Document Lo4mYpyja6gNrzzjx12d38e6q

1 i j i IN THE CIRCUIT COURT i TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF ILLINOIS * ST. CLAIR COUNTY i2 ! 3 FRANCES E. KEMNER, et al. ) { l ) \4 Plaintiffs, ) i) i 5 VS. ) NOs 80-L-970 i) 6 MONSANTO COMPANY, ) ) 7 Defendant. ) 8 9 10 11 O ! 12 13 ti S 14 ( 1 15 16 17 | 18 i 19 j 20 21 1 22 fc-4 SI 23 24 i REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS Before the HON. RICHARD P. GOLDENHERSH JURY TRIAL March 6, 1986 APPEARANCES: Mr. Rex Carr Mr. Jerome Seigfreid On Behalf of the Plaintiffs; Mr. Kenneth Heineman Mr. Joseph Nassif On Behalf of the Defendant. Debra M. Musielak, CSR, CM Official Court Reporter 1 1 INDEX 2 PAGE WITNESSES CALLED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT t 3 1# RAYMOND SUSKIND 4 Cross Examination.................... 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 EXHIBITS Page Eaa& 2 Identified 3 EXHIBITS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT 4 Defendant's Exhibit No.s 1753 (W. Virginia affidavit) . 4 # 5 5 1754 (11/18/55 report) . 61 # m 62 1755 (7/1/54 report) m . 77 77 6 1756 (12/1/55 report) . 92 m 94 1757 (12/55 memo) # m .120 121 7 1758 (Kelly memo) * * .132 134 1759 (1/56 survey) . . + .135 * 137 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 BE IT REMEMBERED, that on the 6th day of March, 2 1986, the same being one of the regular judicial days of said 3 court, the above-styled cause came on regularly for hearing 4 before the HONORABLE RICHARD P. GOLDENHERSH, one of the 5 Judges at the St. Clair County Building, 10 Public Square, in 6 the City of Belleville, County of St. Clair, State of 7 Illinois. Whereupon the following proceedings were had: 3 COURT CONVENED: 9 THE COURT: Good morning. 10 11 R&YMflMP .SUSKIm 12 (being called as a witness on behalf of the Defendant, having 13 been previously sworn, having resumed the stand, continued to 14 testify as follows) 15 CROSS EXAMINATION 16 BY MR. REX CARR 17 Q. Dr. Suskind, we have previously discussed these 36 18 persons that you followed over the period of four years up to 19 1953, have we not, sir? 20 A. Yes, we have. 21 Q. And, you did indeed -- you've told us here earlier 22 that you did not follow those persons, have you not, sir? 23 A. The 36? 24 Q. Yes. 2 1 A. We did have an opportunity to examine some of them 2 in 1979. 3 Q. No, no, no. I'm talking about up to *53, you've, 4 told us here earlier that from *49 to *53 that you did not 5 follow those 36 persons? 6 A. Except in 1950 we did. In 1950 we followed up four 7 plus two of the original 49, yes. 8 Q, But in your -- if you refer to Plaintiff's Exhibit 9 1751, you say here that 36 persons were followed over a 10 period of four years? 11 A. I didn't follow the 36, sir. 12 Q. I think that's what you stated previously that you 13 did not follow the 36? 14 A. I followed some of them. 15 Q. Now, Doctor, you have made the statement here and 16 you have made the statement -- well, for that matter, under 17 oath, that you followed these 36, by here I mean in Exhibit 18 1727, you make the statement that -- 19 A. I didn't say I followed, sir. It says 36 persons 20 were followed. Doesn't use the word I. 21 G. Well, Doctor, you have sworn in other places that 22 you followed, did you not? 23 A. No, I don't think so. 24 Q. Sir? 3 1 A. No, 2 THE COURT: I'm sorry; Doctor, I didn't hear your 3 answer 4 A, No, sir. 5 THE COURT: Thank you. 6 Q. (by Hr. Carr) Doctor, you recall you gave an 7 affidavit in the case in the Federal Court in Charleston, 8 West Virginia, that was being tried there? Mark this as an 9 exhibit. 10 MR. CARR: This is the only copy I have here this 11 morning, counsel, so -- the pertinent portion is where the 12 yellow tab is, Counsel, to save you some time. 13 THE COURT: What's the number on that, Mr. 14 Heineman? 15 MR. NASSIF: 1753. 16 THE COURT: Thank you. 17 Q. (by Mr. Carr) Doctor, you recognize your signature 18 on this affidavit that's part of 1753, do you not? 19 A. Yes, I do. 20 Q. You recognize it as an affidavit that you made in 21 the case of the Estate of James Atkins vs. Monsanto Company 22 in the Federal Court in the Southern District of West 23 Virginia at Charleston, do you not, sir? 24 A. Yes, I do. 4 1 Q. Doctor, if you'll turn -- 2 MR. CARR; Your Honorf may I offer this exhibit 3 into evidence, if it please the Court? 4 THE COURT: Any objections? 5 MR. HEINEMAN: One moment, Your Honor. I don't 6 have any objection. 7 THE COURT: All right. It's admitted without 8 objection. 9 Q. (by Mr. Carr) Doctor, turning to the page with the 10 yellow tab, in the bottom of Paragraph 6, I'd like you to 11 read out loud, if you would, that last paragraph, that last 12 sentence in Paragraph 6, 13 A. It reads, "Over the next four years, I, along with 14 colleagues in the Kettering Laboratory, followed the health 15 effects of 37 of the Monsanto workers." 16 Q. Doctor, that is your statement under oath, is it 17 not? 18 A. It is my statement, sir, yes. 19 Q. And you said in that statement under oath that, I, 20 along with colleagues, followed these 37 workers, did you 21 not, sir? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And that is in direct contradiction to what you 24 said this morning and the day before yesterday, is it not, 5 1 sir? 2 A. No, 3 Q. Doctor, did you not say this morning before I gave 4 you the affidavit that you did not follow these workers? 5 A, Personally, yes, 6 Q, And do you not say here I followed these workers? 7 A, I, along with colleagues of the Kettering 8 Laboratory. 9 Q. Along with, you and your colleagues at the 10 Kettering Laboratory followed the health effects of these 37 11 workers, did you not say that, sir? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. You said I followed them, didn't you, sir? 14 A. Yes, 15 Q. That is in direct contradiction? 16 A. No, sir. 17 Q. Sir? 18 A, No, sir. * 19 Q. Doctor, is this some kind of new speak? Did you 20 tell us before I showed you the affidavit that you did 21 not follow these workers? 22 A. No, it's not. 23 Q. Didn't you tell us that? 24 A. No, it isn't a contradiction. 6 1 Q. Excuse me. Did you not say that when X started 2 this examination this morning of you, and have you not said 3 it the day before yesterday that X did not follow these 4 workers? Did you not say that? 5 A. Personally, right. 6 Q. And in this affidavit you say I followed these 7 workers, don't you, sir? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Now, Doctor, do you see a statement I did not 10 follow the workers is directly contrary to the statement I 11 followed the workers? 12 A. No, sir. 13 Q. You don't see any contradiction between those two 14 statements, I did not follow workers, I did follow the 15 workers? 16 A. No, if I can explain -- 17 Q. Doctor, it calls for no explanation. 18 A. Yes, it does, sir. 19 Q. It's like you are saying the other day that the 20 word yes means no, isn't that what you are saying, Doctor? 21 A. No, sir. 22 Q. It's not like what you said the day before 23 yesterday, yes means no? 24 A. No, sir. 7 1 Q. Doctor, if I tell you I gave you this pin and then 2 ten minutes later I say I did not give you this pin, do you 3 consider that that is a contradictive statement? 4 A. No, sir* 5 Q. You don't consider that contradictive.All right. 6 Doctor, you also -- we have been discussing Plaintiff's 1752, 7 do you have 17 -- just one moment, Doctor. You gave that 8 affidavit in the Federal Court for a particular purpose and 9 at the request of the Monsanto attorneys in that case, did 10 you not, sir? 11 A. Yes, I believe so. 12 Q. Yes, the plaintiffs in that case wanted something 13 of the Court and the defendant in that case, Monsanto wanted 14 not to give them that something, and Monsanto attorneys came 15 to you and asked for an affidavit and that affidavit you have 16 in front of you is the affidavit you gave, is it not, sir? 17 A. Yes, it is, 18 Q. And they used that affidavit for their purposes to 19 defeat the request of the Monsanto workers, did they not, 20 sir? 21 A, No, sir. 22 Q. They didn't use that affidavit at all? 23 A. They used it, but not -- this wasn't part of the 24 actual trial, sir. 8 1 Q. Excuse me* Did they use that affidavit to defeat 2 the request of the workers in that case? 3 A. No, sir, not to my knowledge. 4 Q. Did they just use that affidavit just as exercise 5 of how to write affidavits? 6 A. This was to identify my expertise, sir, 7 Q. Doctor, you know it was more than that, it was -- B That's what it was for, sir, if you look through it, that's 9 what it's for. Doctor, it was for the purpose of defeating 10 their request? 11 A. Absolutely not, sir. 12 Q. Oh, Doctor, 13 A, If you look through this, this simply identifies my 14 expertise and my experience. That's all it does, and my CV 15 is attached to it, 16 Q. I know your CV is attached to it. 17 A. What it does, sir* -- 18 Q, Excuse me, Doctor, let me ask you the question, 19 please. 20 A. I'm simply responding to your question, sir. 21 Q. I submit you are not. Doctor, read the last -- if 22 you want to -- the last half dozen statements in which you 23 are resisting giving out the release of this morbidity study 24 on your part. You say premature release of any part of my 9 1 study will in all probability render the study unpublishable, 2 do you not? 3 A. I do, and that was true. 4 Q. Excuse me. Do you not say, I state from my own 5 personal knowledge and based upon personal experience that 6 the most prestigious journal, such as the Journal of American 7 Medical.Association and New England Journal of Medicine 8 refuse for publication any studies which have been released 9 prior to submission for publication. Don't you say that, 10 sir? 11 A. I do, sir. 12 Q. And don't you say again that I have no plans to 13 testify voluntarily on behalf of either plaintiffs or 14 defendant's in the within lawsuit and would refuse any 15 proffered offer of compensation as an expert at least unless 16 my study was published prior to the trial, and I was 17 therefore confident of validity of my results and confident 18 that publication would not be jeopardized. I would resist 19 the disclosure or use of my study by either plaintiff or 20 defendant prior to the time I released the final version of 21 the study for publication. Do you not say that, sir? 22 A. I do, sir. 23 Q. And, Doctor, that's Paragraph 20, and Paragraph 19 24 tells -- discusses that this study itself will be one of 10 1 considerable significance and interest and premature 2 publication would have an adverse effect on your reputation, 3 isn't that what you say? 4 A. I do indeed* 5 Q. Paragraph 18 says again, submission for publication 6 will provide a further check upon the reliability of my study 7 conclusions. Paragraph 17 says premature release of any part 8 of my study will render the study unpublishable. 16 -- 9 Paragraph 16 says, I do not consider my tentative study to be 1G supportable without further analysis. Release of my 11 tentative study results will inevitably result in public 12 debate* It is anticipatable that the company will attempt to 13 attack the credibility of conclusions unfavorable to its 14 position, and the plaintiffs will likewise seek to cast 15 doubt. Paragraph 15 you discussed meeting with the 16 representatives of NIHS and drafting the document. Paragraph 17 14 talks about the data in the preliminary draft. Paragraph 18 13 discusses the epidemiological study that you performed. 19 Paragraph 12 talks about the medical examinations on the 20 participants including the plaintiffs. Paragraph 11 talks 21 about the purpose of the study was to ascertain the long-term 22 health effects of exposure to 2,4,5-T. Paragraph 10 talk3 23 about the study protocol which you developed. Paragraph 9 24 talks about you and Monsanto working together to conduct the 11 1 study. Paragraph 8 talks about your continued interest in 2 the long-term health effects of 2,4,5-T going back to 1949. 3 Paragraph 7 talks about the clinical examination in 1953. 4 Paragraph 6 talks about the Nitro accident and your following 5 these workers up to 1953. Paragraph 5 talks about the 6 accident that occur. Paragraph 4 talks about the accident 7 that occurred. Paragraph 3 talks about your tenure at the 8 University of Oregon, Paragraph 2 talks about your tour as a 9 medical officer, and Paragraph 1 talks about your employment 10 from *69 to present. 11 Now, Doctor, was not -- have I not accurately 12 summarized all of the paragraphs of this affidavit, sir? 13 A. I believe you have. 14 Q. And isn't the affidavit for the purpose of and used 15 so that you would not be required by the Court to turn over 16 to the Plaintiffs the results of your so-called morbidity 17 study? 18 A. It is a study-- 19 MR. HEINEMAN: Objection, Your Honor. May counsel 20 approach the bench? 21 (The following Side Bar conversation was had outside the 22 hearing of the jury.) 23 MR. HEINEMAN: Your Honor, I think that last 24 question is misleading because I think if I'm not mistaken 12 1 that this document was prepared and drafted by the University 2 of Cincinnati physicians, excuse me, physicians, lawyers. 3 THE COURT: Yeah, I know what you mean. 4 MR. HEINEMAN: University of Cincinnati lawyers to 5 prevent his disclosure of this data to anybody, whether it be 6 the Plaintiffs or the Defendant or anybody else. And I think 1 that became clear from what Mr. Carr read from it and, 8 therefore, I object to that question as being misleading. 9 MR. CARR; The purpose of the question, the 10 examination, is to attack the statement that this was not 11 used to prevent publication of the data. He said that it was 12 only to show his CV, to show his credentials. The purpose of 13 all of those questions that I just asked is for the purpose 14 of showing that again is not telling the truth. 15 MR. HEINEMAN: Well, then there should be certainly 16 no reason why you shouldn't preface it by saying -- 17 THE COURT: Let me look at the affidavit, I haven't 18 seen it. 19 MR. HEINEMAN: Either to the -- for the purpose of 20 doing it either to the Plaintiff or to the Defendant. 21 THE COURT: I think that was read. 22 MR. CARR: Indeed, I read it. 23 THE COURT: That paragraph was read, that was one 24 of the things read before. 13 1 THE COURT: I think whether it's prepared by the 2 University of Cincinnati attorneys or whether it's prepared 3 by Monsanto attorneys, the point is the use of it. I think 4 who actually prepares it is irrelevant. 5 MR. CARR: Monsanto and the witness has agreed that 6 it was used by Monsanto. 7 MR, HEINEMAN: I think the fact of the matter is, 8 Your Honor, that it was -- and X can't answer for what 9 happened at Nitro. All I can say is that to my recollection 10 a similar affidavit, similar position was taken by the 11 University of Cincinnati on behalf of Dr. Suskind in the 12 Madison County cases where Mr. Pratt was seeking to obtain 13 data prior to the publication of the morbidity study. 14 THE COURT: Right, and I got copies of that, too, 15 and I -- when I got involved in the discovery questions that 16 were submitted similar to that, but the point is whether it 17 was done by the University attorneys with Monsanto or whether 18 Monsanto utilised their position is really not -- it's a 19 tangent to the way that Mr. Carr's been asking the 20 questions. I don't think it's misleading, and your objection 21 is overruled. 22 (The following proceedings were had in open court.) 23 Q. (by Mr. Carr) Doctor, this affidavit was not used 24 to illustrate your credentials, it was used in order t o - 14 1 prevent the release of the data of your morbidity study, was 2 it not, sir? 3 A. It was one of the things that it did, sir* 4 Q. Isn't that the purpose of the affidavit, sir, to 5 prevent the release of your morbidity study? 6 A* That was one of them, sir, yes. 7 Q. What other purpose was there as shown by this 8 affidavit, sir? 9 A. Well, to identify my expertise and the fact that I 10 had done a morbidity study, sir, and the importance of that 11 morbidity study. 12 Q. Doctor, was there any -- have you finished? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Was there any question but what -- that you 15 testified in that case in the Nitro case at the request of 16 Monsanto and relating to that morbidity study when they put 17 on their defense, under the terms of the contract that you 18 had with them, sir? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Yes? 21 A. I testified after the publication of that paper, 22 sir 23 Q. Indeed you did, Doctor. 24 A. Indeed I did. 15 1 Q, In behalf of the defendant, did you not,' sir? 2 A. And I testified as an expert witness. 3 Q. Excuse me. In behalf of the defendant, did you 4 not, sir? 5 A. Yes, sir, as an expert witness. 6 Q. And under the terms of that 1979 contract that we 7 have previously referred to, isn't that correct also? 8 A. At my discretion, sir. 9 Q. Excuse me, dir, isn't it also correct that you 10 testified under the terms of that 1979 contract? 11 A. Yes, sir. 12 Q. Yes. 13 A. At my discretion. 