call that computer program and say 11 print out the data from that data using this Marsh PMR and a 12 part of that Marsh PMR is the definition of what is expected 13 cancer and mortality experiences for people with every age 14 group. So every five years there's another sample. How many 15 people in that age group. If we had one man that's 40, what 16 should be the mortality experience of people 40 years old? 17 Everything is adjusted according to the Monson Table of 18 Expected Mortality by age, that's a part of the Marsh Program 19 as we put it together. Once we had that, the data base in 20 place, no one had to do anything. All we do is push a button 21 using the Marsh Program and out came the PMR Program. 22 Q Doctor, let me -- doctor, let me hand you what's 23 been marked as Defendant's Exhibit No 913. Would you examine 24 that and identify it for me, please? 7 1 MR. CARR: May I see a copy, counsel? 2 MR. HEINEMAN: Certainly. 3 Q Can you tell me what that is? 4 A Well, this is the printout from our computer using 5 the health data in our computer base plus the Marsh PMR 6 Program. This is a standard program that can'be -- just put 7 those things together by computer. 8 0 Nov/, sir, this is a portion of the entire printout, 9 is it not? 10 A Yes, sir. 11 Q This is not the entire printout.^ Now, sir, this 12 says at the top -- 13 MR. CARR: Your Honor, I object to what it says at 14 the top. I object to anything about it. It's obviously 15 something that's dated 1981. It's something that should have 16 been produced to us years ago or at least: a year ago. 17 MR. HEINEMAN: Your Honor, the witness has just 18 testified that this document was created yesterday afternoon. 19 MR. CARR: Your Honor, the witness has testified 20 that it was created by pushing a button. All he did was go 21 in there and push a button. It's something they had all this 22 time. 23 MR. HEINEMAN: No, sir. 24 MR. CARR: Did he push a button or did he do more 8 a than push a button, is what I heard. All he did was push a 2 button, isn't that right, Dr. Roush? 3 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. .4 BY MR. HEINEMAN: 5 0 Now, Dr. Roush -- 6 MR. CARR: Your Honor, may I be heard on this before 7 there's any additional question? 8 THE COURT: Go ahead, Mr. Carr. 9 MR. CARR: If it's -- this is dated -- Monsanto had 10 possession and it's been in their possession apparently since 11 April of 1981. It's data we should have had. Nitro employees 12 exposed to dioxin. It's something they had in there all these 13 years apparently. Something that they can look at on their 14 screen at their convenience, that they can print out at their 15 convenience, and that they have obviously printed out in the 16 past. And now on a so-called clarification examination of 17 Dr. Roush, for it to be put to the plaintiff the first time, 18 to allow the witness to testify to it or any use whatsoever, 19 I say is completely unfair and contrary to all rules of 20 discovery that this Court arid other Courts Have established. 21 MR. HEINEMAN: Your Honor -- 22 MR. CARR: I'd like to know if there is more 23 information that's in your computer that we haven't been 24 given. 9 1 MR. HEINEMAN: It's my understanding, Judge,, is that 2 the April 1981 refers to the Proportional Mortality Ratio 3 Analysis Program but not to the organization of this data in 4 this fashion. 5 MR. CARR: How long has this data been in your 6 possession in this fashion? How long has it been on that 7 computer? 1 8 MR. HEINEMAN: How long has this data been in -- 9 MR. CARR: How long has this information been in the 10 computer? 11 THE WITNESS: The data and the Suskind data have 12 been there since 1979. They haven1t been brought together, 13 the putting of the Zach-Suskind and Zach-Gaffey Study was only T 14 put together because of the question raised at Nitro's lawsuit. 15 MR. CARR: Who put it together? 16 THE WITNESS: Marcie Strauss put it together. 17 MR. CARR: And that was done in 1984? 18 THE WITNESS: , No, sir. 19 MR.. CARR: When was it done? 20 THE WITNESS: I don't'know. f 21 MR. CARR: ,Your Honor, I repeat my remarks. This 22 data was brought together, they have it. All,he did was push 23 a button to spit it out. They had it and they knew they had 24 it and they hadn't given it to us. 10 1 MR- HEINEMAN: Your Honor, this is the same data j 2 that Mr. Carr has. 3 MR- CARR: The data that I calculated, that X took * 4 off of the tables, it wasn't given to me. I took it from your , i 5 studies, from your reports and analyzed it myself. This is 6 something you had analyzed through Marcie Strauss. I would 7 be willing to bet 1984, X have a lot of documents signed by 8 Marcie Strauss dated 1984- 9 THE WITNESS: No, that's not the case. 10 THE COURT: Mr. Heineman, do you have any further 11 argument? t j I ; i ' i j \ 12 MR. HEINEMAN: Your Honor, I'd like to staighten i | 13 out -- Mr. Carr has made some allegations here with respect to 1 1i 14 how long this data has been here and what was done with it and j i 15 I would like to straighten that out with this witness, if I ; 16 may? ! 17 ' THECOURT: Go ahead. i 18 BY MR- HEINEMAN: 19 0 Now, Dr. Roush, the data -- 20 MR. CARR: Your Honor, I will object unless he asks ' 21 a questionrather thansubmitting a suggested answer. ! 22 THE COURT: You'll have to ask the questions in a ' 23 nonleading form, Mr. Heineman. I'll interrupt you if I decide 24 they're leading. 11 1 MR. HEINEMAN: That's fine. 2 Q If you will, sir, tell us what is the data upon i 3 which this computer printout is based? 4 A There's two sets of data. The health experience of 5 those involved in the Nitro Zach-Suskind Study and a separate 6 group that includes the Zach-Gaffey population of 58 deaths 7 and these were two separate studies. Not together, they've 8 never been put together. 9 Q' The -- so the data -- 10 MR. CARR: Object, leading form of the question. 11 Just starting out that way. 12 THE COURT: Objection sustained. Rephrase it, 13 please. 14 BY MR. HEINEMAN: 15 Q What is the form in which the data from the Zach16 Suskind Study was gathered? 17 A 1 Well, once that data was in place, the sum total 18 just listing of each single one of those people in that 19 study, including date of birth, date of hire, date of exposure, 20 date of termination,, and date of death, and cause of death, 21 each one of those 32 have that data in the Zach-Suskind Study. 22 Those are listed. In addition, the identical data is in the 23 data base on the Zach-Gaffey 58 people. In other words, you 24 can just go down the list and, just as I've said, each one of 12 1 them have that data 2 0 ' Mow, excuse me, sir. Mr. Carr showed you an Exhibit 3 and I think it was Exhibit 1460, if I'm not mistaken. It was 4 a list of people with their date of hire, date of death, do 5 you remember that? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Let me hand you what's been marked Plaintiffs' 8 Exhibit 1460. It talks about the Nitro TCP accident, correct, 9 at the top? 10 MR. CARR: Your Honor, leading question. I object 11 to it. 12 THE COURT: Objection sustained. 13 BY MR. HEINEMAN: 14 Q Doctor, what is the relationship between this, data 15 and the Suskind data you were just talking about? 16 A This is a listing of -- I'm trying to decide whether 17 it's complete, but this is a listing of those people that have 18 been identified as having worked at Monsanto and had chloracne 19 that was found, related in time to that accident at Nitro in 20 the TCP operation. 21 Q And it totals 122, sir? 22 A I didn't check to see -- I can't read all this but -- 23 the first number is out but I assume that's 122. 24 Q For the 1949 accident? 13 1 A Yes, sir. 2 Q All right.' And what is the relationship between 3 this list and the data you were referring to in connection 4 with the Zach-Suskind Study? 5 A This is the data base that was in the computer for 6 those 122. This is their health experience. The question is 7i when were they born and were they alive at the end of the 8 experiment, at the end of the study, and then what was the 9 cause of death, if they had it. 10 Q Now, so this -- 11 MR. CARR: Objection, your Honor, leading form of 12 the question. 13 THE COURT: Objection sustained. 14 BY MR. HEINEMAN: 15 Q Now, what is the information listed in the second 16 column from the right on Plaintiffs1 Exhibit 460? 17 A This is 460? 18 0 Yes, sir -- 1460. 19 A The second last column is a listing of where they 20 were at the end of the study. That means, if they were there 21 and working, that means that obviously they were not dead. 22 So, they're trying to squeeze down those who had died based 23 on the information available here. 24 Q All right. What is the letter in front of the first 14 1 name? I'm sorry, the first statistic that you just referred 2 to for the first name? 3 A That refers to their status, whether they were dead 4 or whether they were alive, whether they were retiring, so 5 it's really their circumstance as of that date. 6 Q The first one is a D ? 7 A Right. 8 Q What does that mean? 9 A That means he was dead. 10 0 The third one is an A ? 11 A That means alive and working. 12 Q The next one is an R ? 13 A R means he's retired from Nitro. 14 0 But alive? 15 A Yes. 16 Q So'when Mr. Carr -- , .i 17 MR. CARR: Objection to the leading form of the 18 question. 19 THE COURT: Objection sustained. 