14 MR. CARR: Your Honor, could the jury be instructed 15 to disregard the continued volunteered statement of Dr. 16 Suskind? 17 MR. HEINEMAN: May I object to that on the basis 18 that the contract says it's at his discretion, 19 MR. CARR: Then that includes under the question 20 that I asked, doesn't it, sir? 21 THE COURT: Objection is overruled, That was a 22 volunteered statement. It was not responsive to the 23 question. The jury is ordered to disregard it. Doctor, 24 please confine your answers in the future to the question 16 1 that's asked 2 A. Yes, sir* 3 Q. (by Mr. Carr) Doctor, for whatever purposes this 4 affidavit was utilized, you swore at that time that you had 5 followed these workers, did you not, sir? 6 A. He indicated that we had, yes. 7 Q. Now, Doctor, did you indicate that you had, or did 8 you say under oath I along with my colleagues followed these 9 workers? 10 A. Yes, 11 Q. Yes what, sir? 12 A. That's what the affidavit says. 13 Q. My question gave you an alternative. VThich 14 alternative, sir, did you just indicate it or did you in fact 15 say I told these health effects of these workers? 16 A. It's stated as I followed, I and my colleagues 17 followed. 18 Q. And that's what you indeed said, I followed, didn't 19 you, sir? 20 A. Yes, it did does. 21 Q. And you wanted the Court to believe that at that 22 time, did you not, sir? 23 A. That is a description of what I believed should be 24 known, sir. 17 I Q. Dr. Suskind, that isn't what X asked you. I asked 2 you whether or not you wanted the Court to believe what you 3 said at that time? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. You expected the Court to rely upon the absolute 6 truthfulness of what you said at that time, is that not 7 correct? 8 A. That was the truth. 9 Q. Sir? 10 A. That was the truth, sir. 11 Q. My question is you expected the Court and wanted 12 the Court to rely upon the absolute truthfulness of what you 13 said in that affidavit, isn't that correct, sir? 14 A. That's true, right. 15 Q. Just as when you said here today and day before 16 yesterday that I did not follow these workers, you want this 17 Court, you wanted this Court to believe and rely upon the 18 absolute truthfulness of that statement? 19 A. That's true, sir. 20 Q. And whatever the particular climate that appears, 21 you say what you want a particular Court at a particular 22 point in time, what you want that Court to believe, is that 23 what you -- 24 A. Absolutely not, sir. 18 1 Q. Isn't that what you've done, sir? 2 A. No, sir, 3 Q. And you said in the Nitro case, X followed the 4 workers because you wanted the Court to believe that, you 5 said in this case that you did not follow the workers because 6 you wanted this Court to believe that statement, isn't that 7 what you have said here, sir? 3 A, No, sir, 9 Q. Did you want the Nitro Court to believe what you 10 said there, sir? 11 A, Yes, sir, 12 Q, And did you say something different there than what 13 you said here, sir? 14 A. No, sir, 15 Q. Doctor, are you saying that you told the Court in 16 Nitro that you did not follow the workers or did you tell the 17 Court in Nitro that you did follow the workers? 18 A. We said that we did. 19 Q. And you told the Court here that you did not follow 20 the workers, didn't you, sir? 21 A. Yes, we did. 22 Q. All right. Now, Doctor, you wanted us to believe 23 that you did not follow the workers, correct, sir? 24 A, No. 19 1 Q. Then why did you say it if you didn't want us to 2 believe it? 3 A. Because it needs an explanation, sir. 4 Q. Didn't you just -- 5 A. Let me finish. 6 Q. Doctor, let me finish my question, sir. Didn't you 7 just -- 8 A. You are asking two questions. 9 MR. CARR: Your Honor, would you ask the witness to 10 refrain from answering until I finish my question? 11 THE COURT: Doctor, the only way you can respond to 12 the question is as I asked you previously is if you hear the 13 whole question. Please wait until it's finished. 14 A. Yes, sir. 15 Q. (by Mr. Carr) Doctor, did you just not tell us a 16 moment ago that you wanted us to believe that you did not 17 follow these workers? 18 A. Yes, I did. 19 Q. And you wanted the Nitro Court to believe -- the 20 Federal Court to believe that you did follow the workers, 21 isn't that correct, sir? 22 A. Wo, sir. 23 Q. Didn't you just tell us a moment ago that you 24 wanted the Nitro Court to believe that you did follow the 20 55 1 and the non-Bxposed? By no strBtch of thB imagination. 2 3 CDefendant Monsanto's Exhibit 1709 mas markBd 4 For identification by thB court reporter.!) 5 6 CBy Mr. Heineman? Next, Doctor, I havB 7 Defendant's Exhibit 1709, which is a copy of Plaintiff's B Exhibit 1474, which is in evidence. I'd likB to ask you do B you agreB with the information contained in this exhibit? 10 A Well, the same problem of titlB can be applied to 11 this exhibit, and that is that it really misrepresents thB 12 numbers of cancers from any cite because of the way thB 13 computer print-out was programmed and the lumping of thB 14 tumors and cancers together, and ,the -putting thB unaxpased 15 people with cancer which was rBportBd by us into the exposed IB group with cancer. So that this omitted number is very 17 inaccurate. 18 MR. CARR: I'm sorry, Dr. Suskind, but I can't IB hear you, or I don't know what you't b -doing. 20 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. What I 'm saying is 21 that -- 22 MR. CARR: I Just wanted to s b b what you put the 23 mark o n . 24 THE WITNESS: 13 was thB number of cancers 55 1 a 3 4 5 6 7 B 3 10 11 IE la in is IB 17 IB 13 ao ai aa 23 a4 omitted, v MR. CARR: Thank you. Thank you. THE WITNESS: I'm writing that bBcausB I think,, that's an eraneous conclusion and is very misleading. Q CBy Mr. Hsinaman? New -- A Now, asI indicated to you, there uiBre two cancBrs, skin cancers that the physician didn't pick up on history, and if you add to that, if you add to that, the basal cell epithelioma, which we did pick up, and our biostatustician put them in another category, if you add them to that, what you havB is an additional four mors skin cancers. That's all. Four mare skin cancers. We ask, well, is that significant whBn it comes to thB relationship association between exposure and skin cancer. ThB answer is no, it's not significant. When you add fourmore to that, you gBt 18 instead of 13. That's still not significant. What is most important is that we don't havB in this tablB hBre, thB table with thB sronsous title, we don't have in harB any mention of age. nB of the things that we did rBfBr to BarliBr in our testimony, Mr. Hsineman asked-me about a paper which I wrote about pre-malignant and malignant lBsians af ths skin, which was given at a meeting of thB Association for the 57 v 1 Advancement oF Science, and published in a bock. But in 2 that, the First part oF it is about the aFFect oF sunlight 3 on skin and the aFFect oF aging on skin with respBct to skin 4 cancBr. 5 Statistics arB some oF thB most -- some oF the G bBst that uie have about non melanoma in relation to 7 latitude, in relation to insolation, i-n-s-o-l-a-t-i-o-n, 8 which means the degreB oF exposure or tha severity oF the 9 exposure to actinic radiation or sunlight. There1s a direct 10 relationship between the amount oF exposure to sunlight, the 11 age of the individual and the coloration oF the skin. 12 Coloration oF thB skin. 13 In our report because -- we separated the non 14 Caucasians and wb didn't analyze that data because we would 15 have had to analyze thBm separately,-and there were too Few ig oF thBm. So we arB talking about Caucasian males hBre, 17 Bsssntially. In Caucasian malBS it's very w b II known about IB the relationship oF actinic radiation and agB to the 19 Frequency oF skin cancer. TCOD is not one oF thosB 20 substances that neither initiates qr promotes skin cancer, 21 Dr. Suskind, what about -- therB is a, First item 22 there talks about bladder cancers. Do you see that, sir? 23 A Yes. 24 Dkay. ArB therB three omitted bladder cancers in 5B 1 your analysis? v H A Wb II, two of them, Mr. Uolz, Mr. Hill, had bladder 3 tumors, proven bladder tumors. Mr. Reynolds had a bladder 4 cancer, but he was unexposed. So that this thres additional 5 bladder cancers is eroneous among the BxposBd. 6 How many bladder cancers were omitted? 7 A There uers none omitted to my knowledge. UJb a included bladder tumors, which is what any person knowing a anything about bladder reactions to chemical agents knows 10 that there are and it could be irritation. Only a few n people got bladder cancBr. SomB of thBm developed tumors is like Mr. Uolz, but they never became cancerous. 13 Q All right, sir. What about thB colon cancBr 14 category? 15 A Well, herB I think, as I indicated earlier, the IB colon cancer was thB o o b that I think thBy referred to, that 17 is refer to in this as Mr. Scarberry. Mr. Scarberry had,a 10 colon tumor. 19 TherB are adenomas, there are cysts, there are any 20 number of pathological states which are called tumors, which 21 are not cancers of the colon. 22 And -- 23 A So this, I think, comes out, and I think w b 'vb 24 bBen through thB skin cancers, thB prostate cancer and thB 59 1 leukemia is onB individual. The lung cancer omitted is thB 2 same as the colon cancer. It ujas a tumor. And one 3 developes cysts in the lungs, one develops adenomas, one 4 devslops a variety of lesions in the lungs which are not 5 cancerous. 6 Q In your opinion regarding fir. ScarbBrry's colon 7 and lung cancer derived from the medical record Form -- not B the medical record -- 9 A ThB physician's history. 10 Ths physician's history in 1704. ii A Whatever the exhibit number is. Yes, from 1704, 12 on page 21, 22, and 23. 13 Q And what is therB about that physician's history 14 that leads you to that conclusion about Mr. Scarberry? 15 A Well, according to Mr. Scarberry's record the IB physician indicated that when he took a history Mr. 17 Scarberry was askBd havB you aver had cancer. , He said, "No, IB I haven't." He said, "1 had a tumor removed from my lung, 19 and I had a tumor removd from my colon, but it wasn't 20 cancer. The doctor told me so." That's in fir. ScarbBrry's 21 record. 22 Q All right, sir. Thank you, Dr. Suskind. I 'd likB 23 to ask you next, if I may, with respect to thB Krumrich 24 Plant. Are you all right? Okay. 60 1 MR. HEINEMAN: Your Honor, at this timB*us would E offer Defendant's Exhibits 170B and 1703 into BvidencB. 3 THE COURT: Okay. Any objBctions? 4 MR. CARR: NonB, your Honor. 5 THE COURT: They're both admitted without 6 objection. UlhilB she's looking for that, gentleman, could 7 you approach the bench for a minutB please. a a (Ths following proceedings were had at the bench 10 out of ths hearing and prBsencB of thB Jury:} n 12 THE COURT: At thB Bnd today I 'm going to announce 13 these days off and I 'm not going to announce thB 5th yBt 14 becausB there*s a possibility that we may get him finished 15 before that. If so, wb could usb that day with another 16 witness on the stand. 17 Also in March therB arB two court holidays, the 18 10th, which is thB primary election day, and thB 2Bth, which IS is Good Friday. So thB lBth and the 2Bth* arB court 20 holidays. ThB courthouse will be closed on both of thosB 21 days. That's in addition to thB ones that wb had talked 22 about in chambers. 23 ' MR. HEINEMAN: Dkay. 24 THE COURT: I haven't forgotten about thB 5th, but 61 1 I'm not going to announce it yBt. a 3 CThB Following proceedings were had in thB 4 presBncB and hearing of thB jury:} 5 6 CBy Mr. HBinBrnanD Dr. Suskind, in connection with 7 thB Krumrich Plant, are you Familiar with thB William G. a Krumrich Plant in Souget, Illinois? 9 A Yes, I am. 10 Did you have occasion to perform any mark with 11 respect to that plant, sir? is A Yes, I did. 13 Q I wonder if you'd tell us what it was that you 14 did. 15 A Sometime in the summer or early Fall of 1979 Dr. IB George Roush, who is the mBdical director d F Monsanto, 17 called me on thB phone and indicated that he would likB to IB have a health status examination d F workers who were exposed 19 to pentachlorophBnol at SougBt, and those who were exposed 20 tD orthochlorophenol and parachlorophenol synthesis, as w b II 21 as those who wBre BxposBd to bath. They had records of 22 chloracnB among the workers in pentachlorophBnol, and they 23 wanted some assessment From somebody who knew a little bit 24 about chloracne, and thB relationship to exposure to examine 62 1 these individuals. 2 So in October of 1373 me put a small tBam together 3 and uie examined 106 markers in that plant. UIb actually 4 interviewed 115, but 106 completed their physical 5 examination and thBir laboratory studies. 6 Dr. Suskind, was that an epidemeological study? 7 A No, it mas not, sir. UIb did not have a control 8 group. What me mere simply doing is to determine what thB 8 current health status mas of thesB individuals at the time, 10* with particular attention to thBir skin problems. 11 Ule thought it mould be a good idea since w b were 12 there that we could also do some laboratory studies as w b II. 13 So we got blood and urine For examination, and w b did that. 14 Q UJas thBrB any information available, sir, at that 15 time with respect to the toxicity oF pBntachlorophBnol, 16 orthochlarophBnal and parachlorophBnal themselves? 17 A TherB mas somB. By 1373 it mas known that 18 pentachlorophenol would causa chloracnB. That mas known. ia Exposure to it in a variety of ways. -That very high dosBS, 20 high exposure mould actually lBad to severB problems, 21 central nervous system problems, respiratory difficulties, 22 sweating, and including coma From thB central nervous system * 23 effects, and even dBath as a result of heavy exposure to 24 pentachlorophenol. 63 1 But in most instances the pBoplB who had soma 5 contact uiith 10 percent solutions of pentachlarophanol, for 3 example, would develop skin irritation or respiratory 4 irritation. Bb Iow 11 percent there uias usually none. There 5 werB even occasional reports of so called allergic 6 synthetization pBntachlorophenol. 7 UJith rBspBct to ortho and parachlorophenol, at the 8 time there was very little known about it, except that it 3 was relatively innocuous. These were relatively innocuous 10 materials, and that they might with sufficient exposure 11 cause irritaian and Bven thBrB were reports of allergic 12 reactions to them. 13 The pBntachlorophenol at that time, I believe, it 14 was known that thB contaminants, thB hepta, pBnta, and octa 15 -- I mBan penta -- sorry -- hBxa, hepta, the 6th, 7th, and IB actachlorinated dioxins. 17 All right. Did you have any information at that 18 timB as to whether or not thBre were any tBtra dioxins found 13 in pBntachlorophenol? 20 A Yb s . Those people who were doing thB analyses did 21 not find any tetrachlorinatBd dioxins in pBntachlorophenol. 22 They found the hexa and thB hepta, and the actachlorinated 23 phenols. 24 Now, can you tBll us in general terms, sir, how j 64 1 you went about conducting this clinical survey? 2 A- Well, there ware 115 persons uiho volunteered, and 3 as thB medical department, which was a very efficient onB, I 4 believe, set up a schedule for us to do examinations. U1b 5 did a clinical examination and thBn drew blood and gat urine 6 for laboratory studies. 7 Did you administer a questionnaire? a A UJb had an interview form vBry. much likB that which 9 we used in Nitra, which provided us with thB demographic 10 information, that is their sex, and age, and ethnic origin 11 and marital status, and so on, as w b II as their occupational 12 histories and hygBnic histories, and family histories of 13 illness, and thBir personal history of illness and thBn a 14 section on thB medical examination itself, 15 16 COBfBndant Monsanto's Exhibit 1710 was marked 17 for identification by the court rBportB.D 10 \ 19 CBy Mr. HeinBmanD Lst ms hand you, sir, what's 20 been marked as Defendant's Exhibit 1710 and ask you to 21 examine that and .identify it for us, pleasB. 22 A 1710 is a rBplica of thB examination form, 23 including the informed consent, which wb used in the 24 examination of workers at the Krumrich Plant. 65 1 Q Souj, who uras it that uiBnt down and did this 2 examination? 3 A Veil, us had two nursBs mho did the interviewing, 4 and ins had tuo dermatologists besides myself mho hBlpsd out 5 in thB phtpical examinations. G 5Jhat about thB laboratory work that bias donB? 7 A ThB laboratory -- the gathering oF thB samples For B the lab uinrk rnsre donB by a representative oF Medpath uiho 9 cams specifically to do that. So that he essentially 10 collectedthe -- collected the urine in the blood and 11 packaged Bm For shipment to thB laboratory, to the MBdpath 12 laboratory 13 Here any records available to you when you 14 conducted this? 15 A Yes, thBrB biBre. As a matter oF Fact they merB 16 very useFcl. ThB medical department's clinical records uierB 17 available. ThB workers uiBre available. ThB saFety records ia mere avai&ble. 19 Q Soui can you tell us something about thB population 20 that you ^udied an that occasion, sir? 21 A Tes. As I say, there uierB 106 persons uiho 22 completed the examination, six oF those actually uiBrB 23 exposed to the ortho and para process alonB, and thBre mere 24 a hundred others uiho uiBrB exposed to the pentachlorophenol SB 1 and/or both thB pBnta and the ortho and parachlorophBnol. s All right. Now what department was penta in and 3 what department was orthD in? 4 A They mere numbered and the departments in which 5 pBnta had bBsn madB, as a matter of fact thB penta process 6 had ceased production about a year before we got there, but 7 the ortho and para process was still being usBd, Dr still B going on. The penta process had bBen in Building 26. The a ortho and para process in 237. And actually the 106 there 10 WBre 44 workers in pentachlor -- who were in n pentachlorophenol alone, and there werB 56 in thB combined 12 penta -- they worked sometimes in penta and sometimes in 13 ortho and parachlorDphenol. 