20 BY MR. HEINEMAN: 21 0 Dr. Roush, where did you get the information to 22 answer Mr. Carr's question about which of these people were 23 the 32 deceased ones? 24 A They came out of this list here. i 15 1 Q Right out of Plaintiffs1 Exhibit 1460? 2 A Yes. 3 MR. CARR: I object to the leading form of the 4 question, your Honor. 5 THE COURT: Objection sustained. Mr. Heineman, you 6 have to quit asking these leading questions. 7 MR. HEINEMAN: All right. / 8 0 Sir, let me hand you what's been marked as 9 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1461. Can you identify that, please? 10 A It's a series of death certificates. 11 Q Sir, would you compare 1461 with Plaintiffs1 12 Exhibit 1460? 13 A Well, the first one is Robert Arther on Monsanto's 14 listing. You can correct it, the Social Security number is 15 the same on the both of them so that we're talking about the 16 same person. And of -- on the right side the status as of 17 December 31st, 1978, he was listed as dead and the -- there's 18 a 201.0, that's a classification of death and it refers to 19 the immediate cause of death as Hodgkin's disease. 20 P Sir, go ahead. 21 A You want to do the next one? 22 Q Please. 23 A The next name isHoward Cochran. 24 MR. CARR: Your Honor, unless counsel has abandoned 16 1 his efforts to get this later day study before us, I see that 2 this has no relevance to the question that the Court has asked 3 for evidence on. 4 THE COURT: Okay. Gentlemen, could you approach 5 the bench for a minute, please? 6 (The following proceedings were held at the 7 bench out of the hearing of the jury.) 8 THE COURT: Where are you headed with this? 9 MR. HEINEMAN: What I'm doing, your Honor, is 10 demonstrating that the data that he's referring to as being 11 the subject of that computer run is the very data that is in 12 evidence, placed here by the plaintiffs. 13 MR. CARR: I don't quarrel with that in the least, 14 that's not relevant. 15 MR. HEINEMAN: Of course it is because you're 16 complaining about the fact that this is something that's not 17 based upon -- 18 MR. CARR: Don't be so -- you know good and well 19 what I'm complaining about is this computer study that you've 20 had all these years. I know I was given the raw data. What 21 I'm complaining -- 22 THE COURT: If there's no dispute as to that point, 23 move on to whatever else you want to show in clarification 1 24 and then I'll consider the objection, then I'll rule on the , 17 t 1 objection. 2 MR. HEINEMAN: What I want to show, your Honor, is 3 the data of the two are the same. That there isn't any more 4 data in that study, in that computer, other than what's already 5 in evidence here. 6 MR.* CARRs Any more raw data. 7 MR. HEINEMAN: Mr. Carr had that. 8 MR. CARR: I had the raw data. 9 MR. HEINEMAN: The only other thing is the program. 10 THE COURT: I understand the difference. I under 11 stand the difference. 12 MR. HEINEMAN: The witness said that the two have 13 never been put together before. 14 MR. CARR: Until Strauss did it which was sometime 15 back -- that's exactly what he said, that's my objection. You 16 brought the raw data together, you put a Marsh and a Monson 17 PMR with that data, you kicked out this thing, you had this 18 literally for years. I'm not at all making a point that I 19 wasn't given the raw data. I was given these death certifi 20 cates and I was given this list of people but I wasn't given 21 anything else. I wasn't given this program, computer study 22 that you've had in your possession for years and under direct 23 order of this Court to bring in to me and you didn't do it. 24 MR. HEINEMAN: What I'm telling you is my 18 1 understanding is from this witness that that computer study 2 was created for the first time. 3 MR. CARR: By Strauss and he doesn't know when. 4 THE COURT: That is what he said. 5 MR. HEINEMAN: Let me see if I can straighten that 6 out. 7 THE COURT: Go ahead. 8 (The following proceedings were held in the 9 presence and hearing of the" jury.) 10 BY MR. HEINEMAN: 11 Q Now, Doctor, when was the program whereby the data 12 from the two studies was put together, created for the first 13 time? 14 A Put them together? 15 Q Yes. (Nod) 16 A To my knowledge it was put together for this 17 lawsuit. Based on the -- what has been brought out here, we 18 went back and tried to find out if he put these two together. 19 MR. CARR: That really isn't an answer to the 20 question. The question was when was it put together? 21 THE WITNESS: I can't be sure. 22 BY MR. HEINEMAN: 23 Q Has it been within the last few days? 24 A As far as I know. I think it is, but I don't know 19 1 whether it was done for Nitro or not I don't know whether 2 the same question was raised there so I can't answer that 3 because it could have been produced there because the same 4 question could have been asked. I wasn't told about it but it 5 could well be and we can establish that from our record. It 6 could've been done just related to this lawsuit. 7 MR. CARR: It could've been done two years ago, too, 8 couldn't it, Doctor? 9 THE WITNESS: I don't know. 10 MR. CARR: Correct. 11 BY MR. REINEMAN:' 12 0 What is it that you know as you sit here now about 13 when it was put together? 14 A I asked for^it after I was involved in this 15 testimony. I asked for it for the first time and they went 16 through the process and did it for me. Whether they had done 17 it before, I don't know. 18 0 So that all you know is that it began after -- 19 MR. CARR: Object to the leading form of the 20 question. 21 THE COURT: Objection sustained. Rephrase it, 22 please. 23 BY MR. HEIMEMAN: j 24 0 And as far as when your testimony began, sir, did 20 1 you ask for it after the 8th of July when you came back and 2 initiated testimony again? 3 A Yes, sir. 4 Q So you asked for it after the 8th of July? 5 MR. CARR: Object to the leading form of the 6 question 7 THE COURT: Objection sustained. 8 BY MR. HEINEMAN: 9 Q And when did you go out and produce this printout? 10 A X went out and produced it yesterday. 11 0 To your knowledge had a printout like that ever been 12 produced before? 1 13 A After I came back and took place in this trial, 14 after the recess. 15 Q After July the 8th? 16 A Yes. 17 MR. HEINEMAN: One moment, your Honor. Your Honor, 18 that's all the questions I have on that subject. 19 THE COURT: Mr. Carr, do you wish to cross-examine 20 on that subject? 21 CROSS EXAMINATION *i 22 BY MR. CARR: 23 0 Dr. Roush, what you do know, this was prepared for 24 the Nitro case, don't you, sir? 21 1 A No, sir. 2 0 It says all Nitro employees exposed to dioxin, 3 doesn't it, the project title? 4 A Yes. But it doesn't mean we produced it for the 5 Nitro case. 6 Q And you do know Marcie Strauss made it? 7 A . After.July 8th. 8 Q You know that now, sir? 9 A I know that she did it, but I don't know whether 10 she did it before as well. 11 Q - Well, when did she do it, to your knowledge, for 12 the first time? When did she make this computer study up for 13 the first time? 14 A To my knowledge, after July 8th. 15 Q I thought you testified a moment earlier, Dr. Roush, 16 that you didn't know when she put it together? 17 A I know she did it this time. 18 Q My question is, do you know when she first did it, 19 sir? 20 A No, sir. 21 0 It could've been two years ago, couldn't it, sir? 22 A I have to' ask that, so I don't know. 23 0 What you do know, that it was in the computer, this 24 and more data in the computer and more tables are in the 22 1 computer because this talks about just Table 5 and Table 3 and 2 Table 4, so there are other tables in this computer, aren't 3 there, sir? 4 A Yes, sir. 5 Q That you have not brought here today? 6 A Yes, sir. 7 0 And we don'tknow whatthosetables show, do we, pir? 8 MR. HEINEMAN: I'd be happy to have them marked, your 9 Honor. 10 MR. CARR: Your Honor, it's not just that I want and 11 the Court has ordered for months, for years now, the Court has 12 ordered that we receive this information and we have not 13 received it today and my objections still stand. There's no -- 14 the whole idea of discovery is that we can have this long 15 enough ahead of time that we Can give it to people that- we 16 trust and rely upon to determine the accuracy and the truth 17 fulness of this data so that I'll have an opportunity to study 18 it instead of being confronted with it for the first time in 19 the Courtroom. That's the whole idea of it. I renew my \ 20 objection to any use of it whatsoever. 21 MR. HEINEMAN: Your Honor, may I address that? 22 THE COURT: Yes, you may. 23 MR. HEINEMAN: Your Honor, the only evidence in this 24 Courtroom about this data, this document, is that it was 23 1 created for the first time after July the 8th, 1985. The only 2 other thing this man has said is he doesn't know whether it 3 was ever done before that. But all he knows is that the only 4 time that the two, the data from the two studies was put 5 together was after the -- the only thing he knows about it was 6 that it was after July the 8th, 1985. Obviously, there isn't 7 any dispute, as Mr. Carr has told the Court, there isn't any 8 dispute that the data itself was available to him and that he 9 had it. The same data that's in the machine that was put 10 together after July the 8th, 1985. 11 MR. CARR: Your Honor, now counsel is making a 12 representation that isn't out in the record. He pushed the 13 button after July 8th, 1985. He doesn't know how long this 14 information has been in the computer. He has so said under 15 oath he doesn't know when Marcie Strauss put it together and ae created the program. 