56 of those. And six in thB 14 ortho and parachlarophenol alone. 15 And did you find an incidence of chloracne in the 16 group? 17 A Yb s , w b did. During our examination we found that IB 65 percent of thB group had a history of chloracnB, and that 19 42 percent still had some chloracne, but when we got thBrB 20 w b found that of that 42 percent, if you split thBm up into 21 severity categoris, 23 percent of the 42 pBrcBnt was mild 22 and 13 percent of thB 42 pBrcBnt was moderate. 23 THE CDURT: I 'm sorry, I didn't get the last part. 24 THE WITNESS: Sorry? 57 1 THE COURT: The last Figure you had. 2 THE WITNESS: Okay. SS pBrcBirt of that 42 percent 3 that had chloracne was mild. 4 THE COURT: Right. 5 THE WITNESS: And 13 percent was mcdBrate. 6 THE COURT: Thank you. 7 CBy Nr. HeinBmanD Was there any chloracne, sir, B in thB pecplB who wcrkBd in Department 237 alcnB? 9 A Wb didn't Find any chloracne among the six that we 10 had to examine. There mas one individual who had acne 11 vulgaris, obviously who claimed that ths ortho and para IE process might have aggravated it. But he didn't have 13 chloracne. 14 Now with the chloracnB that you observed at 15 Krumrich, how would you compare that, iF you would plBasB da IB so, ta thB chloracnB that you Found at' Nitro? 17 A Well, I think as one can- by reading thB paper in IB the ANA recognize that oyer -- Bven ovBr thB long term those 19 who w b c b exposed to TCDD had much more severe acns, ThBir SO levBl oF sBVBrity was much greater than we saw. IF ona has 51 the kind oF chloracnB that wb saw in 1949, and even '50, a 52 year aFter the sccident, to persons exposed to 53 pentachlcraphBnal as recent as a yBar before, there was no H4 comparison in its severity. * 68 x 1 Ths chloracns in ths Souget Plant tuas largely of a e mild kind and there were a few who had moderate. But 3 nothing like that which we saw in thB Barly days of ths 4 Nitro Plant. 5 Were there any systemic manifestations reported to B you or observed by you at thB Krumrich Plant? 7 A No, there were none. B How would you characterize ths health of the 9 people whom you examined? 10 A I would characterize them as a rathBr hBalthy 11 group, somB of whom had chloracne, and some of them in the 12 past for thBir chloracne left or werB reassigned to another 13 job in order to avoid any exposure to pentachlorophenol. 14 But as I indicated, the SBVBrity was of a much lower ardBr. 15 The complaints that they had wBrB really only relating to IB their skin. 17 Now we asked them about, as you'll see in the IB outline, we askBd thBm about other symptoms, and whBn ids did 13 that, what we uiBre asing was have you ever bBen bathBrBd 20 with any of the following conditions. That didn't mean 21 recently, it meant have you ever been bothered with things 22 like headaches and high blood pressure, and bronchitis, and 23 so a n . 24 U)e asked about those. There were a Few who said 63 1 yes, they had bronchitis, or occasionally had bronchitis, or 3 occasionally had a headache, and recognized that they uiBrB 3 like other people, likB you and myself who occasionally havB 4 headaches. 5 Did you prepare any kind of a report in connection 6 with this survey? 7 A We did prepare a draft report in 1SB0. This was S kind of a summary of what wb got out of thB computer in the 3 beginning. Wb felt that it was useful for Dr. Roush to know 10 what we found. However, it was only a draft report. 11 LBt me hand you what's been marked as Plaintiff's IS Exhibit 1500, which is in evidence, sir, and ask you to 13 identify that for the jury, please. 14 A This is the report that I 'vb bBen referring to, thB 15 one we sent to Dr. Roush, which is a draft report on thB 16 Krumrich worker examination. 17 Q Have you donB any analysis with respect to the IQ findings from that survey sincB that report was written, 13 sir? SO A Yes, we have. SI And have you provided a summary of that analysis? * ss A I provided a summary of that analysis, yBs. S3 34 70 1 (Defendant Monsanto's Exhibit 1711 was marked 2 For identification by the court rBpartBr.} 3 4 (By Mr. HeinemanD Let me hand you, sir, what's 5 bBBn markBd as Defendant's Exhibit 1711 and ask you to E examine that and Just identify it for me initially, sir. 7 A Yes. This is a summary which wb prepared after we a had re-examined the data -- 9 MR. CARR: May I s b b it, Counsel, before you makB 10 reference to it? 11 MR. HEINEMAN: Oh, sura. I thought you had it. 12 MR. CARR: Wb II, I may have, but I can't s b b 13 through the paper. This is what you gave us yesterday? 14 MR. HEINEMAN: Yes, sir. * 15 THE WITNESS: Wha it does is simply describe -- if IB I may go on. 17 (By Mr. HBineman} Well, first of all'-- IB A Yes, this is a rBplica of that summary. 19 All right. 20 MR. HEINEMAN: Your Honor, at this timB W B 'd movB 21 admission of Defendant's Exhibit 1711. 22 THE COURT: Any objections? 23 MR. CARR: Your Honor, until such timB as wb 24 examine it, I 'd like to withhold abjection on it. 71 1 THE COURT: I'll reserve ruling. 2 MR. HEINEMAN: Your Honor, what I'd likB to do is 3 pass it to the Jury. 4 MR. CARR: UJell, establish when it was made then, 5 Counsel. 6 MR. HEINEMAN: All right. 7 Q CBy Mr. Heineman} UJhen mas it crBatBd? B A Well, this mas -- the analysis has bBsn going on 9 off and on, off and on For about the last yBar or more. The 10 reason For that is that w e 've been busy with many other 11 things, and thB Krumrich inFarmation was to us not a -- one 12 F thB high priority things that they were working with. 13 All right. When was this document itsBlF 14 prepared? 15 A Wb II, this summary was prepared in the last month IB or so. This summary. 17 MR. CARR: Counsel -- 18 MR. HEINEMAN: I beg your pardon? 19 MR. CARR: Could you get a littlB bBttBr datB than 20 the last month or so, thB last 30 days, or last two wBBks, 21 or last wBek. I 'd like to have a bBttBr datB. 22 Q CBy M r . HeinemanD Do you have a morB Firm datB, 23 Doctor? 24 A I c a n 't really givB you an Bxact datB, but I think 73 1 that an approximation mould bo about onB month ago. It 5 could havB been bBforB. It mas actually prBparsd by our 3 biostatustician. 4 Now -- 5 MR. HEINENAN: Your Honor, at this tima ms mould 6 move its admission. 7 THE COURT: Okay. Gentleman, could you approach B thB bench For a minute, please. 9 10 CThe Following proceedings mere had at the bench 11 out of thB hearing of the jury:) IB 13 THE COURT: Do you havB any objection now? 14 MR. CARR: Yes, your Honor, this is a document IB that clearly should have beBn given us sometime. 15 THE COURT: LBt ms read it before me argue. 17 MR. CARR: No, I 'll mithdram objection, your IB Honor. IB THE COURT: Okay. SO NR. CARR: I'll Just cross examine on it aftBr it SI comes in. ss THE COURT: So you're not objecting? S3 NR. CARR: That's correct. 34 THE COURT: Okay. It's admitted without J 73 1 abjection. x 2 3 4 CThB Fallowing proceedings mere had in thB 5 presence and hearing of the jury:3 6 7 CBy Mr. Heineman} All right. Dr. Suskind, X a wander if you would plBase review this summary with us, 9 which is Defendant's Exhibit 1711. 10 A Would you like me to read From it and explain it? n I*d Just like you, basBd on this summary, would 12 you tell us what you Found as a result oF this clinical 13 survey at Souget? 14 A Well, as I indicated earlier we Found that oF thB 15 workers that we examined B5 percent had a history oF IB chlDracne and 42 percent had acne at the time of the 17 examination, and of that 42 percent, 29 percent was oF thB IB 42 was mild and 13 was oF moderate level. ia We did Find that 12 percent-oF the group had 20 actinic elastosis, that is elastic tissue changes in the 21 skin, but it was not apparently related as we Felt it was in 22 the Nitro group to the chloracne. It's just Four percent aF * 23 those who had chloracne had actinic elastosis. 24 We only had one parson with a cancer oF the skin 74 1 by history, and none of the peoplB we examined had any 2 BvidencB of cancer of thB skin, 3 Uls had -- therB was a history of acns vulgaris or 4 Juvenile acne in 42 percent of that group. ThB question 5 that was asked was have you Bver had Juvenile acns and 42 E percent said yBs, which is really not a high percentage. 7 However, there wars 20 percent of that group still had soma B acne vulgaris. a Wb found similarly in thB Nitro group that therB 10 was still some evidence of acne vulgaris in thB population, n mcrB in the control group in Nitro than in the BxposBd 12 group. This was in the group w b BxaminBd. ThBy w b t b 13 largely among the yaungBr peaplB in the group. 14 Then we did what we did in other chloracna 15 populations. We looked at chlaracnB as a variable. In the 15 same way that ws analyzed the Nitro population wa classified 17 the population into a group that had a history only of IB chloracne, but didn't have it at the examination, a group 13 that had it on examination or residual, and thB group that 20 never had chloracnB. 21 These were the positive findings or thB positive, 22 relationships with chloracne. That thB high density 23 lipoprotein, the mean of thB high density lipoprotBin, whBn 24 you compared residual chloracnB with those that never had 75 N. 1 chloracnB was statistically significant. That is, therB was 2 an incrsasa in abnormal high dBnsity lipoproteins among 3 thosB who still had chloacne when you comparsd thBm to thosB 4 who navBr had chloracna. ThBrB was an increasB in thB 5 frequency cf out of refBrBncB range, vary low density E lipoprotein, which largBly consists of triglyceride among 7 those with residual chlcracne as compared with thoss who B never had chloracnB or had a histary af chloracnB. That was 9 statistically significant; 10 When, we adjusted both of these figures for smoking 11 it was still statistically significant. So that smoking was 12 not a factor therB. 13 Wb did find an interesting finding that thosB who 14 still had chloracnB had more -- they mere -- let me put it 15 this way, that if you looksd at tha pack yBars smoked as an 15 indication of smoking history that therB was a significantly 17 larger pack year smokBd among thB residual chloracne than IB those whD had a history only or never, especially thB 19 residual as compared with those that Just had a history, so 20 that it was apparently -- thBrB was some association between 21 the number of pack years smoked and thB residual chloracne, 22 the current chloracne. 23 Doctor, 1st me, if I may, ask you about itBm 24 number 1 again on pagB 2, on thB mean high density 7B \ 1 lipoprotein. ThB last line ''when age and smoking adjusted," s wha does that mean? UJhat's the significance of that? 3 A Well, what it does actually is to decrease the 4 significance. LBt mB Just repeat thBn. The mean of the 5 high density lipoprotein was larger, significantly larger in 6 the residual chloracne when compared to those who never had 7 chloracne. When it was age adjusted it was still B significant, but when you adjusted it far bath smoking and 9 age, it was on really the borderline of significance. Ev b o 10 out of thB range of significance. It was zero -- thB p 11 value was 0.059, 0549, which is bordBrlinB. We like to IS think of the p value being significant if it's less than 13 0.05, and this is 0.049. So that if you adjust that mean 14 value, if you adjust it far age and smoking, you get a p 15 value which is Just out of range of significant. IB Dkay. All right. I 'm sorry for interrupting you 17 there. Go ahead, if you would, please. IB A Wb then looked at all of thB parameters of the 19 examination to see whether or not working in two othBr SO buildings might have influenced thB outcome, and those SI buidings wera EBB wherB they made thB BstBrs of 2,4,5-T, and E2 SSE where they prepared E,4-D. S3 We found that if we compared the clinical E4 outcomes, as well as the laboratory outcomes of the people 77 1 who werB exposed both to pBntachlorophBnol, as wall as 2 Bithar Buildings 262 or 260, that thBrB was no difference in 3 thB outcome. So that BxposurB to both pBntachlorophBnol or 4 pentachloraphenol and orthochlorophenal and 5 parachlorophBnol, and 262 or 2SB didn't increase thB 6 Frequency of chloracne, didn't changB the lipid values, 7 didn't change anything. There was no difference. a Now thBrB was a diFFerencB, thBrB was -- what the 9 significance is, the blood chloride levels of those who 10 worked in 262, 26B, there was a slight increase. There was 11 an increase in the eosinophils count of those who worked in 12 262 and 260. I can't say that that's significant. I don't 13 know what it means. I really don't. That's why I'm saying 14 that there was really no difference in thB clinical outcomes 15 or laboratory outcomes, excBpt For thBse two itBms. 16 We did find, howavBr, a personal habit Ib v b I that 17 those who worked in 262 and 26B, not personal habit, but on IB an age Ib v b I, those who warksd in 262 and 268 tusrs a littlB 19 older than thosB who worksd in pBntachlorophBnol or penta 20 and ortho alonB. 21 Now with respect to -- did you covBr number 7 22 there, sir? 23 A Well, again, I think it's obvious thsrB that thBrB 24 wars no differences in tha clinical or laboratory parameters 7B 1 when the mild chloracne bias compared to the moderate 2 chioracne. 3 TH COURT: Okay. Is this a good point to break? 4 MR. HEINEMAN: SurB, Judge. 5 THE COURT: Okay. All right. Ladies and E gentlemen, ujq will recess for the day at this time. I've 7 told you earlier that Monday is a court holiday, so w b won't 8 be meeting on Monday. U s 'll resume again Tuesday morning at 8 9:30. I would remind you as I do for any overnight break, 10 you're not to read, listen to or watch anything about this 11 case in particular or subject matter in general in any of 12 the media. 13 Uhile I 'm at it, I want to give you some dates 14 through March whBn w b won't bB having court Bither For court 15 holidays or other reasons. Monday obviously I told you 16 about before. February 20th and 21th and 24th w b will not 17 beholding court. March 13, 14, IB and 2B. IB Okay. Thank you For your attention and 19 cooperation. Take it easy in the snow. Ue'll see you 20 Tuesday morning. HavB a good weekend. 21 22 CThB Following proceedings werB had in chambers 23 out of thB hearing and presence of ths Jury:} 24 73 \ 1 THE COURT: Uhils we WBra on thB subject of 5 tBlling him about same d o 's and don't 's, I think as a mattBr 3 of fairness that I ought to point out, you haven't objected 4 to it, and you've gat the right to, so obviously you haven't 5 been upset by it, but he has a habit of wandering way passed 6 the scope of your questions. He adds and volunteers a lot. 7 I noticed within the last half hour or so ha added a and voluntBBrsd his opinion, unasked by any question that 9 you had, that TCDD did not initiate or promote skin cancers, 10 and Just before that hB volunteered his opinion as far as 11 the reference in his paper to skin cancer as being 12 correlated with agB. 13 You've got the right not tD object to any of this 14 if it's passed thB scopB of thB question yoursslf. I 'm not 15 saying that you should or shouldn't. That's your 15 professional. Judgment. 17 But I think in fairness to this witness, I think ia you ought to explain to him about answers being within thB is scope of questions and not let him get into the habit of 20 doing this, because -- now, I don't know if he will either, 21 but if hr. Carr's objections hold true to form in the future 22 he may object, and, of course, he has thB right to objBct if 23 matters arB not rBsponsivB to his questions. 24 In fairness to this witness, so h B 's not taken by BO 1 surprise, and lulled into a habit, I think hB should ba 2 informed oF this and given an opportunity to -- he should bs 3 informed of this and given an opportunity to rBgulatB his 4 own conduct. So, you know, if you don't want to abjBct to 5 it, that's fine. But I think it's something that in all E fairness he should be informed of also. While you were 7 telling him about thesB othBr matters, I thought you might 8 tell him about that also. 9 MR. HEINEMAN: All right. 10 THE COURT: Okay. 11 12 CCourt adjourned.3 13 14 15 IB 17 18 13 20 21 22 23 24 / B1 1 STATE OF ILLINOIS } s TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 3 3 COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR } 4 5 I, KATHLEEN WATSON BRUNSMANN, one of the Official 6 Court Reporters, do hereby certify that the foregoing 7 transcript is a true and correct copy of said transcript. S 9 DATED: February 34, 1906. 