17 THE COURT: Do you have anything further? Either 18 of you? 19 MR. HEINEMAN: That's all we have, Judge. 20 THE COURT: Okay. I'm sustaining the objection. 21 I think the production of this at this time and it's use under 22 these circumstances violates the discovery rules and the 23 statute and violates the orders of Court for prior production, 24 and under those circumstances, I am sustaining the objection 24 1 made by Mr, Carr, Mr. Heineman, you may proceed. 2 CLARIFICATION EXAMINATION 3 BY MR. HEINEMAN: 4 Q Dr. Roush, in the course of your examination by Mr, 5 Carr and/or clarification examination, we have discussed, have 6 we not, sir, the Times Beach situation? 7 A Yes, sir. 8 Q Times Beach,Missouri. There havebeen a number of 9 articles written, have there not, which have discussed Times 10 Beach as well as other dioxin exposure incidents? 11 A Yes, sir. 12 Q Have any of thosearticlesdiscussed the levels of 13 exposure at any of these -- on any of these occasions, whether 14 it be Seveso or Times Beach? 15 A At Times Beach there was a study of the people who 16 had been involved in that exposure and they used one 17 population with exposure from 20 up to 100 parts per billion 18 as defined by the measurements of going around in the area 19 where they live and taking core samples and using that as a 20 base for deciding what the level of exposure was and they 21 compared that population. i 22 MR. CARR: I object. He1s talking about they and 23 what they did. There's been no identification. 24 THE COURT: Can you clarify that? 25 1 MR, CARR: Study by Monsanto, a study by CDC? 2 MR. HEINEMAN: Let me pull Defendant's Exhibit 55. 3 Q Doctor, let me hand you what's been marked as 4 Defendant's Exhibit 914 and ask you if you can identify that 5 for me, please? 6 A This is an article that was written by Dr. Dunagin. 7 He's a Professor of Dermatology at the University of Missouri 8 in Columbia and his paper was title, "Cutaneous Signs of ^ 9 Systemic Toxicity Due To Dioxins and Related Chemicals". 10 Q And this was the publication from what journal? 11 A It was published in the Journal of American Academy 12 of Dermatology in April of 1984. 13 Q And, sir, is that a peerreview journal? 14 A Yes, sir. 15 0 And do you regard this document as being 16 authoritative? 17 A Yes, sir. 18 Q Now, Dr. Dunagin in hisarticle, sir, does he 19 address the subject of Times Beach? 20 A Yes, he does.. / 21 Q Does he address the subject of Seveso? 22 A Yes, he does. 23 Q Does he address the subject of other occasions of 24 human exposure to dioxin? 26 1 A. Yes, sir. 2 Q Now, I'd like to direct your attention, if I may, 3 sir, to Page 691. 4 A Yes, sir. 5 Q There's a paragraph there entitled "Absorption", is 6 there not? 7 A Yes, sir. 8 0 There's a sentence there that begins there with the 9 word "Actually", do you see that? 10 A Yes, sir. , 11 0 Would you read that sentence and the next two 12 sentences out loud, please? i 13 A "Actually, dioxin does not have distant effects such 14 as the public perception of radiation. The vapor pressure is 15 so low (1.7 X 10 to the minus 6 millimeter of Mercury) that 16 vapors are not a problem. Dioxin must first be absorbed into 17 the body before any effect on health can occur." 18 Q Now, sir, if you turn to the next page on 692 -- 19 A Yes, sir. 20 Q In the first column, the last paragraph -- 21 A Yes, sir 22 Q Would you readbeginning "Of course",there, would 23 you read that paragraph, please? 24 A "Of course, the absorption of dioxin by dermal 27 1 contact would also depend on frequency and duration of 2 contact. There have been several situations in which humans 3 had daily exposure to dioxin? some idea of the levels necessary 4 to cause toxicity by dermal absorption can be gathered from 5 this information. In 1971 waste oil containing dioxin was 6 applied to settle dust in horse arenas in Missouri. The 7 people who lived at these sites had daily exposure in their 8 occupation and play for three months. The level of dioxin in 9 a soil sample taken after three months was 32 ppm." 10 0 What does p-p-m mean? 11 A Parts per million. 12 Q 32 parts per million. Would you go ahead, sir? 13 A "The original level in the waste oil may have been 14 higher, because of some dissemination over the 3-month 15 interval. The humans exposed to these levels on a daily basis 16 developed chloracne and other symptoms typical of dioxin 17 toxicity. When re-examined five years later, these patients 18 had no laboratory abnormalities, chlorache resolved, and 19 there were no apparent sequelae from dioxin." 20 Q What does the word sequelae mean, sir? 21 A There were no obvious effects that could be related 22 to the dioxin. 23 Q Would you read the next paragraph, please, sir? 24 A "It is also known that workers involved in spraying 28 1 2/4,5-T herbicide in the 1960s and 1970s came in contact with 2 1-30 ppm dioxin in the concentrate. There is no evidence that i 3 people with daily exposure to these levels developed chloracne. 4 Currentlyf the use of 2,4,5-T is restricted and the level of 5 dioxin in the concentrate is less than 100 ppb." 6 Q For parts per billion? 7 A Pardon? 8 Q P-p-b meaning parts per billion? 9 A Right. 10 Q Would you go ahead, sir? 11 A "From these two examples, it appears that the amount 12 of dioxin necessary to'cause objective effects is in the 10-30 13 ppm range in an oily vehicle assuming daily exposure. In a 14 soil-water vehicle, the level would probably be 10 to 100 15 times as much. If the patients in these examples absorbed 16 some dioxin orally, the calculated levels would be even 17 higher. Even with daily skin contact, soil concentrations of 18 dioxin necessary to produce objective toxicity as shown by 19 chloracne most likely exceed 100 ppm." 20 Q Would you read the next paragraph, please, sir? 21 A "Another possible route of exposure is inhalation. 22 This may be an important route in some industrial accidents 23 where aerosols may be released into the atmosphere. However, 24 inhalation of dust does not seem to be important. If the 29 1 level of dioxin in dust is one ppb, the daily amount inhaled 2 has been calculated as 1.4 picograms/day. This level is 3 insignificant. The FDA has calculated a no-effect level of 4 70 ng/man/day." 5 Q ' All right. What is the relationship between a / 6 picogram and a nanogram? 7 A A thousand-fold. 8 0 Which is larger? 9 A A nanogram. 10 Q So there's a thousand picograms in a nanogram, is 11 that right? ' 12 A Yes. 13 0 And the FDA have calculated a no-effect level of 14 70 nanograms per man per day? 15 A Yes. 16 Q Now, what is the amount that the CDC established 17 or calculated would be consumed on a daily basis by a child 18 at a one part per billion concentration in the soil? 19 A They assume that the child could eat someplace 20 between one and ten grams of soil per day. 21 Q Now, a child eating the soil, they don't just pick 22 it up and stuff it in their mouth, do they? 23 A No, sir. 24 Q How does that happen? 30 1 A Well, they're assuming that the child is playing in 2 the dirt and he puts his hands in his mouth rather than just 3 eating' the dirt. Every time he puts his hands in his mouth 4 he could get some exposure. They're overestimating that but 5 they want to be on a conservative side. 6 Q And on 10 grams of soil, one to 10 grams of soil, 7 with a concentration -of one part per billion of dioxin in it, 8 how many -- how much dioxin do they estimate that that child 9 would consume per day? 10 A Ten nanograms. 11 Q The information -- let me show you, sir, that 12 computation, if I may. Let me hand you Plaintiffs' Exhibit 13 1255 and I'd like to direct your attention to Page 48 of 14 that Exhibit. 15 A All right. 16 Q Do you see there in Plaintiffs' 1255, that is the 17 CDC article we were talking about? 18 A The CDC and Department of Agriculture both. 19 Q All right. Sir, on the second page of that 20 Exhibit they tell you the computation that they have made, 21 do they not? 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q And what do they say is the amount of dioxin that 24 a child would take in if consuming one part -- one to 10 grams 31 1 of soil contaminated with one part per billion of TCDD? 2 A Up to 44 picograms per day. 3 Q Forty-four picograms per day? 4 A Right. 5 Q Now, that would be ingested, taken into the 6 stomach? 7 A That's total. 8 Q Total. That includes inhalation? 9 A Yes. 10 0 Nov/, according to Dr. Dunagin, inhalation could be 11 expected if the dust were contaminated to one part per billion / 12 to be a total of 1.4 picograms per day, is that right? 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q Now, how long can they say that a child could 15 consume 44 picograms per day? 16 A It isn't very well stated here, but they're talking 17 about through the time when the child is going to be eating 18 dirt rather than when he becomes an adult. 19 0 So that would be what? What period of time does V 20 that occur? 21 A Ten to 12 years, something, I suppose. 22 Q Now, the Dunagin article further says, does it not, 23 sir, that the FDA -- 24 MR. CARR: Objection to the leading form of the 32 1 question. 2 THE COURT: Rephrase the question. 3 BY MR. HEINEMAN: 4 Q What does the Dunagin article say about an FDA 5 calculation of a no-effect level, sir? 6 A The FDA had calculated their no-effect level at 70 7 nanograms per man per day. 8 0 Seventy nanograms per day? 9 A As no-effect level. 10 Q Wo limit on how many days? 11 A No, sir. 12 Q And how many times is that compared to the 44 13 picograms per day in the CDC? 14 A Oh, someplace around 40 percent higher than the 15 CDC. 16 Q If you've got 70 nanograms, that would be 70,000 17 picograms? 18 A Yes. 19 0 So 44 picograms would be something in the area of 20 a little less than.2,000 times less? 21 A Say that again. Repeat that. 22 Q If you have 70 nanograms per man per day. 23 A Right. 24 Q That's 70,000 picograms? 33 1 A Right 2 Q Per day, correct? 3 A Right, 4 Q And if 44 picograms can be eaten per day would that 5 not be in the neighborhood of a little less than 2,000 times 6 more than the FDA is saying is a no-effect level? 7 A Yes. 8 Q Now, if you turn to the next page of the Dunagin 9 article, sir, which is Page 693, there's a portion of the 10 article devoted to the question of "Dose Response", is there' 11 not, sir? 12 A Yes, sir. , 13 Q Would you read that paragraph, sir? 14 A "All animal experiments show that dioxin toxicity 15 is dose-related, as would be expected by analogy with most 16 other known toxins. At very low doses, there are no observed 17 effects in animals. In rats, there is about a one hundred 18 fold difference in dose between the "no observed effects 19 level" and the mortality levels. Dose-response was also 20 established for Yusho disease in humans where the severity 21 correlated with the amount of rice oil (containing dibenzo- 22 furans) consumed. People with low levels of consumption 23 showed no effects. Although the dose relationship seems 24 obvious, a great deal of public consternation has been caused 34 1 by statements that any amount of dioxin, no matter how small 2 the dose, is dangerous." 3 Q Sir, he then goes on to talk about the toxic effects 4 in humans, doesn't he? 5 A Yes, sir. 6 Q And in the nextcolumn onPage 693, he refers to the 7 importance of chloracne, do you see that? 8 A Yes, sir. 9 0 Would youread that to the jury,please? 10 A "The importance of chloracne is that it seems to be 11 the most likely objective sign to occur at the threshold dose 12 for humans. In other words, chloracne is the most sensitive 13 clinical indicator of dioxin exposure in population groups. 14 In most studies, 85 percent to 100 percent of patients who have 15 any of the more severe objective effects also have chloracne. 16 This is an extremely important fact in evaluating large groups 17 of people exposed to unknown chemicals, or where the magnitude 18 of exposure cannot be determined. However, there does seem to 19 be a small percentage of patients who are resistant to getting 20 chloracne. So for any given individual, one cannot determine 21 with absolute certainty whether a toxic dose has been 22 absorbed by the presence or absenc'e of chloracne alone." 23 Q All right. Now, if you look at Page 695, sir. 24 A Yes, sir. 35 1 Q You have a portion of the paper that deals with 2 chloracne as a marker as indicated by the previous page, 3 correct? 4 A Yes^ sir. 5 Q Now, on 695 he talks about the Seveso, Italy 6 incident, does he not? 7 A Yes, sir. 8 Q And he says -- or would you please read what he says 9 in the first full paragraph in the first column, beginning 10 "Several thousand people"? 11 A "Several thousand people were exposed to dioxin in 12 Seveso, Italy, and panic developed after the deaths of rabbits 13 and other herbivores which consumed dioxin-tainted vegetation. 14 An extensive health survey by the Lombardy Regional Govern 15 ment examined dermatologic, neurologic, hepatic, renal, 16 reproductive, and immunologic parameters. They found 187 17 cases of chloracne, mostly in Zone A, the most heavily 18 contaminated area. However, no other objective toxicity could 19 be attributed to dioxin. Most of the cases of chloracne 20 resolved in a short period of time. There were some cases of 21 peripheral neuropathy, but only in people over the age of 55 22 who had diabetes or alcoholism. These cases were not 23 attibuted to dioxin. Some surveys showed an increase in 24 spontaneous abortions after the accident in Seveso. However, 36 1 it is also known that many women left Italy to have therapeutic 2 abortions in other countries because of fear engendered by all 3 the media publicity following the accident. Some of these may 4 have been misinterpreted as spontaneous abortions in post hoc 5 surveys. Most experts now believe there was no increase in 6 abortion or birth defects." 7 Q Now, sir, I'd like you to turn to Page 696, if you 8 would where there's a portion of the paper that deals with 9 Teratogenesis and Carcinogenesis. Do you see that, sir? 10 A Yes, sir. 11 Q Let me direct your attention to some statements in 12 the paper beginning around the middle of that paragraph, 13 beginning with the sentence "Similarly". Do you see that? 14 . A Yes, sir. 15 Q Would you read that,please? 16 A "Similarly, an increased incidence of cancer has 17 been observed in most species of laboratory animals given 18 dioxin; however, the doses required also produced overt signs 19 of direct toxicity. The covalent binding of dioxin to 20 deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is four to six orders of magnitude .21 less than values for most known chemical carcinogens. Most 22 authorities believe that dioxin is unlikely to initiate 23 somatic mutation, but may act as a promoter. The calculation 24 of relative risk for chemicals that may be promoters is not 37 1 as well established as for initiators of carcinogenesis. There 2 is controversy about models used to extrapolate to lower doses 3 than available experimental data. In some studies, dioxin 4 and related chemicals have actually inhibited the formation of 5 skin cancers induced by dimethylbenzanthracene (DMBA) in rats." 6 Q Now, if I could direct your attention to the last 7 two paragraphs of that portion on Teratogenesis and 8 Carcinogenesis which are in the next column. Would you read 9 those, please, sir? 10 A "Populations with less exposure as shown by absence 11 of chloracne would have a lower risk for carcinogenesis than 12 workers. Still most newspaper articles have implied that 13 people with no evidence'of dioxin toxicity today nevertheless 14 have a ticking time bomb that may strike as cancer any day. 15 Similarly, studies of teratogenesis are continuing, but so 16 far studies from Seveso, New Zealand, and Alsea, Oregon have 17 not shown a greater incidence of birth defects than expected." 18 Q Now, sir, he relates, does he not, that there are 19 studies that talk about the inhibition of skin cancers by 20 using dioxin, is that right? 21 A Yes, sir. 22 0 Let me hand you, sir, what's previously been marked 23 as Defendant's Exhibit No. 165. Can you tell me what that is, 24 sir? 38 1 A This is an article by a group for the University of 2 Wisconsin titled, "Time-dependent Inhibition by 2,3,7,83 Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin of Skin Tumorigenesis with 4 Polycyclic Hydrocarbons", This was,by J. DiGiovanni, Barry, 5 Gleason, Kishore and Slaga, and it was published in 6 McArdle Laboratory for Cancer Research in May of 1980. 7 0 And is this a peer reviewed study, sir? 8 A Yes, sir. 9 Q And published in 1980, you said? 10 A Yes, sir. 11 Q If I can direct your attention, please, to the 12 abstract on the first page. 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q There's a sentence that begins on about a third of 15 the way down. It starts with the words "In contrast". Do 16 you see that? 17 A Yes, sir. 18 THE COURT: Before you get into this article, is it 19 a good time for a short recess? Ladies and gentlemen, we'll 20 take a break for a short time. This will go for any other 21 breaks we take, not to discuss this matter amongst yourselves 22 or anyone outside the jury panel or form any opinions or 23 conclusions about the matters on trial. The Court will be 24 in a short recess. 39 1 (A short recess was taken.) 2 BY MR. HEINEMAN: 3 0 Doctor, at the time of the break we were looking at 4 Defendants Exhibit 165 which is the article by Dr. DiGiovanni 5 and Drs. Barry, Gleason, Kishore and Slaga. Do you see that, , 6 sir? i 7 A Yes, sir. 8 Q What is the McArdleLaboratory for CancerResearch? 9 A. It's a laboratorythat got. started indoing research 10 on cancer when two of the people working in research there 11 found the ultimate carcinogen that causes cancer with 12 benzo(a)pyrene or one of the related materials but one of the 13 metabolites was the ultimate carcinogen because of -- that 14 they've established a reputation as being very good in 15 research and they now have a relatively large building that's 16 devoted purely to research on cancer at the University of 17 Wisconsin. ( 18 0 Are these authors with the McArdle Laboratory? 19 Are some of them with the McArdle Laboratory of Research? 20 A I don't know these names so I don't know whether 21 they all were or not. Apparently DiGiovanni is. 22 Q There are two institutions there listed below the 23 names of the authors, are there not? 24 A Yes, sir. 40 1 Q And in these papers -- these peer-reviewed papers, 2 do they directly list the affiliation of the authors so they 3 know who they are and where they come from? 4 A I think they, for practical purposes, always do. 5 0 And what are the two institutions that are listed 6 here under the names of these authors? 7 A First, McArdle Laboratory at the University of 8 Wisconsin for Cancer Research. The second Is the Biology 9 Division of Oak Ridge National Laboratory at Oak Ridge, 10 Tennessee. 