10 11 IS 13 KATHLEEN WATSON BRUNSMANN, RPR, CSR 14 Official Court Reporter 15 IB 17 ie is so si ss S3 34 25 1 found no serious long term effects. .2 Q All right. With rBspBct to thB findings that you 3 told the Jury about, that you made in thB examination in 4 1949, '50 and '53, what did you find with respect to thosB 5 same parameters in the Suskind/Hertzberg Morbidity Study? 6 A Well, as you all will recall in 1949, 1950 uib 7 found people with severe chloracne and liver dysfunction and B peripheral neuritis, and some BvidencB of central nervous 9 system disturbances, if you judgB by the irritability, the 10 insomnia, and so on, and also the findings of lipid 11 metabolism disturbances likB the high total lipids that we 12 found. If you look at what we found then as compared to 13 what we found in 1979, really the only persistent finding 14 was in th skin. Chloracne. That was the only persistent 15 finding. All of thB other abnormalities ware no longer IB present, Uhen you compared that group, the exposed group to 17 the not exposed group, There's no difference in the 18 frequency. 19 Q What, if anything, does your morbidity study tBll 20 you with respect tD the findings in man versus animals with 21 respect to TCDD intoxication? 22 A Well, in writing the protocol wb wanted to look at 23 all of the organ systems where there was any information, 24 whether it was animal or human information, that was 28 1 information that mas known to bs affected by. TCDD, and a although you can produce birth defects in rodents with TCDD, 3 and you can produce liver cancer and other kinds of cancer 4 in rodents with TCDD, and you can inducB immuno deficiencies 5 -- thymus is a gland in the body that provides thB cells .6 that allows us to defend ourselves against infection -- you 7 can find such immuno deficiencies in animals, in rats, but 8 you don't find them in humans with long term -- when you 9 look at the long tBrm effects. 10 So that thB -- one is not surprised, because 11 there's a wide range of responses af speciBs of animals, IS spBCies of mammals to toxic agents, and the fact that you 13 find such changes that can be induced in rats or mice or 14 guinea pigs, and you don't find them in man shouldn't be a 15 surprise because the effects in animals are not directly IB translateabls to man. But in our study we didn't find thesB 17 effsets that are seen in animals. 18 Q Doctor, does your study, the Suskind/Hertzberg 13 Morbidity Study, give any information with respect to the SO dosB response relationship? 21 A Wall, not really, bBcausB wb did not have 22 available any concentrations of TCDD in the materials that 23 thesB people were, being exposed to, or had been exposed to. 24 So that the only -- the only dase relationship we could look 27 1 at, perhaps, uias the length qF time people uiBre exposed, and 2 to see whether or not their problems, like acne, appeared to 3 be related to the length oF time that individuals were 4 exposed to the making oF either trichloraphenol or 2,4,5-T. 5 When uie did that, we didn't Find any relationship 6 at all between the severity oF thBir acne and whether they 7 did or did not develop acne and the length oF time they were 0 exposed. I think thB reason For that is depending upon when 9 they werB exposed. In 1949 it was apparent that there was 10 heavy exposure. In 19B5 there was probably very much Ib s s 11 exposure to TCDD. Even though people may have been exposed 12 to as long a period as they wBre in 1949, the total amount 13 oF exposure was not equivalent. But thBrB was no way that 14 we could relate dose, because we didn't have that 15 inFormation on the outcome. IB Now, Dr. Suskind, you told us about having 17 computerized the data that resulted From this study, and did IB there come a time, sir, when the computer data which you IB compiled was turned over tD the Carnou, ConibBar and 20 Associates organization? 21 A We didn't turn it over. There was a litigation in 22 Charleston, Wsst Uirginia, and it was a Federal court, and 23 Federal court ardBrBd Monsanto to turn over the raw data and 24 the tapes that we developed From thB raw data to thB 2B 1 plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs' attorney. Ue thanbe c a u s e 2 f the Court order, me provided Monsanto with that and thBn 3 it uias turned over, I bBlisvB, to thB Carnow, ConibBar 4 Association. 5 Now, 1st me hand you, if I may, sir, what's beBn 6 marked as Defendant's Exhibit 921 and Plaintiff's Exhibit 7 1472, and ask you, sir, if you've aver seen those documents Q before. 9 A Yes, I havB sBen them. I have seen them after 10 they were used in this courtroom. This is some kind of a 11 print-out, and I gather that that is 921 is the print-out, 12 and that's Defendant's Exhibit 921, and Plaintiff's Exhibit 13 1472, I believe, constitutes two of the pagBs of this print 14 out . 15 Q Dr. Suskind, have you seen the data print-auts IB which are thB result of thB data generated by your study, 17 thosB data print-outs that you and Dr. HBrtzbBrg generated? 10 A I have, yes. 19 Q Are what you havB in your hand data print-auts 20 generated by you or D r . Hertzberg? 21 A Absolutely not. 22 D Now, if Dr. George Roush, sir, testified in this 23 case that those exhibits w s t b not your print-out, would that 24 be accurate? 23 1 A Oh, I think that would be VBry accurate. 2 All right. And if it had been represented herB 3 that the data contained in those -- thosB two exhibits were 4 From Suskind's computer print-out, From computer tapes 5 created by Dr. Suskind, or that those mere a Dr. Suskind 6 document, would that be accurate? 7 DR. CARR: Your Honor, may lub approach the bBnch, a your Honor, because the testimony was Frcm computer tapes. a THE CDLIRT: Can you approach the bench, please. 10 n CThe Following proceedings were had at the 12 bench out oF the hearing oF the jury:} 13 14 THE COURT: What was ycur objection? 15 MR. CARR: My objection is that typB oF question 15 is misleading because it has been our representation, and 17 has been From the beginning, that these documents were ia produced From computer tapes From Dr. Suskind, and that's 13 all that's been represented. 20 MR. HEINEMAN: The representation, your Honor, 21 initially that these were Dr. Suskind's documents. That's 22 the First thing Mr. Carr told Dr. Roush, that thesB were Dr. 23 Suskind's documents. ,ThB second thing was that all thBy did 24 was tapB Dr. Suskind's computer tapB and print it out, and 30 1 that was the result oF that. E M R . CARR: When that came in, to clarify, the 3 ultimate statement was that these were produced From 4 computer tapes Furnished by Or. Suskind. He didn't givB 5 print-cuts to Carncw, CDnibear, hB gave computer tapes, and 5 it was in evidence a couple of times that thBse documents 7 were, and you'vB takBn the deposition of Mr. FBrguson and B Or. Conibear, which has confirmed that these were print-outs 9 taken From computer tapes supplied by Dr, Suskind. 10 MR. HEINEMAN: Now, the problem, your Honcr, is 11 the Fact oF the matter is that Ferguson reprogrammed that IE information. He had put in new variables, and he changed 13 the way that information would appear in a print-Dut, and 14 that's why thosB documents are not what came out of Dr. 15 Suskind's office. IB MR, CARR: UJe agreB. ThosB documents did not -- 17 w b consistently agree they did not come From Dr. Carnow's IB office. This is a computer print-out From tapes generated 19 From Dr. Carnow -- Dr. Suskind's office. SO HR. HEINEMAN*. Your Honor, the clear implication El intended tD be left with the Jury at that timB, bassd upon EE the transcript, was that all they did was takB Dr. Suskind's E3 data and print 'it out, and that's simply not accurate. 4 MR. CARR: The witness is listening to us and h e 's 31 1 signalling tD ths Jury his disagreement with what' I 'm 2 saying, clearly improper, and Nr. SBigFreid pointed that out 3 to m e . 4 THE COURT: I 'm really getting tirBd of this 5 witness playing games. First oF all w b '11 takB a short 6 break and w e 'll do this in chambers. IF hB doBS it one mare 7 tims I 'm going to tBll him he's in contempt. a FIR. HEINEMAN: Dobs what dob mora timB? 3 THE COURT: Anything like that, the statements, 10 what I 've been tald he's doing now. UJe'll takB a short 11 recess now. 12 13 CThe Fallowing proceedings wBre had in the 14 presence and hearing oF the jury:5 15 IB THE CDURT: Ladies and gentlemen, w e 're going to 17 take a short recess at this time. The admonishments that I IB normally give you will apply during this break also. 13 Gentlemen, could I s b b you in chambers, please? 20 21 CShort recess.5 22 23 CThe Following proceedings werB had in chambers 24 out oF the prBsencB and hearing of thB jury.O 32 1 THE COURT: I think ujb werB in thB middlB of your 5 objection, 3 MR. CARR: Your Honor, yes, I want to makB sure 4 because I don't know whether Kathy got it all. 5 THE COURT: Okay. 6 MR. CARR: But while ujb were at thB bBnch, 7 argument an paint to the court, out of the hearing of thB B Jury, but within the hearing of thB witness, since thB 3 witness box is right next to thB bench, the witness, when I 10 was saying that this material was -- these exhibits wsrB 11 generated from Suskind's computer tape, thB witness shook 12 his head no, and then turned to the Jury and repeated -- I 13 can't say that he repeated it. He shook his head no and 14 turned and lookBd to the Jury at that point, clbarly IS signalling to the Jury that he disagrees with what I am IB saying at the bench because obviously while the Jury could 17 not hear me, it certainly could -- I hopB they couldn't hear IB me. I can't guarantee that. ThBy certainly could s b b that 13 I was talking and hB was expressing disagreement with what I 20 was saying, I think it's improper. 21 Mr. Seigfreid came up to the bench to point it out 22 to me that he had also seen it -- that he had seen it. He 23 probably didn't know that I had seen it. But I had seen it. 24 I'm so reporting. I think the witness should be admonished 33 1 by Counsel, if not by the Court. E MR. HEINEMMAN: Well, your Honor, obviously I 3 wasn't -- I wasn't facing the witness. 4 THE COURT: No, you had your back to the witness. 5 MR. HEINEMAN: -- so I didn't see what he was B doing. 1 7 THE CDURT: Right. I was -- well, I was looking B at you. I didn't see what hB was doing either. 9 MR. HEINEMAN: All right. I don't know if anybody 10 else observed any head shaking on his part. 11 MS. RUDOLPH: I didn't notice anything. IE MR. NASSIF: I didn't see anything. 13 MR. HEINEMAN: I know that the witness knows that 14 he should not listen in on those conversations and react to 15 them. I know he knows that. IB THE COURT: So why did he do it? 17 MR. HEINEMAN: Uell, if he did it, if it was a IB reaction to what was being said, I 'm sure it wasn't a 19 calculated one. I 'm sure that it was.a purely -- I don't SO know quite what word to use -- reflex type reaction to what El had happened. EE THE COURT: I tell you ths problem with that is S3 this is thB third timB I've heard it in three days d F 34 tBStimoy from this witness. He madB an improper volunteered 34 1 remark near the end of his first day of testimony. Hb madB 2 another such remark yesterday, and you assured me at that 3 time in just about the same language that he'had bBBn 4 admonished that he was not do to this typB of thing, and 5 that you thought sort of in the heat of exchange or whatever 6 that he shouldn't, you know, that he momentarily forgot, or 7 whatever, and now you're in Just about the samB language B telling me now what you told mB yesterday. 9 This man is too experienced, too worldliwise, too 10 long around in the affairs of life generally and the affairs 11 of science in his position, and gives no evidence of 12 slipping in any way, to be doing this everyday at particular 13 times just because hB happens to forget. I'm -- I am 14 ordering you to admonish him if anything s Isb happens I 'm 15 going to tell him that he is about to be held in contempt, IB and I will deal with him accordingly if he decides to step 17 over the line after that admonishment. IB This is not -- you know, we are not talking with IB an inexperienced individual. Ue are not talking with 20 someone who does not have the capacity to understand thB 21 consequences of his actions, or the context Df which those 22 actions are bBing done. This is a bright and worldliwise 23 individual. I 'm not going to tolBratB it. 24 MR. HEINEMAN: Your Honor, obviously this man is 35 1 not experienced in testifying. Hb has testified 'at length s in the Nitre case, which tc my understanding, other than 3 perhaps a deposition by Pratt, or uias therB another 4 deposition, I don't know of another occasion when hB*s 5 testified in court. 6 NR. CARR: He's testified in Workmen's 7 Compensation hearings for Nonsanto in thB past. a NR. HEINENAN: Not for Nonsanto. a NR. SEIGFREID: h, yes. 10 NR. CARR: Yes, for Nonsanto. n NR. HEINENAN: No, it wasn't for Nonsanto. 12 NR. CARR: It was in Nitrn, UJBSt Uirginia whBn 13 these workers were trying to gBt Workmen's Compensation. 14 NR. SEIGFREID: He said it was far Nonsanto in 15 other testimony. IB NR. HEINENAN: Hb testified to my understanding at 17 the request of the board. IB NR. SEIGFREID: No. 19 THE CDURT: Hb has testified in Comp hearings as 20 well as the Federal District Court. No one disputes that. 21 NR. HEINENAN: In the Comp hearings -- uiell, I may 22 be wrong about this, but in the Comp hearings my 23 recollection was that it was -- it was -- I don't think it 24 was an adversary typB situation. I think hB was questioned 36 1 ay thB hoard. 2 MR. CARR: JudgB, it wouldn't make any difference, 3 rhe man is experienced. He knows what h B 's doing is 4 Improper. Hb 's beBn instructed by counsel, at least counsel 5 has represented to us that hs has instructed him. Hb 's not 6 a dumbbell. I think it's silly for us tD be debating 7 whether or notXhe's capable of following the Court's 0 instructions. 9 THE COURT: Y e s \ v QU know, what I said, if he 10 does it onB more time w e 're g o K ^ to start down the road of 11 contempt. You can tell him that. 12 MR. HEINEMAN: Your Honor, I wi 13 THE COURT: I would suspect that yDLjN^bould 14 explain to him completely thB rulBS that I told y o u x , ^ ^ ^ 15 plus these specific instances we talked about. I 'll giv x16 him the benefit of being advisBd by experienced counsel one 17 more time. Now, let's go back to the subject cf -- I 'm not IB sure where you were on the objection. 13 MR. HEINEMAN: Your Honor, may I make one more 20 point on that? Obviously, for the record, I'd like to say 21 that -- I will obviously obey the Court's instructions -- 22 THE COURT: Good. 23 MR. HEINEMAN: -- I would also say that I don't 24 think anything he has done in this courtroom has been 32 1 there, although according to some people in this case it's 2 defined trace as being up to 10 parts pBr million. 3 A No. 4 Others in this case have identified as trace down 5 to 45 parts per billion. We have a wide range of testi 6 mony as to what is meant by trace in this context. So, 7 you'll forgive me if I won't accept your use of the word 0 trace without knowing what you mean by it; what you mean by 9 the word trace. 10 A Something that's below 100 parts per trillion. 11 Something that's below 100 parts per trillion is 12 trace to you? 13 A Yes. 14 All right. 15 A I 'm not talking about our own analysis; I'm only 15 talking about the soil analysis that the EPA did. 17 Q I understand that. Down to 100 pats per trillion 10 in the EPA analysis is trace. From what to what? One part 19 per billion down to 100 parts per trillion? 20 A That again varies with the different laboratories. 21 Some laboratories still reported positive findings in parts 22 per trillion at lower levels, and same laboratories didn't. 23 And sometimes they would report it, and sometimes they 24 wouldn't. The lower you go down with soil analysis, the 33 1 mors difficult tha quantitation becomes. a I understand that, Doctor, but I'm simply trying 3 to-- 4 A So, 1 really am not competent to answer those ana 5 lytical questions. 6 Well, I know, and I'm not asking you, ma'am. I'm 7 asking you how you use the word trace? UJhat values were a included whBn you said these people lived in areas that hBd s trace amounts of dioxin in the soil? 10 A I cannot answer this question without consulting u the EPA and finding out what different laboratories did 12 wherB. 13 Well, up to what level-- where would it gst not to 14 be tracB? At what level? 15 A As we werB told, all laboratories had a-- at least *s 15 limit of detection of 100 parts per trillion. Now, some 17 had a lower limit of detection, but since we weren't IB concerned very much about that anyway, we didn't-- 19 Q Dr. Kimbrough, I understand that. But; I'm trying 20 to pin something down hers. In general, was trace usBd to 21 describe contamination that would be below the limits of 22 detection for any laboratory involved? 23 A I'm not clear. 24 Well, that's the reason I'm trying to find aut 34 1 what you are talking about. Whan the word trace Is used by e you as you've adopted it From the laboratories, do you mean 3 to say that trace is that quantity which uie cannot accur 4 ately- identify quantitatively or qualitatively? 5 A Ves. And also uib are not absolutely sure that 6 that's really the E.B^.B-tstrachlaradibenzo-para-dioxin. 7 So, any time you can't be sure of uihat it is, then B you-- or the amount that it is, it's then-- and by "you" I S mean the laboratory, the chamists involved, the analytical 10 chemists involved-- it is then that the uiord trace is used. 11 Is that correct? IE ft By some laboratories, yes. I don't knoui uihat all 13 laboratories do. 14 But you used the uiord trace, m a 'am. And houi were 15 you using it? 16 A I uias using it in that context, yes. 17 All right. If it can't be accurately quantitated IB or identified as to the isomer, then it's considered trace? 13 A That's what the chemists have explained to ms. E0 All right. But, above .that-- and that's the way El you usBd the word; correct? EE A Yes. E3 But, above that it is not trace? E4 A Yes. 35 1 Now, tins participants in the low risk group, what a was the-- strike that. Horn much of Timas Beach-- or houi many .3 streets mere there in Times Beach, Dr. Kimbrough? 4 A I don't know. 5 How many streets-- were all the streets sprayed by 5 Bliss? id all the streets receive the contaminated oil? 7 A Not as far as I know. a Wall, what part didn't? a A I sort of, if I remember correctly, it's sort of a 10 third maybe maybe. But, I would have to go back to the n maps. 12 All right. UJhat you are doing now is trying to 13 resurrect you memory, and again you're-- 14 A But, I Just can't relate to that. 15 And you don't really know; is that right? . IB A Right. 17 a Well, to get it down to what you da know is that 10 the high risk group had to liVB and have intimate contact 19 in soil of 20 parts per billion and above, and your low 20 risk group was taken from people who lived in areas at 21 least less than that. Is that right? 22 A Less than 1 part per billion. 23 All right. Now-- and were people-- thBrB were mora 24 than one site involved in this study-- what was it; ilinker 36 1 Stout, Quail Run-- thers mars a whole number of places that s LBra included in your contaminated sites. From what 3 areas-- w b 'v b already identified the Times Beach area. Did Sr* 4 you select volunteer participants from the Quail Run area? 5 A That's a different study that's still in progress. 6 Now, I'm talking about the Missouri study, the one 7 that ids are talking about nom. Did you take anybody from e that area? s A No. 10 Q Were the-- il A Not as far as I know. 12 Were the peoplB that you took just from the Times 13 Beach area? 14 A As far as 1 know it was a Times Beach area study. 15 All right. And none of thesB other-- not Minkar 16 Site or Minker Stout; is that right? 17 A Yes. 10 All right. And all d F thBse--- did all of thesB 19 participants in this study actually live in Times Beach 20 then? 21 A I 'm not absolutely certain. There may have been 22 some controls utho were slightly outside or uiho had moved 23 away. I mean, nobody really lived at Times Beach at the 24 time. 37 1 At the time oF the study? 2 A Yes. 3 Wb II, that mas inaccurately put. The participants 4 in the study were drawn all From people that had lived in 5 Times Beach-- that had lived in Times Beach or near Times Beach; is that correct, ma'am? 7 A Yes. Q D All right. And that's 100 pBrcBnt oF both groups a either lived in Times Beach or near Times Beach; is that 10 correct, m a 'am, to the bast oF your knowledge? il A To the best oF my knowledge, yes. 12 All right. And how oFten the people that actually 13 went on the contaminated streets is unknown to you? 14 A Yes. 15 Q All right. What you did do was try to select out IB these people, put thB-- divide them in two groups, thB 17 people that had the less known or less obvious or lass IQ oFten or less intense contact with the contaminated-- actual, 19 contamination in onB group and those with thB known, more 20 intense, more active, more Frequent participation in these 21 contaminated-- actual known contaminated areas in the other 22 group; is that right, ma'am? 23 A Yes. 24 All right, Now, in the-- in order to spsBd this up 30 1 a little bit, if 1 mere to ask you the questions about houi 5 many people mould be expected to have persistent feelings 3 of pins and needles, and cramps, and loss of pomer, and 4 burning in body, and tingling in fingers and toes, mould it 5 be your ansuer that you have no judgment that mould be of 6 any significance in this case? 7 A You mean all of these things together or Just-- 8 Or independently? 9 A -- or independently? 10 Yes. 11 ft Independently I mould say that 25 percent of the 12 people of the total general population might report some 13 thing like that, but they mouldn't have all of these 14 things. 15 At the same-- all right. What you are saying is 25 15 percent of the population mould have persistent feelings of 17 pins and neBdlBs in the body, mithin the meaning of the 18 question and the may it mas asked in the Times Beach pilot IS study? 20 ft No. Maybe 5 or 10 percent mould say that, and 21 some others mould say they had heart burns and-- 22 Q All right. But, anyrnay, what I'm asking you is a 23 specific question. You say 5 to 10 percent of the people 24 mould respond yes thBy have persistent feelings of pins and 39 1 needles In thB body; is that uihat you are saying? s A In their hands or in their Feet. 3 All right. And what about cramps? UJhat per 4 centage of people would respond that they have muscle 5 cramps? 5 ft Judging From the experience yesterday, I would 7 say-- strike that. At some time everybody has muscle 8 cramps. 9 Yes, Doctor, we've established that already. I'm 10 asking you again, in the way the question was askBd by the 11 people that did the asking, and they had Follow-up 15 questions to pinpoint the problem as you've suggested this 13 morning. In the context of this health study, this review 14 that went on, thB intBviews that went on, in thB context oF 15 that question posed in that way-- and so I need not say it 16 again-- will you assume that all oF these things that I'm 17 asking you is put in that context about these symptoms and IB findings and problems-- will you do that ma'am? 19 A All right. 50 UJhat percentage ofpeople would have cramps? 51 A Persistent cramps? 55 I'm sorry? 53 A You mean persistent cramps? 54 The word cramps was used. I don't know what the 40 1 question-- I don't have the advantage, the same advantage a that you have. You read the questions; 1 did not. All I 3 have are the results, see. So, you have an advantage over 4 me. In the may tha question was asked, as I've already 5 told you, m a 'am, what percentage of people would report 6 that they had cramps in the general population? 7 A Persistent cramps could be reported in 10 to 15 8 percent of the population. 8 Q And loss of power? Ulhat percentage would report 10 loss of power? 11 A That would be lower; somewhere between 1 and 5 12 percent. 13 Q And burning in body? 14 A I can't answer that; I don't know what burning in 15 body-- that's one of those catch all questions where we want 16 to know-- 17 Q It's one of the questions you threw in to test-- 18 I'm not going to say honesty, because they were all honest 19 presumably-- but to test the subjective view of their 20 health; is that right? 21 A Partly, and also to try and evaluate their under 22 standing of the question, 23 Q All right. So, that's a question that would have 24 no-- that wasn't designed to bring out a health effect; if I 41 1 understand what you said before? 2 8 Well, that's not quits right. If they may answer 3 that, ua may than go back and sea what else they ara, and 4 see how that all fits together. And us may want to go back 5 and examine them more if w b think they haven't propBrly 6 answered the questionnaire. 7 All right, ttoreso than the other questions, it 8 can't stand by itSBlf; it's a more unique question than tha 3 others, and you would definitely have to do other things in 10 rdBr to give the answer to that question meaning; is that 11 right? 12 A Yes. 13 Q All right. What percentage of the people would 14 you expect tD respond that they had tingling in fingers and 15 toes? 16 A I've already answered that Barlier. 17 No, I'm sorry, but the question that was asked 18 before was persistent feelings of pins and needles in body. 19 This is a different question. 20 A Okay. That's again, the tingling and pins and 21 needles-22 Q I didn't make the questions; don't look at me. I 23 didn't design the study. Tingling in fingers and toes. 24 UJhat percentage of the general population would respond 45 1 that they had tingling in fingers and toes in your esti a mation? 3 8 It's the same thing as pins and needles; it's the 4 same question asked in a different uiay. 5 All right. UJhat percentage then? 6 A And I said, it mas somewhere between 10 and 15 7 percent. 8 All right. Now, on-- in thB general population, B what percentage of people would you expect to respond that 10 they had prolonged infections? 11 A Could be up to 55 percent. 15 And as far as findings are concerned in the 13 immune, how many-- in the general population, what would you 14 expect to find to have marked depression in lymphocyte pro 15 liferation? 16 A That's not very well known; and I can't answer 17 that question. IB Q You have no judgment at all? 13 A N o . 50 Q Could be anywhere from 5 percent to 100 percent? 51 A I don't know. 55 You have no judgment at all? S3 A N o . 54 Would you Bxpect 100 percent to have it? 43 A I don't know. Q You've done no(work in this area at all? A I have read the literature, and I've reviewed it. I had first got involved with that when I was dealing with Lq v b Canal, and there just isn't enough information at the moment. Q UJhat you are saying then is that any figure would be meaningful; but, on the other hand, any figure would not necessarily have any meaning? A Right, until we get morB information. That's an area of research that we don't have goad information in yet. And so, it could be that if as much as 10 percent of the population had a marked depression in their lym phocyte proliferation that that could have real signifi cance; couldn't it? A I Just cannot answer those questions at the moment; I just don't know enough about it. Doctor, I submit that if you don't have any scien tific basis to dispute it, then what I say to you, anything I say to you you will have to accept as true unless you do have some scientific basis to dispute it. And that's the reason-- I'm asking this question to test whether or not you in fact have any scientific basis as you say you do not 44 1 have. Could be, could it not, ma'am, that IF 10 percent 2 of the exposed papulation have a markBd depression in 3 lumphocuta proliferation, that could be significant; 4 couldn't it, m a 'am? 5 6 Lymphocyte proliferation is effected by so many 6 things that-- significant for what? I mean, I don't under 7 stand . S In determining whether or not one has had an s adverse health effect from exposure to a chemical involved? 10 A No. 11 Q Pardon? 12 . A No. 13 It could not be then? It could have no signifi14 cance? You are saying that-- 15 A You cannot answer that question in a vacuum like 16 this. 17 Q Doctor, if I ask you and you have no knowledge, if 16 I ask you It could be that there are a million planets in 16 this universe that have human beings, or humanoids, or 20 creatures like humans, you could not dispute that; could 21 you, ma *am? 22 A I sure could. 23 How so? 24 A I can also aay that I believe that's not true. 45 Q No; but I'm not asking your belief. I 'm asking you is it possible, ma'am, that there are a million planets in this universe that havB humane on it? Is that possible? A I 'm saying no. Q And uihy are you saying no? A Because I don't think it's possible. 0 Why do you think it's not possible? A Because of my experience that I've had and the general knowledge that I have acquired. All right. What is that experience and general knowledge that tells you that there cannot possibly be a million or a hundred or a hundred million other planBts in this universe that have humans an thBm? What is your background? Is it religious, or is it scientific that tells you that that's no so? A Beth. Q From a religious viewpoint you believe that then thBre couldn't bs anybody-- any place except earth that's got humans on it? A I didn't say that. All right. Do you believe that thBre could be another planet in the universe that has humans an it? A I don't know. I'm not asking you of your knowledge; again, I'm 46 1 testing the way you are using the words that you are using, a Dr. Kimbrough. Is it possible, Or. Kimbrough, that in the 3 billions and trillions and billions of other solar systems 4 that exist in this universe, is it possible that there is 5 one single other planet out there that have human like 6 beings on them-- on it? 7 0 There may be another planet that may have some B life on it, but I don't think there mould be humans. 9 Or human like? 10 A Human like creatures. 11 And nom, are you giving that answer From a scien IS tific viewpoint or From a religious viewpoint? 13 A That's From a scientific viewpoint. 14 All right. Now, what in science tells you that in 15 all thesB countless-- and they are countless-- unimaginable 16 number of solar systems out there-- haven't yet reached the 17 end of the-- we don't know yet the Bnd of the universe-- we 10 don't even know, there might be more than one universe out 13 thBre. Ulhat in your scientific knowledge tells you that it SO isn't possible that there could be another planet out there 21 with human like beings on it? es A You changed it slightly; you said human like. 23 No, I said that before, m a 'am. 24 A Dh, I 'm sorry,* I didn't hear that. I wouldn't 47 1 think that the evolution in any one planet mould be just 2 exactly the same-- 3 And I carefully did not say-- 4 A Dkay; I didn't catch that. 5 Q Initially I did say humans, and you mere correct 6 in humans.' But, then I said-- my next question said human 7 like. 6 A Oh, I*m sorry; I didn't hear the "likB". 3 Q So-- by your hesitation here and by your inquiry 10 here, are you saying that you believe it is possible that 11 there could be another planet out there that has human like 12 beings on it? V 13 A That could be possible. 14 Q Is it possible there could be a hundred planets 15 out there that could have human like beings on it? 16 A I don't know. 17 I'm sorry? 18 A I do not know. 19 No, I didn't ask you whether-- 20 A I mean, I can't even guess. 21 0 Dr. Kimbrough, I suggest to you that if there 22 could be one out there, as you've agreed that therB could 23 be, then there could be two; couldn't there, ma'am? 24 A ThB earth could be flat. 4B 1 Uell, but ue know the earth isn't Flat; us don't 2 know uhat's out in the universe as Far as life is con 3 cerned; do ue, ma'am? 4 A Not-- us knou a little bit, but ue don't knou a 5 lot. 6 Q UJe don't knou enough to say that there couldn't be 7 human like creatures out there; do ue, m a 'am? 8 A No. 8 Q Ue don't knou Bnough to sag that there could not 10 be a hundred planets out there uith human like creatures; 11 do ue, m a 'am? 1 2 A Since this is totally out d F my area, I'm not 13 really qualified to discuss that; but, I think a hundred 14 uould be en exaggeration. 15 D Why, ma'am? How many millions of planets-- or hou 15 many millions of solar systems uould you have to have to 17 produce one uith atmosphere and conditions like us have on IB the earth? 13 A I don't knou. 20 Q You haven't the vaguest idea, and nobody else has, 21 m a 'am. Nobody knous. There could be, it's possible that 22 there could be billions of solar systems out there that 23 have a planet that goes around that sun thB same uay this 24 earth goes; isn't that possible, ma'am? Cbuld be billions 49 1 of such out there? 2 A IF you-- 3 Q On the other hand, there could be none; isn't that 4 right, ma'am? 5 A There could not be any other solar systems. 6 No solar systems with planets that have the same 7 conditions that cause human life to evolve on this planet? B A Yes, 9 Thera could be billions of such planets; couldn't 10 there, ma'am? 11 A Billions? 12 Billions of such planets out in the countless 13 universe? 14 A That's-- I don't think so. 15 Ulhy not, ma'am? 15 A Some of those creatures might have made contact 17 with us by nou. IB Q You are saying might have. Again, they might not 19 have as well; is that right, m a 'am? 20 A I would think they would have. HI Doctor, what makes you think that they would have 22 evolved any more rapidly than uie? 23 A Because I'm an optimist. 24 Doctor, I 'm not talking about your optimism; I'm 50 1 asking strictly-- and I know this gets to be ludicrous-- a strictly in possibilities, ma'am. What it boils down to, 3 what I'm saying-is, it is possible, even though you might 4 say that it's not likely, it is possible that there are S hundreds of planets out there, billions of planets out 6 there with human like creatures oh them; isn't that right, 7 m a 'am? a A I have problems making thesa sweeping statements, 3 because they don't mean anything. 