1 11 Q Are you familiar with that laboratory, sir? 12 A The Oak Ridge National Laboratory has a Biology 13 Division that has the responsibility both for monitoring the 14 health effect of the workers as well as doing research on the 15 affect of radiation, as well as attempting to define a new 16 effects level for radiation because they1re both part of the 17 overall effort that was formerly the AEC. 18 Q Does that research at Oak Ridge have anything to do 19 tfith cancer? 20 A Yes, sir, because one of the clear-cut examples of 21 the effect of external environment on man is, I suppose since 22 they first discovered radiation, it was in the 19 -- 1940s 23 when they were using radiation to treat thymus and thyroid, 24 they found that 10, 20 years afterwards they started developing 41 1 cancers of the thyroid. So it's been known for many, many 2 years that radiation in large doses causes cancer and once 3 that's established, they want to see how low the exposures 4 have to be before you don't see it related to taking a chest 5 x-ray or anything else. 6 0 Now, if I can direct your attention to the abstract 7 of this article, sir. There's a mention about a third of 3 the way down of an extremely long chemical name. The last 9 part of which is benzopyrene, do you see that, sir? 10 A Yes. 11 Q I won't ask you to read the entire clinical name 12 but what does that have to do with what you were telling us 13 about the discovery of benzopyrene as a carcinogen? 14 A Well, this is one of the benzopyrenes. This is 15 benzo(a)pyrene modified by one of the side groups on the 16 benzopyrene molecule. They use this material because it's 17 well known that these related chemicals when painted on the 18 back of a mouse will produce papillomas. That means it will 19 produce a growth wherever .they put it. They'll shave the 20 back of a mouse and then they'll put a drop or more on that 21 paved -- or shaved area and then over a period of time the 22 mouse will develop a little tiny growth, not a tumor -- a 23 tumor but not a cancer, and then with time, sometimes it will 24 go on to develop cancer. It's well-described, well-defined, 42 j 1 and uses a model for studying cancer in cancerigenesis. 2 Q Now, this abstract, sir, discusses what is the 3 effect of the TCDD application for initiation of this 4 papilloma formation, does it not? 5 A I haven't read it. 6 Q Let me direct your attention to that portion -- 7 direct it to just before we broke which begins with the words 8 "In contrast". Do you see that there? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Now, just before that there's a sentence that begins 11 with "The application". Do you see that, sir? 12 A Yes. 13 0 Would you read that, please? 14 A "The application of TCDD five minutes prior to or 15 one day after initiation with DMBA, benzo(a)pyrene, or MCA 16 had little or no effect on papilloma formation." 17 Q All right. I'd like to ask you about that for a 18 minute. MCA is methylcholanthrene, correct? 19 A Yes, sir. 20 Q Methylcholanthrene, is that another carcinogen like 21 benzopyrene? 22 A I can't answer the question. There are a number of 23 these polycyclic aromatic very closely related, but some of 24 them produce cancer and some of them do not. So I'd have to 43 1 look in the book to see whether methylcholanthrene is a 2 carcinogen or not. 3 0 All right. And what about DMBA, dimethylbenz(a )4 anthracene? 5 A I have the same problem that's related to the 6 methylcholanthrene. 7 Q Now, that sentence you just read says that if you 8 apply TCDD five minutes before or one day after you initiate 9 with these three materials, it has little or no effect on 10 papilloma formation, correct? 11 A That's right. 12 0 Now, what does that tell you, sir, about whether or 13 not if someone had already had exposure to a carcinogen and 14 then was exposed to TCDD thereafter, whether TCDD would 15 promote a cancer from exposure to that previous exposure to 16 that carcinogen? 17 A The statement made there is that they know how many 18 papillomas will be formed because of the many studies from 19 DMBA by benzopyrene or methylcholanthrene. They know how 20 many tumors would be formed by such painting, skin painting, 21 and they're saying that when they gave the TCDD about the 22 time of this painting, it had no effect. 23 Q How about when they gave it afterwards? Five -- 24 one day after? 44 1 A No effect. 2 Q So would that indicate to you, sir, that exposure 3 to a TCDD at least shortly after exposure to a carcinogen 4 would not give rise to promotion? 5 A Yes, it says it did not. 6 Q Now, would you read the next sentence which begins 7 with the words "In contrast"? 8 A "In contrast, when TCDD was applied three days 9 prior to initiation with these hydrocarbons, a marked 10 reduction in papilloma formation was observed." 11 Q All right. So that if you put on the TCDD three 12 days ahead of time, you get fewer papillomas formed, correct? 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q Now, if I can direct your attention to Page 1583 as 15 it's numbered in that lower right-hand corner in that Exhibit, 16 sir. 17 A Yes, sir. 18 Q We see in the left-handcolumn some remarksabout 19 the Effects of TCDD on Epidermal AHH, EH, UDPGT and GST. Do 20 you see that, sir? 21 A Yes, sir. 22 0 What are they talkingabout there? What are those 23 materials, AHH, EH, etc.? 24 A The only one I know offhand is the first one, the 45 1 AAH and the others I assume are also enzymes because they're 2 talking about the effect of this on the enzymes. 3 0 All right. Now, AHH is what, sir? 4 A Aryl hydrocarbon hydroxylases. 5 Q And TCDD -- well, let me ask you. Is TCDD known to 6 have any effect on the induction to AHH enzyme? 7 A In animals, yes. 8 0 And in animals, what effect does it have? 9 A It causes the measured AHH level in almost any 10 tissue they analyzed for it, causes it to go up. In other 11 words, you can measure enzyme activity by a bioacid. 12 0 By a bioacid. What do you mean by that, sir? 13 A You don't measure the enzyme itself but you measure 14 it by putting it in the presence of something that's going to 15 metabolize. 16 0 You measure the enzyme activity by showing the 17 effect of that enzyme on something else, is that right? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q That's sort of like measuring an immune function, 20 sir, with exposure to certain kinds of irritants? 21 A I'm not sure that you can go that far, but when we 22 increase the amount of glucose we eat, we begin to produce 23 more insulin, so that's a better example of an effect. If 24 you get a lot of sugar, your pancreas will be putting out 46 1 more insulin. And a man that is overweight is more likely to 2 get diabetes because he's used up his ability to make insulin 3 on a continuing basis. The enzyme induction is something our 4 body goes on all the time, depending on what we eat, we reduce 5 one or another enzyme, depending.on the food we're eating. 6 0 Is aryl hydrocarbon hydroxylases induced normally 7 every day in the body? 8 A We know it varies and we're not sure what it is 9 that's making it change. 10 Q But it's there and active at all times? It's in the n body actually, is it not? 12 A Yes. 13 0 Wow, so TCDD in animals is known to induce production 14 or activity of AHH? 15 A Yes, sir, 16 Q Now, they have a discussion there, do they not, about 17 the effect of'TCDD on epidermal AHH activity, correct? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q They're talking about it in the skin? 20 A Yes, sir. 21 0 Now, do they suggest that in these animals that were 22 reviewed here that the TCDD when painted on the skin caused 23 the AHH to go up? 24 A Yes, sir. 47 1 0 And it would be increased for five to 10 days after 2 TCDD application, is that right, sir? 3 A Yes, sir. But that doesn't mean at the same level. 4 It means it was falling off over that five to 10 days. 5 Q Increased? 6 A Over background. 7 Q So it's increased the greatest amount in the first 8 24 hours and then it falls off? 9 A Yes, sir. 10 Q Now, what is the effect then -- is there any 11 connection between the enzyme induction of TCDD and the 12 reduction in the number of these tumors by application of 13 TCDD? 14 A They have shown that these -- 15 0 Were they mice? 16 A Yes, these mice that have the benzopyrene chemicals 17 painted on their backs developed a papilloma and when they 18 painted them on the back they also got elevation of the AHH 19 And when they put -- when they put the TCDD on before, they 20 didn't see as many papillomas and I'm not sure -- they've 21 shown that AHH goes up and it's logical to conclude that the 22 AHH going up was a possible basis for the decrease in 23 papillomas. That's a reasonable explanation based on both of 24 these things occurring. 48 * X Q So what they -- if you look at Page 1584, sir, you 2 see that? The first column there before Table 5? 3 A Yes, sir. 4 Q Would you read that sentence beginning with the 5 word "Experiments" to the end of the paragraph, that short 6 portion there, please? 7 A From the first paragraph? 8 Q Yes. 9 A "Experiments from our laboratories have shown that 10 TCDD possessed little or no tumor-initiating (16) or tumor- 11 promoting (3) properties in the skin of CD-I mice at doses 12 that produced a marked inhibition of the initiation of skin 13 papilloma formation by several PAH (12). We therefore chose 14 TCDD as a tool for studying the effects of enzyme induction on 15 tumor initiation by PAH in mouse skin." 16 Q Now, the PAH are the poly aromatic hydrocarbons? 