10 Q Well, I know they don't mean anything, but that's 11 the reason I'm asking the question, ma'am, to establish 12 that what you've said about your marked depression in lym 13 phocyte proliferation. If you have no knowledge as to the 14 significance of it, than you can't say that it does not 15 have significance, if you have no knowledge one way Dr the IB other? That's thB whole point of this exercise, Dr. Kim 17 brough . IB ft I didn't say it had no significance; I said that 19 thBre were many things-- I was trying to say that there are 20 many things that effect the immune system, that at the 21 moment we have not sorted that out and we need to do more 22 work in science-- 23 Q And that's the reason I askBd you, ma'am: it is 24 possible, is it not-- and I used the word "possible" ma'am-- 51 1 It is possible that a 10 percent depression In lymphocyte 2 proliferation may be? and I used two words-- it's possible, 3 might be; and I said it may have significance in showing 4 dioxin exposure. Now, isn't that passible, m a 'am? 5 a It's also possible that something entirely 6 different could-- 7 I agree. 1 agree, and have no dispute on that a points One is possible; the other is possible; isn't it, a ma *am? 10 ft Well, if one is possible, then the other may not n be possible. is No, both could be possible. Thera could be a 13 thousand possible solutions to the problem. When in fact 14 there's only one real solution, there arB a thousand-- until 15 uie identify it, there are a thousand possible solutions. IB In this particular case, ma'am, do you not agree that if 17 ns is possible, the other might also bB possible? Perhaps ib not as likely, but possible? 13 A That's putting it a little too loose. I think by 50 carefully reviewing these people's records and the find 21 ings, doing some fDllow-up, and doing some other things, we B B could limit down the possibilities. 23 Yes; but that hasn't been done, and I'm using-- has 54 it, ma'am? 52 1 A No. 5 I'm obligated here to prove this case with what 3 w e 've got; not tuhat we might have someday; but what we have 4 at this time. Could be absolutely wrong; could be a 5 thousand percent wrong. But, I 'm using the tools that we 6 have. And I'm suggesting to you that a marked depression 7 in lymphocyte proliferation might have significance in this B case; might it not, ma'am? 3 A It might. 10 Yes. All right. Now, Doctor, how about the T4:TB 11 ratio being less than one. What percent of the population ia would have that ratio of less than one of the general popu 13 lation? .. 14 A UJe're just going to go through the same thing. It 15 all goes together. I don't know. 15 Would your answer be then that you don't really 17 know the significance of that related to this case, but it IB might possibly have significance? Is that the answer to 19 the question? ao A Yes. El Q .All right. What about porphyrins, ma'am? I know EE that you've worked with porphyrins. What percent of the 23 population would you expect to have chronic hepatic S4 porphyria as defined and used in the Missouri Health Study? 53 1 8 Now, there Is a human disease called parphyria a cutanea tarda-- 3 Q New, Doctor, I asked the question specifically, 4 chronic hepatic porphyria as used in the Missouri Health 5 Study that you helped design? I don't uiant to get into all 6 kinds of porphyria that there might be; I'm asking you-a 7 specific question on the study you designed. What percent 8 of the general population would you expect to have chronic 8 hepatic porphyria? 10 A The disease, which is porphyria cutanea tarda-- 11 Doctor-- Doctor, did you understand my question? IE I'm talking about the chronic hepatic porphyria defined, 13 discussed, identified, used in the Missouri Health Study 14 which you helped design. What percent of the general 15 population would you expect to have chronic hepatic . 16 porphyria? 17 A Since we seen to have difficulties with SBmatics, 18 I'm trying to explain what I mean by my percentages. IS Doctor, I don't want an explanation; all I want 50 for you to tell me is in this study that you designed-- that 21 you helped design-- and I know you had a great deal of input 52 on thB porphyria section; did you not, ma'am? 23 A Yes. 24 Q In that study, ma'am, in the way you used the term 54 1 chronic hepatic porphyria, they may you defined it then, s the way you took it then, the tablas you used and every 3 thing you did in that study, what percent of people did you 4 expect to find had chronic hepatic porphyria in the general 5 population? 6 A UJhat I -mean ,by chronic hepatic-- 7 MR. CARR: Yd u c Honor, would you direct the 6 witness to answer the question as I*ve posed it. 9 THE COURT: Doctor, you have to answer the 10 question, Doctor; it was directly posed; it did not call 11 for an explanation of the term. IS A The percentage would be very low; it would be one 13 in a thousand or less. 14 Q Doctor, how much time did you all spend at least 15 that you ara aware of in discussing what kind of parameters 16 to put up in your tests dealing with chronic hepatic 17 porphyria? IB A I don't understand the question. 19 How much-- what 1 mean is how much time did you 20 dBvotB to that-- to setting up or designing that as part of HI your study? 22 A We started several years ago to sat up a method, 53 and we've done a lot of work in that area with other pop 2*1 ulations, and so it is something that we now routinely do. 55 1 Q 911 right. And as Far as the Missouri Health 2 Study is concerned, than, you had a great deal of back 3 ground uhen you designed and suggested and had made the 4 porphyria protocol part of that study; is that correct? 5 9 Yes. G It wasn't done as an oFF-the-shBlF kind of thing; 7 it was done after careful and deliberate thought? 0 9 Yes, and also because uie put time into developing 9 the hot pressure liquid chromatology method. 10 911 right. And as a pathologist, you were well 11 versed in the various kinds of porphyria? IS A Yes, to some extent. 13 Q Yes. And you knew all about Doss and Strik and 14 their work; did you not, ma'am? 15 A Yes. 1G Doctor, what percent of the general population 17 would you expect to come up with the results that would not 19 be typeable in your porphyria exam as far as the type of 19 porphyria they may have? SO A There are-- all the porphyrias that would not fit 21 into this classification; is that-- 52 Q M o . 23 9 I don't understand the question. 24 Q No. 911 right. In your Missouri Health Study, 55 1 you put down the number of people that had various kinds of lab results and you determined' uihBther or not that uias or 3 uias not an indication of hepatic porphyria-- or chronic 4 hBpatic porphyria. All right? 5 A Yes. 6 Q Thera uae a category that you put, not in the 7 normal-- you had two sections, you had ths normal and you B had the chronic hepatic porphyria section. And then you 5 had an untypaable section. Do you follow me? You had 10 normal, you had chronic hepatic porphyria, and then you had 11 untypaable. 12 A Yes. 13 What percent of people do you expect to be-- to 14 Fall into that untypaable classification? 15 A There are-- there*s probably about a third of the 15 population that has some variance from the rest of the 17 population. We feel that it's a variance in thB general IB population which has nothing to do utith disease. 13 Q That isn't what I asked. 20 A Is that-- 21 Q Probably not, but I think it would be so long to 22 gat an appropriate explanation to you so that I could get 23 an answer that would fit my needs; I think it would prob 24 ably be best if I use this time for something els. And do 57 1 let me pass on to something else, Doctor. You have e testified hare yesterday as to the means and methods by 3 which you could be used to testify in other cases, And you 4 mentioned that you were in one case in Missouri, did you 5 not, by way of deposition? . To refresh your memory, you 6 gave a deposition, did you not, in the casB'Of Patricia 7 Drinkard, Paul Drinkard, Lori Platt, and Andrea Platt 8 versus Independent Petrochemical Corporation, which was on 9 fils in the Circuit Court in the City of 5t. Louis, State 10 of Missouri, case numbBr 702-559. You gave such a depo 11 sition; did you not, ma'am? 12 A Yes, I guess so. 13 You didn't mention it, but-- 14 A I'm sorry, but-- 15 That's all right. You see, this.is your depo IB sition, deposition of Renats Kimbrough. 17 A Yes. 18 And it took placeon the lBth day of February 19 1963, as a matter of fact, Just 12 days after this case 20 started. No-- did we start in *B3 or *B4? HI THE COURT: Ue started February of *B4. 22 All right. Your deposition was given a year, 23 thBn, before this casB started. 24 A Okay. 58 1 All right. Do you remember that now? 2 A Yea. Thera uerB a number of* things tus went round 3 and round about it, but I 'm not really quite sure-- 4 No, all I uiant to establish is that you gave an 5 evidence deposition in that case. G A Yes; okay. 7 Q Did you not, m a 'am? B A Yb s . 9 Q And you gave an evidence deposition in the case 10 filBd in the Circuit Court of PikB County, Missouri. You 11 gave it a long time ago. That bias the 2Bth oF February 12 1375. Did you not, ma'am? And I could Forgive you For 13 Forgetting that one. 14 A Yes. 15 That mas the case oF Frank J. Hampel and Judy IB Piatt versus Russell Bliss and a whoIs bunch of others, and 17 some chemical companies. Do you recall that? IB A Yes. Now I remember the lawyer's name again, too. 19 That's all right. And that was also an evidence 50 deposition that you gave; mas it not? 21 A Yes. 22 You also gave an evidence deposition in the case 23 of-- 24 A Evidence deposition means what? 59 1 Q Will be read in the proceeding that follows with 2 out your coming in person like you have here, for instance? 3 a Okay 4 Q In other words, you give your testimony in Atlan 5 ta, Georgia, as you did in the two cases I've just talked B to you about-- 7 A Yes a And it's subsequently read at the trial. s A I don't know that; you see, that would be some 10 thing you would have to talk to-- n Okay; I'll just eliminate the word "evidence" For 12 now. And you did-- well, I'll have to say evidence 13 deposition, because that's what it was-- you gave an 14 evidence deposition in the case of Jerry Russell Bliss 15 versus Fred Lafser, State of Missouri, Number HUJ 81-1 A, did 16 you not, ma'am, on December 8, 1902? 17 A Yes. 10 Is that correct, m a 'airi? 13 A Yes. 20 All right. Now, in that-- in the situation of the 21 Missouri Health Study, there is such a thing as a-- strike 22 that. UJhat health effects do you sxpect to coma from long 23 time and or low dose exposure to TCDD, if any? 24 A There may not be any; that's-- 60 1 Q Well, there may be some? 2 A -- that's what we hops. 3 Lie11, what are tha signs that may ba present, or 4 is it simply you do not know what it may be? 5 A Ue don't know. 6 And the reason you don't know, ma'am, is why? Why 7 don't you know what the effects of long term low dose expo B sure to dioxin may be in human beings? 9 A Two reasons. One is that different animal species 10 respond quite differently; ws don't know where humans are. 11 And then, the only experience that u b 'v b had has been in 12 workers that have been exposed to vary high doses and oftBn 13 over short periods of time. And Bven there, any chronic li health effects that have been reported, if you really 15 examined all of that information, it isn't very clear, and IB seme of it may actually be chronic disease that you get 17 with aging. And so, it's-- that's also because of that. 18 And it's very difficult to design epidemiology studies, and 19 you have to sort of throw out a big net and then try and 20 s b s whether there are any differences between that and a 21 comparison group. ThB things that we have concentrated on, 22 partly because of the animal data, has been the sensory 53 nervous system, the immune response, and the porphyria 2H cutanea tarda. And there are things in the workers with I 61 1 acute exposure that have had same general malaise, and so 2 us have included all of these things, too. 3 Dell, to get it back to what I thought I was 4 asking, is that you have not reached-- and by you I mean the 5 scientific and mBdlcal world in general-- you have not 6 reached yet a state where you can be absolutely sure as to 7 what the chronic health effects in humans will be because 6 of, one, the human life span is so much longer than tha^3 most of the animals that you tasted and studied, and there 10 there isn't yet a sufficient history length of time to come 11 to any results positive-- or absolutely sure results in the 12 case of long time low dose exposure in the casB of human 13 beings? 14 A Yes. The only thing is chloracne. 15 Q And chloracne may be present in some instances,' 15 and it may not be present in others; isn't that correct? 17 A That's a very complicated question, host people 18 that have had-- most workers that have had exposure to high 13 concentrations have developed chloracne. 20 Yes. But you are talking about a high concentra 21 tion; aren't you? hy question is aimed at chronic long 22 term low dosB exposure to dioxin. Ma'am? 23 A Could I get the question again? 24 Well, you said chloracnB. 62 1 Yes. 2 Q And when I asked you what were the findings from 3 long term loui dose exposure, In that general area, you said 4 chloracne was one of the things. But, in point of fact, 5 the chloracne that you are familiar with had been acuta 6 high doss exposure to dioxin; isn't that correct, m a 'am? 7 A Yes. B Yes. And whether-- and chloracne is not-- lBt me 9 ask it another way as well. Even in those instances, 10 chloracne is not a constant finding; is it, m a 'am? 11 A In most people it is; not in everybody, but in 12 most people. 13 My question is: you know a number of cases where 14 they didn't have chloracne, for instance; don't you, m a 'am? 15 A They are rare. 16 Pardon? 17 A They are rare in those situations. IB But, my question is: you know of cases in Europe^-- 13 you know of cases in this country where people working side 20 by side in the same plant, the one guy gets chloracne and 21 his fellow right next to him doesn't gst chloracns. You 22 know that; don't you, ma'am? 23 A As far.as the 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-para24 dioxin is concerned, there were a few workers, maybe two or 53 1 three, in the Spulana factory that Dr Jirasek reported 2 that didn't have any chloracne. 3 Yes, but as a matter of fact, what happened there, 4 as you pointed out in one of your statements or papers, 5 something that I read, they just really studied the people 6 that had chloracne. Those mere the d o b s that they thought 7 mere exposed, and those uiere the ones they went after; 0 isn't that right? 9 ft That's true. 10 So, actually uihat that study was and uihat so many 11 of these studies were, including the Suskind 49 studies, 12 these are studies of people that have chloracne; isn't that 13 correct? 14 ft Yes. 15 Q ftnd they are not studies of people who had 15 exposure to 2,3,7,0-tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin per say; 17 are they, ma *am? 10 ft They also had exposure to TCDO. 19 Q Who? 20 ft The people with chloracne had exposure to TCDD. 21 Q Right. I didn't mean to say they did not. 22 ft Ybs . 23 What it uias a study of-- what most of these studies 24 If not all of the studies was were studies of people who B4 1 wore exposed to 2,3,7,B TCCD and got chloracna; isn't that 2 correct, ma'am? 3 8 Yes. 4 Q They wars not studies of people who uiere exposed 5 to 2,3,7,0 TCCD period; uiere they, m a 'am? 6 A No. 7 0 No. 8 THE COURT: Is this a point for a short break? S MR. CARR: Sure, your Honor. 10 THE COURT: Okay, life'll take a short break at 11 this time and resume testimony. 12 CAt this time a short break was taken.) 13 CThe following proceedings usrB had out of the 14 hearing and presence of the jury.) 15 THE COURT: Mr. Carr? IB Doctor, on the point that we were discussing on 17 the effect of long term low dose exposure, there's been a IB population that has been considered to fall into that 19 category, but in fact that have not, and that's the Seveso 20 group of people; isn't that correct, m a 'am? 21 A They have not had long term exposure? 22 Right. They've had low dose exposure, but not 23 long term? 24 A They had initially a relatively high exposure, and 65 1 than they really haven't had long term exposure. 2 Q Wall, uihat mas the extent of the exposure that you 3 uiould call high initially? 4 A The exposure to the cloud and the vegetation 5 during the first tuo weeks after the accident. S Q I understand that. But, I want to knou the level. 7. A I'm sorry. a Q The level of contamination? 9 A I don't knou uhat the contamination in the cloud 10 was; on the vegetation there are some measurements of 15 11 parts per million. 12 And there were-- are you familiar uith the studies 13 that-- the tests that uierB performed later on showing-- I 14 think there's exhibits in this case uhich if I had time 1 15 could pull it out and show you-- but are you familiar uith 16 the studies that showed that the contamination in general 17 uas much less than that, down into the low parts per 18 billion or even down in the parts per trillion? IS A In the soil measurements-- or there are three SO zones; and except for Zone A, all of the soil measurements 21 in Zone B and Zone C ware in parts per trillion. 22 Q Yes. And the people living in those areas, 23 including some of them in Zona A-- Zone A, if I remember 24 the map, uas that small area that uas in th direct path of 66 X this cloud, and I 've assn the drainings that I have, like a large long teardrop oF water. That mould be the Zone 0 3 that you are speaking about? 4 6 It mas adjacent to the plant. 5 Yes. E A * Norn, recently they have redefined the zones, but 7 I 'm talking about the original zones. 0 Actually, as far as those people are concerned 9 than, they did not actually have long term exposure; did 10 they, m a 'am? 11 A The people that lived in B and C, no. IS Q Well, in A, B, and C. None of the people in 13 Seveso had mhat's considered long term exposure; did they, 14 sir-- m a 'am? 15 A N o . IE Is your ansuBr to my question yes, that's correct, 17 they did not have long term exposure? IB A Yes, to-- 19 Q I 'm sorry? 0 A To levels that mould be important. ai Q By your definition of importance? 2 A Yes. 3 Q Well, none of those people mould have those 4 levels. What do you consider important; what levels? 67 1 A There is some-- thBrs is some contamination in the 2 part per trillion range. 3 Wall, but you don't consider that important; do 4 you? 5 A No. 6 Wall, I want to knoui uihat you do consider impor 7 tant. In what rangB? 8 A We have developed this paper that gives you all oF 3 the rational on soil levels. 10 I understand the rational; but, I'd like to know 11 what level of contamination is it that you consider impor 15 tant? 13 A We said that anything beloui 1 part per billion. 14 I know what you said, ma'am, but my question is 15 what do you consider important level oF contamination? 16 A Below 1 part per billion is negligible. 17 And do you mean, then, that exposure to-- or strike IB that-- contamination above 1 part par billion is important, 19 and contamination levels below 1 part per billion are not 50 important? 51 A Levels below 1 part per billion are negligible. 22 They are not important in residential areas. 53 Okay. Then, the answer to the question is they 54 are not important if they,are below 1 part per billion? 68 1 A In residential areas. 2 Well, In any other area are they important? 3 A If you had pastures where cattle was grazing, you 4 might have to go down to lower levels. It depends on the 5 circumstances. 6 Q What about lakes or ponds where fish are located, 7. where you have drain off into those ponds-- run off? a A That is not really my area. This is the responsi a bility of the Environmental Protection Agency, and I have 10 not evaluated that. n Q Doctor, you have evaluated and you do know, 12 however, that if one eats fish contaminated, that his 13 levels of dioxin-- that one can accumulate in one's body 14 levels of dioxin from eating Just that contaminated fish. 15 You know that; don't you, m a 'am? 15 A Yes. 17 And you can get that significantly, high concentra 10 tions simply because of eating the contaminated fish and 19 absorbing the dioxin from that fish; correct, m a 'am? 20 A It depends on the level of contamination. 21 Q Dioxin accumulates in the body; doesn't it, m a 'am? 22 A Yes. 23 Q And any time you are exposed to dioxin, you-- and 24 you ingest it, absorb it-- you are accummulating same of 63 1 that dioxin; aren't you, ma'am? 2 A Yea. 3 Because of it's half-life? 4 A Yes. , 5 And every, day if you are exposed in a fashion that 6 you will-be Ingesting or taking into your body portions of 7 dioxin, you are accumulating some part of that which you B are ingesting or taking in daily; isn't that correct, 3 ma'am? 10 A Yes. 11 And, depending upon it's half-lifB, you would IE continue to accumulate until such time as you reach a point 13 or the amount that you are excreting or disposing of on a 14 daily basis becomes equal to the amount that you are taking 15 in-- equal to or greater than the amount that you are taking IS in on a daily basia; isn't that correct, ma'am? 17 A Yes. 18 Q And that to a great extent depends upon the half13 life of the dioxin? 20 A Yes. El In human tissue; isn't that right? EE A Yes. S3 Q And all during that period of time, whether you 4 are exposed to it in the air, in the soil, in the dirt, in 70 1 liquid, In fish, in beef, in chickens, and however you 2 might ba getting it into your body, you are accumulating 3 dioxin; aren't you, ma'am? 4 ft Yes. 5 Q And you'll accumulate it until you reach a point 6 inhere your excretion becomes greater than your intake; 7 isn't that correctj ma'am? . B A Or equal to. 9 Or squal to. 10 A Greater or equal to. 11 Equal to or greater than. All right, m a 'am. 12 That's one reason that the F.D.A. Dr whoever mads the rules 13 an eating.fish said there's a certain level of fish that 14 you should not eat; correct, m a 'am? 15 A Yes. 16 Because of the bio-accumulation effect? 17 A Yes. IS All right. And of course, that's a reason that 19 you at CDC set the level in sail, again, because of the 20 bio-accumulation factor? 21 A Yes. 22 Now, a lot of this depends upon half-life in 23 humans then. What is the half-life of humans that you 24 believe to be the appropriate half-life in fat tissue in 71 1 humans? 2 A There is really nut enough information. There's 3 one scientist uiho took same TCDD-- 4 Q Dr. Froyer. UIb know that. 5 A Right; I heard that story, too. And that's all I 6 know. 7 Q Well, you know that the volunteer wasn't described B as a scientist, but in the abstract that came out, it was a 9 volunteer took some radiomarked TCDD and measured the half 10 life of that TCDD in his tissue; correct, ma'am? 11 A Yes. 12 And that it was concluded by Poiger and Schlatter 13 at that time that half-life was right at four and a half 14 years, five years-- what is it; I forget now? 15 A Something like that. 16 Yes. And do you have any reason to doubt the 17 validity of their experiment and the result? IB A No, axcBpt that it was a single dose and just one 19 person. 20 Q That I understand. But, my question is: do you 21 have any reason to doubt that validity of that singlB 22 experiment with that single person? , <: 23 A N o . 24 Q And you used and relied upon works and experiments 72 1 of Poiger and SchlattBr in other instances; have you not, a ma'am? 3 A Yes. 4 For instance, in your book-- in your health assess 5 ment document, I noted that you relied upon a number of B Poiger*;and Schlatter results; did you not, ma'am? 7. A Yes. 8 Nquj, dioxin is by consensus, and by yourself as 3 uell I 'm sure, the most potent or one of the very most 10 toxic-- I shouldn't say patent-- toxic chemicals made by man; 11 isn't that correct? 12 A Yb s . 13 Q And, however, it is not the most toxic substance 14 Dr material known; is it? 15 A N o . 16 The botulina toxin is more potent than dioxin; is 17 it not, ma'am? 18 A Yes. And there are some chemical war gasses. 13 Q Chemical war gasses that I guess the rest of us, 20 ujb don't know about yet; correct? 21 A Yes. 22 All right. But, the difference between the 23 botulina toxin and dioxin is that the botulina toxin will 24 not bio-accummulate; will It, ma'am? 73 1 1=1 YS9 . 2 la that correct, m a 'am? 3 A Yes. 4 Q So, the toxicity of dioxin can be grBatly expanded S and magnified over and above the botullna toxin toxicity 6 because of the difference? That is, one accumulates in 7 the body and the other-- that is, the botulina toxin-- does B not accumulate in the body; isn't that correct, m a 'am? 9 A That doesn't necessarily follow. It's Just a 10 difference. One causes chronic toxicity, might cause 11 chronic toxicity, inhere the other might not. There is 12 also, in humans at least, a protective mechanism in that 13 they-- the human-- tuhilB he has a lot of trouble excreting 14 it, stores it away in fatty tissue inhere it is not as 15 effective on the cells. 16 Q But, that's-- most of that is speculative; isn't 17 it, ma'am? IB A Yes and no. Monkeys, for instance, and also 19 guinea pigs have vary little fatty tissue, and they are 20 extremely sensitive to these types of compounds. And that 21 may be one reason inhy they are. 22 All right. That's not an important point that I 23 really inant to pursue. You made a mention about dioxin in 24 the half-life in soil. It is a fact; isn't it, ma'am, that 74 1 as far as when we're talking about half-lives, that in the a soil dioxin doesn't readily decay in the environment and 3 it's extremely persistent in soil? 4 A It's extremely persistent uherever it does not 5 come in contact uilth LIU light. 6 Dell now, Doctor, that's not exactly correct. 7 It's got to be in contact with UU light and it has to be B associated with some kind of solvent as wall; does it not, 9 ma *am? 10 A It has to have a hydrogen donor. 11 Q Yes. IB A But, they are also in the environment. 13 Q Doctor, didn't Crosby point out that therB has to 14 be this solvent as well? 15 A No. I mean, I don't know what Crosby pointed out, 1G but you neBd to have a hydrogen donor; any hydrogen donor 17 will do. IB Didn't he study half life in soil,' and haven't you 19 agreed that half life in soil is anywhere from what-- one BO year to tan years? SI A Crosby published a paper where he, I think, SB measured the degradation on vegitaticn which was exposed. 33 And we may be talking about different papers. B4 hay well. But, I want to talk about the soil and 75 1 not the vsgitation anyuay . a A I don't know about Crosby's work in soil. 3 Q All right. And, Doctor, you have stated in the 4 past, have you not, that the half-life in soil is uihat? 5 Ten years? 6 A I've estimated that; nobody really knouts. 7 Q Yes. And is that still your beat Judgment that B the half-lifB in soil, or you best estimate- I should say, 3 is ten years? 10 A Yes, in soil that is not exposed to UV light. 11 Well, an exposure to UU light takes precious 12 little shading or a very thin layer of soil to prevent that 13 sunlight from reaching it; doesn't it, m a 'am? 14 A Yes. 15 Q And nobody knouis yet uihat happens to the dioxin 1G vapor in the air-- you don't agree that it turns into 17 vapor-- but if it does turn into vapor in the air, nobody IB knouis uihat happens to it in the sunlight in that form; do 19 they, ma'am? 20 A I don't know. 21 Q And others have testified in this case on that 22 point. You have nothing to add, I take it, to uihat they've 23 said on the point; isn't that correct? 24 A Uell, I don't know uihat they've said/- 76 1 D Wall-- a A But, I don't know anything about it. 3 Q You don't know anything about the subject? 4 A Yes. 5 Q la that correct, ma'am? 6 A I'm sorryj ia what correct? it Q That you don't know enough about the subject of 8 the resistance or lis of dioxin in the soil or in the air 3 to maks*-- to give us an expert opinion on the view on the 10 issue? 11 A That's correct. 12 Q All right. Now, Doctor, to sum up your knowledge 13 as to the long term low dose exposure to dioxin-- well, 14 first of all, you consider low dose to be in tha lower 15 parts par billion, do you not, ma'am, and below? Or is it IB fair to say that you consider .anything above one billion a 17 high dose exposure-- one part per billion? 13 A This is in soil, or where people ingest it, or-- I 19 mean, what-- 20 0 Well, whatever? Well, in soil, for instance? 21 Anything above 1 part per billion in soil, do you consider 22 that to be high exposure? 23 A N o . 24 Q All right. What is the level of contamination in 77 1 the soil that you would consider to be high exposure? a A That would depend on the circumstances. 3 Q In a residential area where people will be exposed 4 to it? 5 A I would call anything-- anything below 1 part par 6 billion I would not be concerned about at all. That's ono ? The next category or low exposure-- and you were 8 asking me about low exposure or high exposure? 9 Q High exposure. 10 A High exposure. Then, anything above 100 parts per 11 billion I would consider high exposure. IS In the soil? If the soil is contaminated with 13 that? 14 A Yes. And that would be of great concern. Any 15 thing above 20 would be in sort of an intermediate range, IB between 20 and 100, as far as I'm concerned. 17 Q All right. 18 A Now, there are other variables. In Missouri, and 19 that's why we were always-- we always said that whatever ws 20 evaluated was for Missouri. In addition to the ,3,7,8HI tatrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin, this material was also 22 mixed in oil. And it's possible that that would increase 23 it's biodegradability versus other areas where you would 24 not have this addition of the oil. 78 1 Q 811 right. You mentioned from 20 to 100 is an s intermediate zone. And from 20 parts per billion and 3 below, down to 1 part per billion, what do you consider 4 that zona? 5 A In a residential area with small children, I would 6 also be concerned. In an industrial aits, depending orr the 7 situation, and depending on the type of exposure-- and of 8 course, all Df this is explained in our paper-- S Q I know. 10 A I would not--- you might not have a lot of concern, 11 and your actions might be diffrant. 12 I'm talking about residential zones right now. 13 And from l part par billion and below is what you consider 14 low dose or-- I'm sorry, not low doss, but axposura-- well, 15 yes, I do mean low dose exposure. Correct; ma'am? 16 A I consider that as of no concern. 17 Q And you consider-- well, all right. You consider IB it of no concern. But, you have no knowledge as to what 19 the long term health offsets will be from exposure to 20 levels of 1 part per billion and below; isn't that correct, 1 `ma *am? 22 A Based on the knowledge that I have, and based on 23 animal experiments, and my own experience in the area of 24 toxicology, I don't think there will be any health affects, 79 1 or I don't think there ere any health effects. a That isn't really what I asked you. You don't 3 know the health affects from that kind of exposure; isn't 4 that correct, ma'am? 5 A Yes, I do; they are nans. 6 Q I'mf sorry? 7 8 I do. There are none. a Q There are none? 9 A Yes. io D Where have you had human long term exposure to low il doses to allow you to come to that conclusion, m a 'am? 12 A The general population has been exposed to low 13 doses. 14 And hot) do you know that the general papulation 15 hasn't been effected by it? IB A The health af the general papulation-- the health 17 f the general population seems to be improving. Ws live 18 longer now and our life expectancy is increasing. 19 Q Doctor, that doesn't maan that our health ia 20 improving. You can have---you can live 80 years with pains 21 in the back; you can live BO years with joint pains; you sa can live 80 years with having colds; you can live SO years S 3 having headaches; you can have ell kinds of health effects 24 end have long life; can you not? BO 1 HR. HEINEMAN: Object to the question as argu s mentative, your Honor. 3 THE COURT: Overruled. It's proper cross* 4 A These sorts of health effects have always been 5 there. They've been there before. B Q There's no doubt about that, ma'am. But, if they 7 are increased or exacerbated by exposure to dioxin, that 8 still is a health effect caused by dioxin; is it not? 3 A They are not increased or exacerbated. io Q Horn do you know that? 11 A If you compare what data uie have from years in the ia past, end I've sometimes triad to do that, to what us knout 13 noui, there either is no difference, or there io something 14 like the increase in cancer of the lung because of smoking, 15 or there are declines in health effects. IB Well nou, Doctor, you are talking about signifi 17 cant health affects when you talk about lung cancer. I'm 18 talking about just ganeral health. Let me put it a differ 19 ent way. Isn't it a fact that whether or not there will be SO chronic health effects is not known yat, because it takas a 21 long time for such a health effects to show up, and because 22 of the life span in humans is very long? 23 A If you are talking about the low level background 24 contamination in our environment, we have now had that, as 81 1 far as nommarnial products ara concerned, for-- 5 Pardon? 3 B As far as commercial products are concerned, for 4 at least since right after the Second World UJar. And as 5 far as the Fire and combustion and incinerators are con 6 cerned, we've had that longer than that. 7 Q Doctor, mould you answer mg question? S A There has been enough long term exposure that, S this low level long term exposure, that you could make some 10 judgment. 11 And when did you make that judgment, m a 'am? How 12 long have you had that opinion? 