17 A Yes, that's those three chemicals we've talked about 18 initially, the benzanthracene, the methylcholanthrene and the 19 tetrahydrobenzopyrene. 20 Q All right. 21 A Those three are all PAH's. 22 Q 23 sir. Now, if you look at the last paragraph on Page 1585, 24 A Yes, sir. 49 1 Q you see where it says the results? 2 A Yes. 3 0 What do they say? Would you read that paragraph? 4 A "The results presented above, coupled with the 5 observed increases in epidermal AHH and UDPGT, suggested a 6 possible mechanism for the ability of TCDD to inhibit tumor 7 initiation by PAH. Under the influence of TCDD, epidermal 8 cells may be programmed to inactivate PAH carcinogens more 9 efficiently and therefore eliminate them more readily. Further 10 analysis of the profile of water-soluble metabolites as well 11 as of rates of clearance and excretion from epidermal cells 12 may shed further light on the inhibitory effect of TCDD and 13 similar compounds." 14 Q So that they*re trying to relate experimentally two 15 observations that they've made? 16 A Yes, sir. 17 0 One, that TCDDstipulates andinduces AHH and 18 production and activity, and the other, that TCDD inhibits / 19 the papilloma formation if it's given before -- ahead of time? 20 A Right. 21 0 Now, let medirect yourattention,please, if I may, 22 sir, to Defendant's Exhibit 166. That is another paper, is , 23 it not, sir, published in a -- well, let me ask you -- what 24 is that, sir? 50 1 A This is a report by David Barry, Thomas Slaga, 2 DiGiovanni and Juchau from Oak Ridge as well as the University 3 of Washington in Seattle and they published a paper titled, 4 "Studies With Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins, Polybrominated 5 Biphenyls, and Polychlorinated Biphenyls in a Two-Stage System 6 of Mouse Skin Tumorigenesis: Potent Anticarcinogenic 7 Effects". This was published in the Annals of the New York 8 Academy of Sciences. 9 Q Is that peer review? 10 A Yes. And it was published, I think based on the 11 bottom, in 1979. 12 Q Now, some of these authors are the same people that k 13 were involved in the other article, are they not? 14 A Yes, sir, I think two of them -- three of them. 15 0 On the other occasion they were working with the 16 McArdle Laboratory people at the University of Wisconsin and 17 on this occasion they're working with the University of 18 Washington, correct, sir? 19 A Yes, sir. 20 Q And if I candirect yourattention to Page 411 of 21 Exhibit 166. In the discussion section, do you see that? 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q And would you readthe first three or four 24 sentences of the second paragraph of that discussion section, 51 1 sir? 2 A "This report demonstrates that TCDD possesses 3 remarkable inhibitory actions on skin tumor-initiation to 4 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), Almost complete 5 inhibition of DMBA tumor initiation is achieved with a single 6 nontoxic topical dose of 0.1 micrograms and with a dose of 0.01 7 micrograms approximately 80 percent inhibition was achieved. 8 This potent anticarcinogenic effect may be related to the 9 ability of TCDD to induce epidermal enzyme pathways respon 10 sible for detoxifying PAH carcinogens in the skin." 11 Q Sir, what is it about the enzyme productions that 12 can inhibit tumor or tumor production whether it be malignant 13 or non-malignant or benign? 14 A Well, there1s no cause and effect established here 15 but what they?re saying is these studies would be consistent 16 with the fact that TCDD in very small amounts can produce 17 enzymes which will break down the carcinogen. So it's not 18 going to produce a reaction without producing a papilloma. 19 0 So that it's a biochemical effect? 20 A Yes, sir. 21 Q On the carcinogenitself? 22 A Right. 23 0 And that's done by virtue of the enzymes in the 24 body being increased? 52 1 A Yes, sir, 2 Q Now, sir, we talked a little whileago about the 3 fact that a health study had been done on the residents of 4 Times Beach, do you recall that, sir? 5 A Yes, sir. 6 Q Let me hand you what's previously been marked as 7 Defendant's Exhibit 55. Can you tell us what that is, sir? 8 THE COURT: Is that 55? 9 MR. HEINEMAN: Fifty-five, your Honor. 10 A This is a report, a progress reporttitled"Missouri 11 Dioxin Health Studies", dated October 16, 1983. It lists the 12 Missouri Division of Health, The Centers for Disease Control, 13 the St. Joseph's Hospital of Kirkwood and the St. Louis 14 University Hospital. 15 Q All right. Now, let me direct your attention, if I 16 may, sir, to Page 3 of that report. Three being an Arabic 17 numeral as opposed to a Roman numeral so it would be actually 18 about the ninth page of theExhibit itself. 19 A Page 3. 20 Q Where it's entitled "Background and Characterization 21 of Environmental Contaminations", do you see that, sir? 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q Now, what area are they talking about there? 24 A Well, they're talking about hexachlorophene plants 53 1 in southwest Missouri. They're talking about the horse arenas 2 in Missouri. 3 , Q You see on the next page, sir, they have a list of 4 all of the various sites, various sites in Missouri. Do you 5 see that, sir? 6 A Yes, sir. 7 0 There are 33 suchsites listed? 8 A Yes, sir. 9 Q Is that anyrelation -- does that have any 10 relationship, sir, to the EPA designated dioxin sites in 11 Missouri? 12 A I think they are the designated sites. That doesn't 13 mean it was complete today but as of that date it was complete. 14 Q Now, on the Page 3 that I've reference to before, 15 they talk about the -- at-the end of the first paragraph, what 16 the contamination levels were, do they not? 17 A Yes, sir. 18 Q And they suggest that most of the levels ranged in 19 what range, sir? 20 A Levels as high as 35 ppm were measured in the soil 21 in one of the 33 sites. Currently, isolated levels as high as 22 1.9 ppm exist in these contaminated areas but most of the 23 levels range from less than one part per billion to several 24 hundred ppb. 54 1 Q So there's a very wide range of contamination levels, 2 is there not, sir? 3 A 'Yes, sir. 4 Q Some less than one part per bullion, some as high as 5 several hundred parts per billion with a few up in the parts 6 per million range? 7 A That's right. 8 Q Now, the next paragraph, sir, they talk about 9 approximately half of the sites that they listed being 10 contaminated with peak levels in excess of 100 parts per n billion, correct? 12 A Yes, sir. 13 Q Now, that's the contamination level in the soil, is 14 it not, sir? 15 ' A Yes, sir. 16 Q One hundred parts per billion and they say 11 of 17 them are in residential areas, correct? 18 A Yes, sir. i 19 Q Now, the one part perbillion set by CDC is for 20 residential areas, is it not, sir? 21 A Yes, sir. 22 0 Now, theycharacterize thesepeople whom they 23 studied in two groups, do they not, sir? 24 A For at least -- for one study. I'm not sure if 55 1 they're talking about the same study that I recall, 2 0 If I can direct yourattention to Page 27. 3 A Yes, sir. 4 0 .They talk about -- actually the section begins on 5 the previous page, on Page 26, where they talk about how 6 they conduct this study, do they not? 7 A Yes, sir. 8 Q They talk about a health effects survey question 9 naire, that's the first thing they did? 10 A Yes, sir. 11 Q And they did that to elicit information on exposure 12 risk, correct? 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q Medical history, etc.? , 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Q And then on Page 27 they did a dermatology screening 17 clinic, did they not? 18 A Yes, sir, 19 Q And they say there in that first paragraph, "The 20 primary purpose of this activity was to screen for persons 21 with chloracne who were then referred for a complete medical 22 workup". Correct? 23 A Yes, sir. 24 Q Then, thirdly, "They reviewed the initial group of 56 1 800 completed questionnaires and selected a group of 2 individuals for inclusion in a pilot medical study." Correct? 3 A Yes, sir. 4 Q And they did 130 individuals to whom they gave a 5 detailed medical workup, did they not, sir? 6 A Yes, sir. 7 Q Now, they goon anddescribe what thehigh risk and 8 low risk people are, do they not? 9 A Yes, sir. 10 Q What are the high risk people? What are the criteria 11 for them? 12 A They selected a high riskgroup,thoseindividuals 13 who lived or worked in the TCDD-contaminated area or 14 participated more than once per week on an average in high 15 soil contact activities such as gardening, field or court 16 sports, horseback riding, or playing in the soil in TCDD17 contaminated areas. And these contaminated areas contain TCDD 18 in levels between 20 and 100 parts per billion for a period of 19 at least two years or greater than 100 ppb for a period of 20 at least six months. 21 Q So if they have the exposure to dioxin-contaminated 22 soil over 100 parts per billion in the soil for six months 23 or more, they were included? 24 A Yes, sir. 57 1 Q Or if it were only from 20 to 100 parts per billion 2 in the soil, it would be -- have to be for at least two years? 3 A Yes, sir. 4 Q And they did have one soil contamination level of 5 33,000 parts per billion, correct? 6 A vYes, sir. 7 Q That's what, 33parts permillion? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Now, the low risk was whom, sir? 10 A Individuals most who were from the original 800 who 11 had completed the questionnaires with the lowest risk of 12 exposure based on the type of exposure site, age, sex, race, 13 and a socio-economic status characteristic of a two to one 14 ratio of high/low risk subjects. This group was comprised of 15 40 individuals, when they selected them, who had no reported 16 any access to or any regular high soil contact activities in 17 a contaminated area. t' 18 Q So the low risk people were people who had not 19 reported any access to any of these contaminated areas or 20 regular high soil contact activities in any of these 21 contaminated areas, is that right? 22 A Right. 23 0 And they say that there were -- 24 MR. CARR: Your Honor, counsel is just repeating 58 1 what the witness has read from the Exhibit, He's duplicating 2 and it's leading and all it does is take more time, 3 THE COURT: Objection sustained. Please refrain 4 from that. 5 BY MR. HEINEMAN: 6 Q Now, Doctor, if I can direct your attention to 7 Page 32 of this Exhibit. It talks about the presentation of 8 results of this study, does it not? 9 A Yes, sir. 10 0 Now, that's the place where that portion starts on 11 that page? 12 A Yes, sir. 13 0 If you turn to Page 33, sir -- 14 A Yes, sir. 15 Q They talk about -- direct your attention to the 16 first full paragraph starting with the word "Regarding". 17 A Yes, sir. 18 0 Would youread the first two sentences, please? 19 A "Regarding the prevalence of specificgeneralized 20 disorders as reported in the Health Effects Survey 21 questionnaire, there were no differences or consistent trends. 22 Of the five cases of cancer reported (three in the high risk 23 group and two in the low risk group, difference not significant 24 at the 0.05 level), none of the cancers were soft tissue 59 1 sarcomas," 2 Q What is the 0.05 level? Is that one of these 3 statistical things you were talking about before? 4 A Yes, sir. 5 Q Okay. Briefly, what does that mean, sir? 6 A It means that for those five cases of cancer the 7 three in the high risk group and two in the low risk group, 8 that kind of difference could occur by chance and it doesn't 9 say by what level but it said not a significant difference. 10 Q Now, if we look at the next page, sir. Would you 11 read the first sentence on Page 34? 12 A "No consistent overall trends or statistically 13 significant individual diagnostic differences were detected 14 for reproductive health outcomes from the questionnaire 15 material." 16 0 In other words, they were comparing the low risk 17 and the high risk groups? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q And saying noconsistent overalltrends were 20 significant individual diagnostic differences? 21 A That's right. 22 Q Now, what about the nextsentence there? 23 A "No difference was noted for males in prevalence 24 of reported sexual dysfunction and, although no differences 60 1 were reported in the questionnaire regarding an increased 2 prevalence of reproductive health problems, females in the 3 high risk group reported a later age at menarche." 4 Q That's the onset of menstruation, is that it? 5 A Right. 6 Q Now, the next sentence, sir, would you read that, 7 please? 8 A "When the analysis was restricted to only those 9 women who had reached menarche during the time at which they 10 would have been potentially exposed to environmental dioxin, 11 the significance of this difference diminished." 12 Q They give a value of P equals 0.17? 13 A Right. 14 Q Thatagain is astatistical figure, correct? 15 A Yes, that means that could occur. That is a lot 16 more significant than that 0.05. In other words, there was 17 a real overlap of those tv/o populations. 18 Q Woiild you read the next two sentences, please, sir? 19 A "Only 30 births were reported in the entire study 20 population since 1972 and no trends were noted in the 21 questionnaire medical history or reproductive outcome 22 sections. No birth defects were reported among children born 23 to women in the high risk group after the time at which 24 exposures could have occurred." 61 1 Q All right. Would you read the first -- read the 2 first two sentences of the next paragraph, please, sir? 3 A "In the dermatologic screening, no cases of chloracne 4 were seen. For the 104 individuals in the study population, 5 no significant differences in dermatological findings were 6 demonstrated by either medical histories (as reported on the 7 questionnaire) or physical examination." 8 Q So they found no chloracne -- 9 MR. CARR: Objection, your Honor. He's repeating 10 now what the witness just said. 11 THE COURT: Objection sustained. 12 BY MR. HEINEMAN: 13 Q ` Now, would you turn to Page 35, sir? Would you read 14 the first sentence of that first paragraph? 15 A "The data from the neurological examinations were 16 analyzed and showed no significant differences between the two 17 groups or apparent patterns for either the self-reported 18 neurological conditions from the neurological examination or 19 the questionnaire medical histories." 20 Q Would you read the next sentence, please, sir? 21 A "Except for diminished vibration sense at 256 Hz 22 for those in the high risk group (p = 0.13), none of the 23 differences on neurological examination approached statistical 24 significance" t 62 1 Q So did they find, sir, one neurological difference 2 between the groups? 3 A No, sir, none. 4 Q Didn't they find a diminished vibration sense in 5 the high risk group? 6 A Yes, but it wasn't statistically significant. 7 0 Now, would you read the first sentence of the next 8 paragraph, sir? ) 9 A "As presented in Table 2, there appeared to be a 10 trend of increased urinary tract problems among the high risk 11 cohort as reported from the medical history section of the 12 questionnaire and the urinalyses although no statistically 13 significant differences were demonstrated." 14 Q Now, in the next paragraph, sir, the last paragraph 15 on the page, there's a sentence that refers to physical 16 examination. Do you see that, sir? 17 A Yes, sir. 18 0 Would you read that sentence? 19 A "On physical examination, there was a greater 20 prevalence in the high risk group of hepatomegaly, although 21 this finding, as well as all others, was not statistically 22 significant." 23 Q What's hepatomegaly, sir? 24 A It just means liver is enlarged. 63 1 Q Okay.' Now, would you turn to the next page and 2 read the last sentence of the top paragraph on the page? 3 A "The two groups showed no difference in character 4 istic urinary porphyrin patterns (see Table 4) and no cases 5 of overt porphyria cutanea tarda (PCT) or any precursor 6 conditions (latent PCT or Type B porphyria) were detected." 7 Q Now, would you read the first sentence of'the next 8 paragraph? 9 A "As reported in the medical histories, there were 10 no differences in prevalence of immune disorders." i 11 Q Now, they do say something about the physical 12 examination in that respect, do they not,sir? 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q And what do they say about that? 15 A "On physical examination, the only significant t 16 difference noted was a higher prevalence of palpable axillary 17 lymph nodes in the low risk cohort (p less than 0.05) and the 18 suggestion of a greater prevalence of palpable nodes among 19 the low risk group." 20 Q That was their low risk group? 21 A Yes, 22 Q Now, in the course of your examination by Mr*. Carr, 23 there was discussion about whether the findings of coronary . 24 heart disease in the Nitro plant were related to the levels 64 1 of coronary heart disease found in the Kanawha Valley in West 2 Virginia, in general, do you recall that, sir? 3 A Yes, sir. ( ! 4 Q Now, you recall, do you not, sir, that this was a 5 phenomena that was referred to Dr. Marian Moses? 6 A Yes, sir. 7 Q Did she use that statistic as an explanation for the 8 higher coronary heart disease levels found in the Nitro plant? 9 A Yes, sir. 10 Q Now, sir, does everything with respect to dose 11 response relationship, does that exist in connection with 12 every toxin that one might be exposed to that we know of? 13 A Yes, siri. 14 Q You mentioned, sir, that one could explain the 15 condition of the people in the Kanawha Valley because of the 16 lifestyle, was that right? 17 A Some of the conditions. 18 Q All right. I'm talking now about the coronary 19 heart disease, the higher cardiovascular disease, is that 20 right? 21 A Yes, sir. 22 Q Now, I believe you told Mr. Carr that you have not 23 personally observed the people that live in Charleston or 24 Nitro to see with your personal knowledge what their lifestyle 65 1 is, is that right? , 2 A Yes, sir, 3 Q ' What can you tell us from your experience is the 4 connection between lifestyle and heart disease throughout the 5 country? 