13 A I've had that opinion for several years and For 14 some-- for quite a number of years, 15 0 How many would that be? 16 A Five or six, maybe. I don't remember. There's a 17 paper that shows the contamination with TCDD in different IB areas of sediment, I think in Lake Michigan, which give us 13 also seme information about some of this background contami 20 nation. 51 No; but, you've had this opinion as to the long 25 term health effects-- chronic health Bffects-- `for at least 23 five years or seven? 54 A I have started looking at that in connection 82 1 with~in the publications-- s Can you answer-- 3 8 I don't quite know the year, you see. When the 4 papers came out about the incineration, and also this paper 5 about the various levels of TCDD that were found in the 6 sediment in Lake Michigan where they found an appreciable 7 increase over a period of time and then tried to relate 8 that to the period when the sediments were put down. 9 Old you have that opinion at least by the time you 10 wrote your article "Health Complications of 2,3,7,8-tetra11 chlorodibenzo-para-dioxin Contamination in Residential 12 Soil"; you and Falk and Stehr wrote? 13 A Yes. 14 Q You had that opinion at that time? 15 A AFtBr-- 18 Could you answer that question? 17 A Yes. 18 Q And that-- published that in *B4. Did you have 19 that opinion in-- are you talking-- whBn you talk about your 20 sediment in Lake Michigan, you are talking about the 21 Kingston Ottawa Study? 22 A I think that's the study; I 'm not-- 23 Q With the fish? 24 A I-- S3 1 Q Now, Doctor, In your deposition that you gave In 2 1S82, did you have that opinion than? 3 9 1 probably did; 1 don't remember whether it cams 4 up. 5 Well, let me read you what you answered at that E time* And this is-- I'm giving it to you as part of your 7 answer-- B DR. HE INEMAN: flay I see it, please? 9 MR. CARR: In a moment. 10 "Whether there will be chronic health effects is 11 very-- not known yet, because it takes a long time since the 12 life span in humans is very long." Did you make such a 13 statement? You recall that; don't you, ma'am? 14 A But, that's in connection with .high level 15 exposure, and you are asking me about background exposure. 16 No, I 'm asking about low level exposure. 17 A You were talking about 1-- below 1 part per IB billion. IS Q I was talking about low level exposure-- -chronic 20 long term low level exposure. 21 A To me that goes into the background exposure that 22 the general population is getting, and that I don't-- has no 23 effect on the general well-being of the population. 24 Q Well, what about exposure like at Seveso? 84 1 A Tha long term sxposura Is generally in that-- First 2 of all, that population hasn't had any long term sxposura; 3 it only had short term acute exposure. They were then 4 removed, the place uias cleaned up, they mere moved back in. 5 Doctor, the question was asked you relating to 6 Seveso, on page 57, "UJere there any reported-- anything 7 reported in connection"-- and this is at the deposition in 0 December 19B2 where Bliss is suing Lafser-- the question 9 asked you, "Were there reported-- anything else reported in 10 connection with tha Seveso, Italy incident with which you 11 agree?" You answer was, "There were some abnormal liver 12 Function teste, and thre were some abnormal nerve con 13 duction tests. I 've not actually reviewed that in detail. 14 Whether there will be chronic health eFFects is very-- not 15 known yet, because it takes a long time since tha liFe span 16 in humans is very long." Do you recall that answer at that 17 time? 18 A That population had-- 19 My question is: do you recall that being your 20 answer? 21 A I don't recall that answer, but-- 22 That would have been the truth at that time? 23 A Yes, that's what I said; but that was talking 24 about the population in 5evsso, which was a population that 65 X had high level short term exposure. So, it's-- a Some of them had high level short term exposure; 3 some of them had low level exposure? 4 6 Some of those tests that they are talking about 5 there were in people that actually had chloracne. B Q Yea; but, that test isn't uihat I'm directing your 7 attention to. I'm directing your attention to the fact B that you said there as far ae chronic health effects, it is 9 not known yet, because it takes a long time since the life 10 span in humans is very long. 11 A Yes. That's for high level exposure. IE MR. HEINEMAN: Excuse me, Doctor. Objection, 13 your Honor, the question is taken out of context. 14 MR. CARR: I've read the entire question and her 15 answer, your Honor. IE THE COURT: Do you have anything else to say on 17 the objection? IB MR. HEINEMAN: Yes. The first part of it, he 19 read-- he read a much longer part where h e 's talking about eo certain results-- 21 THE COURT: Let me see the question. 22 M R . CARR: Sure. 23 CAt this time the deposition was taken to the S4 bench and reviewed by the Court.} 86 1 THE COURT: Your objection is overruled. I don't 2 think it's out of context. 3 Nduj( Doctor, your answer there regarding the 4 Seveso people were based upon people who had a short term 5 exposure, and gou responded that whether or not there are 6 going to be chronic health Bffects from the exposure the 7 people of Seveso had is not known get, because it takes a e long time since thB life span in humans is very long. 9 Isn't that what gou said, m a 'am? 10 A Yes. 11 And you were referring to the fact that these 12 people in Seveso had this exposure at that point in time 13 and that because human life is so long, it had not yet had 14 time for long term health effects to show up. Isn't that 15 correct, m a 'am? IB A For that papulation. 17 Q Yes; right. Now, m a 'am, on the high dose or high IB level exposure, what are the health effects that you expect 19 to be-- show or develop from this high level exposure, and 20 exposure to higher levels or concentrations of dioxin? 21 A The thing that hasn't been worked out properly 22 is-- the onB question is cancer. 23 All right. That hasn't been worked out yet. So, 24 there's a question-- you certainly would worry about cancer; 87 X uould you not, m a 'am? 5 8 That uould be a chronic health affect that you 3 uould-- 4 I'm sorry? 5 8 Yes. 6 Q And, uhat other health effects are there from high 7 levels of exposure to dioxin? 8 8 There are nd health effects that us know of. The 8 things ue uould uorry about uould ba things like cancer. 10 0 Are you saying that there are no risks involved 11 uith exposure to high levels of dioxin other than the risk 15 of cancer? 13 8 There have not,been any demonstrated health 14 effects other than chloracne, 15 Q My question is that sofar as you, Dr. Kimbrough, 16 is concerned, there are no health effects connected uith 17 high dose exposure other than chloracne and the possible IB uorry about cancer? 19 8 We're not talking about chronic health effects-- 50 Yes, ue're talking about any kind of health 51 effects, Doctor, from exposure to high levels of dioxin. 55 A Any kind of health effect is different from 53 chronic health effect to me. 54 Dell, then, 1st me include it to any kind of BB 1 health effect. What are the health Bffecta that are conse 2 quences of exposure to high Ib v b Is of dioxin? 3 A There have been in workers acute health effects 4 which have bean described. 5 Q And those are what? 6 A And some of-- there's the chloracne; there can be 7 hyperpigmentation; thBra have been things like general 8 malaise; and there have been some abnormal liver function 8 tests. There have been some complaints in the 61 system; 10 and there have been problems with sensory neuropothy. 11 Those acute effects have usually resolved themselves over 12 the years. 13 Usually, but not always? 14 A Except for the chloracne, which seems to be 15 extremely persistent. 16 Now, the others, you say usually they resolve 17 themsevlss. But not always? IB A Not always. 15 Q Doctor, in addition to those that you mentioned, 20 there are other organs that are affected, which are the 21 liver, the thymus, the kidney-- 22 A I mentioned the liver. 23 Q Oh, you did? 24 A Yes. 89 1 Wall, what about the thymus and the kidneys-- the s thymus and the kidneys? Aren't they also effected? 3 A Ue don't know about the thymus; and as far as the 4 kidney is concerned, the only acute effect that we saw was 5 in that one girl in Missouri that had the hemorrhagic 6 cystitis. But, that has not been reported in any other 7 people-- in workers. B Doctor, didn't you testify in this Lafser case 9 when they asked you, "hJhat are the symptoms that you as a 10 toxicologist would look for or expect to see when an animal 11 or human, etc., was exposed to dioxin. Aside from hyperIS caratosis and the chloracne, are there other symptoms?" 13 And you said, "The symptoms and signs in different species 14 vary. The organs that might be effected are thB liver, the IS thymus, the kidneys. In addition, there seems to be a 16 general effect which produces severe weight loss; and often 17 loss of adipose tissue, fatty tissue. If the exposure IB occurs to high degrees or high concentrations of dioxin, 15 there may be an effect on reproduction. From long term SO exposure, you worry.about cancer." Wasn't that your answer SI to that question at that time? ss MR. HEINEMAN: Excuse me, your Honor. Excuse me, S3 Doctor. May Counsel approach the bench, your Honor? 34 THE COURT: Sure. J Ji ,, ' / /*" t1 j i A f- 11 1 93 1 So, actually when you set a level of 1 part per 2 billion as being below that-- or above that of concern, 3 you're actually talking about of concern for risk of 4 cancer; aren't you, m a 'am? 5 A Yes. 6 And you are not talking about any other single 7 health effect; are you, m a 'am? B A All other single health effects uou could proba 9 bly have-- for other single health effects, you could have 10 higher doses and you mould not have a problem. 11 That isn't what I've asked you, m a 'am. This ' " 12 study, this publication that you had, purports to and deals 13 only with the single ailment, that is, cancer, and related 14 only to the risk of getting cancer from exposure to thesB 15 levels of dioxin; isn't that correct, m a 'am? 16 A Yes, 17 Q And there are a world of other health problems-- 10 hBart attacks, brain disease, paralysis, porphyria-- therB's 13 any number of other health problems besides cancer; isn't 20 that correct, ma'am? 21 A Yes. 22 And this paper of yours did not address the health 23 complications of any of those other problems; did it, 24 ma *am? 90 1 CTha Following proceedings were had at the s bench.) 3 MR. HEINEMAN: Your Honor, I object to that 4 questioning as not being impeaching and an improper use of 5 a prior deposition, because it clearly states that she uias 6 asked at that time about both animals and humans, and on 7 this ocassion she uias asked about humans. And therefore, e that's not impeaching. And I object to it as an improper s use of the prior deposition. 10 MR. CARR: Her answer, she did not limit it to n animals; her answer was a response to a question that said 15 animals and-- or was it or-- an animal or a human. It 13 doesn't say just animals; is says animals or humans. 14 THE COURT: She had the opportunity to limit it 15 if she wanted to limit it during the answer. Apparently IB she didn't. I don't think that the fact that it was asked 17 of either or takes away from it's value as impeachment IB given the answer that was made. Overruled. 19 CThe following proceedings were had out of the 50 hearing and presence of the jury.? 21 And Doctor, when you said "and for long term 55 exposure you worry about cancer" your answer there 53 certainly was directed to a human being-- worry about human 54 beings; wasn't it? 31 1 A It was directed to the animals and human beings. 2 And we have found cancer in animals. 3 0 Well, mg question is that your answer related to 4 animals and human beings; did it not, m a 'am? 5 A Mg answer related to animals and human beings, 6 yes. 7 Q All right. And you said For long term exposure 8 you worry about cancer; didn't you say that, m a 'am? 3 A Yes. 10 Q That was the truth at that time; wasn't it, m a 'am? 11 A Yes. 12 Related to human beings; wasn't it, m a 'am? 13 A Also, yes. 14 Now, Doctor, in point of fact, you haven't really 15 done any study or any work to see what someof the lesser 16 type ailments might be that result from dioxin exposure 17 such as headaches, and peripheral neuropathies, weakness, 10 and the joint aches, and general malaise? You really 13 haven't done any studies or work connected with dioxin and 20 those being the symptoms you are looking for; have you, 21 ma 'am? Other than the Missouri Study? 22 A When you say ''you" do you mean all of CDC or do 23 you mean me? 24 I mean CDC. 92 1 A Id5 have-- NI05K la part of CDC. a Q Well, NIOSH just works an cancer. 3 ft No, they also do cross sectional studies. 4 Did they do some studies on dioxin exposure and 5 these other types of problems? 6 A There hasn't bean anything published. 7 Q There's nothing that w b can see or read or that's B available to us? 9 A No. 10 Actually the only study that we've got in which 11 they went out and askBd questions and triad to expose these 12 general kind of problems that I've discussed to you are non 13 specific or less specific kind of problems that I 've dis 14 cussed with yo. The only thing we've got is this Missouri 15 Health Study; is that correct, ma'am? 16 A That's the only thing that has been published. 17 Q Yes. And insofar as your-- the study that you IB published in 19B4, that is, "The Health Complications of 19 2,3,7,B TCDD Contamination in Residential Soil", the only 20 really thing that you used in estimating your risks and 21 arriving at your levels was the risk of cancer; and then 22 you used just the risk of cancer in animals as a criteria; 23 isn't that right,, ma'am? 24 A Yes. 94 1 9 Thera was no reason to do that. 2 MR. CARR: Your Honor, would you tell the witness 3 to answer that question. 4 THE COURT; I don't think that was responsive. 5 You have to answer the question, please. 6 THE WITNESS: Could I have the question again, 7 please? B CThe previous question was read back by the court 9 reporter.D 10 A Yes, it did. 11 0 And what other problems did it address in addition 12 to cancer? 1 13 A It addressed reproduction, and it also discussed 14 the human health effects. 15 What level did-- where did you-- well, you discussed IS those things, but-- maybe my question was imprecise. The 17 risk assessment that you undertook for just related to 19 cancer; did it not, sir-- ma'am? IS A No. We also looked at the effects on repro 20 duction in monkeys. 21 D- All right. You are correct. You said, "The 22 exposure assessment used was for estimating risks being for 23 carcinogenicity and reproductive health effects." Correct, 24 ma *am? j 35 1 A Because those seemed to be the most sensitive. 2 ' Excuse me, could you answer my question? Just 3 those two things that you used in your exposure assess 4 ments? . 5 A No. 6 Isn't that what you said? Didn't you use and 7 didn't you say on page BO, ma'am, "For these reasons this B study was not used for risk assessment calculations, but 3 only the chronic toxicity studies which demonstrated a 10 carcinogenic response in rodents were used." Didn't you 11 say that, ma'am? 12 to But* I have reasons for that. 13 Q Excuse me; my question is: didn't you say that, 14 m a 'am? 15 A I said, "For these reasons", yes. 16 And on the next page, didn't you also say, "It 17 must be stressed that the exposure assessments used in IB estimating risks for carcinogenicity and reproductive 13 health effects contain critical assumptions that are not 20 likely to be actually encountered." Isn't that correct, 21 ma'am? 22 to Yes. 23 Q / And did you also discuss about these are 54 calculations for-- that you made for long term' risk as far /_ * ** ** . i r // 96 1 as cancer Is concerned? a A Yes* 3 THE COURT: Is this a good point to break? 4 MR. CARR: Yes, your Honor. 5 THE COURT: Okay. UJe'll start Monday morning at 6 3:30. Thank you, Doctor. 7 CAt this tims Court adjourned for the day.J a 3 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 10 13 20 21 22 23 24 J  X. 97 1 STATE OF ILLINOIS 2 COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR 5 3 4 5 6 I, TRACY LYBAREER, C.S.R., OFFicial Court 7 Raporter in and for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, and the e Official Court Reporter who transcribed the above-styled 3 cause had on January 10, 1386, do hereby certify that tha 10 foregoing transcript of proceedings is a true, cqrrect and 11 complete transcript of tha proceedings had on said, date. 15 DATED this 16th day of January, 19B6. 13 14 A 15 15 ) * 17 la 19 20 Official Court Reporter 51 52 n 53 54 / ft 'i 1 STATE OF ILLINOIS 5) ss. a COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR 5 3 4 5 I, RICHARD F. GOLDENHERSH, Circuit Judge in and 6 for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct transcript of the proceedings had in the case captioned: FRANCES E. KENNER, ET AL v. NQNSANTO COMPANY, Cause No. 90-L-970, heard on January 10, 1906, 11 V..! DATED this -- day of January, 19B6 13 14 15 16 17 10 19 21 23 24