6 A From the Framingham Study, this is a study that was 7 started in the 1950s, They studied the population of 8 Framingham, every single person that lived in that community, 9 and they developed parameters that could be evaluated later, 10 including all laboratory tests where they had high blood 11 pressure. The completed examination was put into a computer 12 data base and from that they found that people have elevation 13 of blood pressure. They have more heart disease. People who 14 smoke have more heart disease. People have elevation of 15 cholesterol, have more heart disease. Now, I'm not sure when 16 that came from Framingham, all of those and since that time 17 the treatment of people who have any one of these conditions, 18 the responsibility of their physician is to tell them to 19 change your ways because it could well be that you'll have ' 20 heart disease. Some time since then it's also been* 21 established-that inactivity is related to coronary artery 22 disease as well. So, those are the risk factors that are 23 generally discussed. Since that time there's been a question 24 of whether triglycerides may be associated with it and it's 66 1 not clear. And then the other lipids that have been managed, 2 the VHDL's, the LDL's and the HDL's are all a part of some, 3 how the risk factors that are associated with coronary artery 4 disease 5 Q Now, in the course of your examination you and Mr. 6 Carr discussed the fact that the levels in the plant were 7 approximately the same as the levels in the Kanawha Valley, 8 generally in terms of the amount of coronary heart disease 9 found or cardiovascular disease, is that right? 10 A Yes, sir. 11 Q Now, would you expect, sir, because of the dose 12 response relationship that if in fact the coronary heart 13 disease was due to exposure to TCDD that it would be higher 14 in the plant where the people are the closest to that 15 material? 16 A Yes, sir. 17 Q All right. Why is that? 18 A That's that dose response group. If dioxin causes 19 coronary artery disease, then those who have the most 20 exposure are going to have the most effect. Those who have 21 infinitesimally small exposure, a level that can't be measured, 22 whether it's there, if we can't measure it but it's possible, ! 23 the effect of that as compared to the dose that was inside of 24 the plants should be strikingly different. 67 1 Q So that regardless of whether there may be some 2 element of exposure in the Valley generally, infinitesimally 3 small, do you not say? 4 A Yes, sir. 5 0 You would expect it to be much higher in the place 6 where'people would be getting activity day after day exposure? 7 A Moreso than that because the dose response curve is 8 not a straight line. It doesn't mean as you go up the dose 9 curve, if you've got it at one level and at a higher level 10 you're going to see more, that isn't the way the dose response 11 curve works. It becomes very sharp some place in the dose 12 response curve, it would-be dramatically increased. 13 0 What do you mean by very sharp? 14 A It's no longer a straight line and it's curved 15 upward, a small increase in dose wiil produce more than just 16 that little increase related to a small increase in exposure. 17 It becomes multiplied. We call it geometrically increased 18 rather than linearly related. 19 Q So that at a level of very low exposure it may be 20 relatively flat? 21 A Yes. 22 Q And then at some level it shoots up? 23 A That's right. So the effect is greater than the 24 proportional increase in exposure. 68 1 Q What conclusion -- you told us before something 2 about how exposure diminished with distance from this source 3 of exposure? \ 4 'A Yes, sir. 5 Q All right. You discussed that briefly with Mr. 6 Carr, I believe, did you not? 7 A Yes, sir. 8 Q What did you mean by that? 9 A If -- as you go away from the source, the concentra 10 tion diminished more than -- 11 MR. CARR; Your Honor, this is repetitious. Counsel 12 and the witness discussed this themselves. I object to it. 13 It's repetitious of what he's testified to yesterday. 14 THE COURT: Objection sustained. It is repetitious. 15 BY MR. HEINEMAN: 16 Q Doctor, what conclusion would you reach by virtue of 17 the fact that the cardiovascular disease inside the Nitro 18 plant and in the Kanawha Valley, in general, are approximately 19 the same? 20 A The dioxin had no effect on the population inside of 21 the plant. 22 Q Did Marian Moses reach the same conclusion? 23 A Yes, sir. 24 Q Sir, let me hand you what's been marked as 69 1 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1494, which is something Mr. Carr discussed 2 with you. Would you agree with me, sir, that 1494B is a 3 blowup of a couple of paragraphs on the second page of that 4 Exhibit? 5 A Yes, sir. j 6 Q Okay. Now, it's -- this is a blowup of the third 7 and the fifth paragraph, correct? 8 A Yes, sir. 9 Q Now, this document, as I recall from your examina 10 tion by Mr. Carr, is a work description for dismantling the 11 residue equipment in Department 237, is it not, sir? 12 A Yes, sir. 13 Q And this was repaired in September 30th, 1983, by 14 a Mr. J. Linn, L-I-N-N ? 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Q I think you said he was somebody at the plant? 17 A Yes, sir. 18 Q That's at theKrummrich plant. And if you look at 19 Page 2 of the Exhibit which is actually the third page of the 20 Exhibit, you see the work description that is requested, do 21 you not, sir? 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q And it saysremove theinsulation from the residue 24 equipment in Department 237? x 70 1 A Yes, sir. 2 0 The residue equipment consists of the still pot, 3 the residue tank, the residue pump, the re-boiler pump and 4 the associated piping,correct? 5 A Yes, sir. 6 Q Now, the residue equipment, sir, and the still 7 column -- isn't that the stuff that the -- 8 MR. CARR: Leading question, your Honor. 9 THE COURT: Objection sustained. Rephrase it, 10 please. 11 BY MR. HEINEMAN: 12 0 Where is that located to your knowledge in connection 13 with the still column itself? 14 A Well, it's related to -- that's the -- when we take 15 off the product and what we have left is the reside and that's 16 the cleaning up of this residue equipment, the final throw 17 aways is what this is concerned with. 18 0 That's the still pot at the bottom? 19 A Right. 20 0 In the residue tank? 21 A Right. 22 0 And that's what's left after -- 23 A The property is taken out. 24 Q The property is taken out.Now, the warnings that 71 1 are contained here, sir, are contained here are they not? 2 Part of the warnings contained in this paragraph here? 3 A Yes, sir. 4 Q "Due to the possibility of exposure to the above 5 chemicals rubber shoes, rubber gloves and disposal coveralls 6 must be worn in addition to the normal plant safety clothing." 7 Correct? 8 A Yes, sir.' 9 Q Also respirators, rubber gloves, rubber shoes, 10 that sort of thing, correct? . 11 A Yes, sir. 12 0 Now, didn't you tell us what it was that Monsanto 13 requires the people in the plant to wear when they were 14 cleaning up a spill? 15 A Yes, sir, we told them to use equipment much as 16 described in that second paragraph. 17 Q That would be. a spill of chlorinated phenol? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q And the purpose of that is what, sir? 20 A Primarily to keep it off of their skin. These 21 materials are very irritating and will produce a burn if you 22 get it on your skin. And obviously we don't want them to get 23 it in their eyes, nor do we want them to have some way of 24 getting the stuff into their lungs. 72 1 Q Now, the people that were going to do this job were 2 not going to be exposed just to that -- 3 MR. CARR: Your Honor, I object to the leading form 4 of the question. 5 THE COURT: Objection sustained. 6 BY MR. HEINEMAN: 7 Q Would they be exposed, sir, to the material being 8 produced and coming out of the still in the process? 9 A No, sir. 10 Q What is it that these people might be exposed to? 11 A These here? 12 0 Yes, in this document. 13 A Yes, those people are going to be working in a 14 place where the dioxin would be concentrated as opposed to 15 the general work inside the plant. Their chance of being 16 exposed to dioxin is much more than can be found in any other 17 circumstance. 18 0 Because they're going to do what? 19 A Because they're going to dismantle these residue 20 areas. The residue equipment consisting of the pot, the tank 21 and the boiler pump. 22 THE COURT: Is this a good point to break for lunch? 23 MR. HEINEMAN: Yes, sir, be fine. 24 THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, we'll take a 73 1 break at this time for lunch. Resume again at one o'clock. 2 I would remind you of the admonishments I made to you, that 3 will apply during this break also. 4 COURT RECESSED: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 74 1 STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) SS 2 COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR ) 3 4 5 6 I, PAMELA L. SIMPSON, C.S.R., Official Court Reporter 7 in and for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, and the Official 8 Court Reporter who transcribed the above-styled cause had on 9 July 23, 1985, do hereby certify that the foregoing transcript 10 of proceedings is a true, correct and complete transcript of 11 the proceedings had on said date. 12 DATED this day of July, 1985. 13 14 15 16 17 PAMELA L. SIMPSON//Cn.Sc.RD. Official Court Reporter 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 75 1 STATE OF ILLINOIS 2 COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR 3 ) ) SS. ) 4 5 6 7 I, RICHARD P. GOLDENHERSH, Circuit Judge in and for 8 the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, hereby certify that the above 9 is a true and correct transcript of the proceedings had in the 10 case FRANCES E. KEMNER, et al. vs. MONSANTO COMPANY, Cause 11 No. 80-L-970, heard on July 23, 1985. 12 DATED this day of July, 1985. 13 14 ENTER: 15 16 17 RICHARD P. GOLDE Circuit Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 76