Document M4xEq1k1DJOx63Roq1GKGNLaj

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT ST. CLAIR COUNTY, ILLINOIS FRANCES E. KENNER, et al, Plaintiffs, VB. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant. CAUSE NO. 80-L-970 REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS Before the HONORABLE RICHARD P. GOLDENHERSH January 10, 1986 APPEARANCES: MR. REX CARR, Attorney at Law, and MR. JEROME SEIGFREID, Attorney at Law, On Behalf of the Plaintiffs. MR. KENNETH HEINEMAN, Attorney at Law, and MR. JOSEPH NASSIF, Attorney at Law, On Behalf of the Defendant. TRACY LYBARGER, C.S.R., R.P.R. Official Court Reporter r * INDEX OFFER OF PROOF PAGE 1. RENATE KIMBROUGH Cross Examination * 2 1 BE IT REMEMBERED AND CERTIFIED, that heretofore, a on to-wit: January 10, 1986, the matter as hereinbefore 3 set forth came on for hearing before the Honorable Richard 4 P. Goldenherah, Circuit Judge in and for the Twentieth 5 Judicial Circuit, State of Illinois, and the following uias 6 had of record, to-wit: 7 CThe Following Offer of Proof was had out of the 8 hearing and presence of the Jury.) 9 THE COURT: You may be seated. fir. Carr? 10 CONTINUED CROSS EXAMINATION 11 BY MR. CARR: ie 0 Dr. Kimbrough, we were discussing the Missouri 13 Health Study yesterday. What in your judgment is the 14 number of people that would suffer from dizziness-- percen 15 tage of people? 16 A You mean in the study or in the general popula 17 tion? 18 Q In the general population? 19 A A lot. I don't really know. 20 You have no idea whatsoever as to what percentage 21 of people you would expect to have dizziness in the general 22 population? 23 A It-- no, not really. It depends on the age and-- 24 Q Doctor, the general population includes all ages. 3 1 What percentage of the general population do you expect to 2 have dizziness? 3 A I guess almost everyone will be dizzy at some time 4 at some point. 5 Q Doctor-- end you know that that's not what I'm 6 asking you about-- I'm asking you in terms of the Missouri 7 Health Study. You asked that question; you put that 0 question in there for your people to discover whether or 9 not the people that have been exposed to dioxin have a 10 particular sign or symptom. What percentage of people do 11 you expect to answer in the affirmative from the general 12 population? 13 A I didn't put that question in there. 14 0 Doctor, you testified in behalf of Monsanto here 15 earlier that you and others at CDC helped to design that IB proposal; the name of CDC is on the cover as being one of 17 the participants; I believe you said that CDC helped fund 10 it, if not fund it entirely; you are here as an expert 19 witness; you brought up the subject of the Missouri Health 20 Study in your direct testimony. I 'd like-- if you don't 21 take responsibility for it, who will take responsibility 22 for the study? 23 A I helped design the study, as you correctly 24 stated, but I 'm not responsible for each and every question 4 1 on that questionnaire. When you work in a group and design 2 something, you make certain suggestions, and than you 3 finally arrive at e protocol by consensus. But, that 4 doesn't mean that I have to agree with every question that's 5 on this questionnaire or that I feel that svsry question Nis 6 important. 7 G But, when you said you arrived at a consensus, you B did indeed participate in the proposal and you did, includ 3 ing you, arrive at a concensus. Now, that question is in 10 there; and I know that you discussed it with the people 11 before it was put in there; I know you considered it, 12 you're that type of scientist; and I'm sure that you had in 13 your mind at that time what you would expect the general 14 population to rBveal would be a symptom of dizziness when 15 asked such a question* Now, I'm now asking you today what 16 percentage Df th population do you believe would have 17 dizziness? 18 A I believe that most people at soma point have 13 dizziness, and I don't think it was a good question. SO Q Doctor, I know; we've said that. 51 A And that was my opinion-- SS Q But that question, if you put in in expecting 53 that answer, then there would be no point in putting it in, 24 because the answer would be 100 percent. What did you 5 1 expect tD get a normal percentage of papulation to answBr 2 in the framework that you asked the question designed to 3 discover health effects? 4 A In my opinion it was a meaningless question. That 5 uias my personal opinion. 6 0 Now, Doctor, if you expect a hundred percent of 7 the peDplB to have dizziness to answer in the affirmative, S then it would bB revealing indeed that only 15 percent with s a high risk exposure were dizzy. That would suggest to you 10 as a scientist, wouldn't it, m a 'am, that dioxin has an 11 effect upon the body that would prevent a person from being 1 dizzy? 13 A N o . 1* Q Oh, it wouldn't? If you expect a hundred percent 15 affirmative answers, and you only got 15 percent? 15 A It Just reveals that maybe people answered the 17 question in some way where they only considered dizziness / 10 of a profound dizziness, or I don't know how-- it's a very 13 soft assessment of a health effect. 0 0 Doctor, that may be, but it was cna of the factors 21 you used to assess health effects. And by ''you" I mean you as a participant in this Missouri Heath Study. And, there 23 fore, I 'm obligated to ask you about it. If you say today 4 all of these questions were meaningless, then what you are 6 1 telling me is that your health study was meaningless and E that CDC participated in a meaningless event or scientific 3 endeavor, ons that was designed From the outset to show 4 nothing and designed to tall the world there's nothing 5 wrong with anybody. We at thB CDC, we at the Missouri G Public Health System, and we at St. Joseph's Hospital 7 conducted this great survey d F the exposed people, and w 8 Find nothing wrong with them; we Find them to have no prob 9 lems that are not existent in the general population, It 10 sounds to ms like, and I submit to you that you can either 11 disagree or agree with this statement of mine, it sounds to IE me like you created a phony study For the purpose oF a 13 publicity and taking away From the eFFeGts of dioxin. Is 14 that correct, Dr. Kimbrough? 15 MR. HEINEMAN: Objsct to the speech, your Honor, IB and move that it be stricken as not part of the question. 17 Improper. IS THE CDURT: It was proper-- in viewing the 19 question in it's totality, it's a proper question in cross SO examination. Overruled. El A I did not say that all oF these questions were 5E mBaninglsss. I just simply said that dizziness was S3 something that occurred commonly in the general popu 4 lation, and that if you just take one question like that out 7 1 of context without evaluating all of the other things that a we did in this study that-- it Just doesn't mean anything. 3 And to ask me what I think the prevalence of this would be 4 in the general population really all by itself is meaning 5 less. It depends on how persistent the dizziness is with 6 somebody that has this symptom. You then have to examine 7 them to see if there are other things wrong with them. But, B just by itself-- people every once in a while when they get 9 up very rapidly out of bad, they may feel that they are 10 slightly dizzy early in the morning, or they may have a 11 hangover, or they may have some dizziness. So, it's 12 something that can be very common. But, in the context of 13 all of the other things, it may mean something. That's why 14 we ask these questions. And we partly ask the questions, 15 because at the moment we really don't know-- that was also 16 the problem with the design of the Ranchand Study-- what the 17 health effects are that might be caused by TCDD. It's like 18 throwing out a net and then seeing whether there are 19 differences and then trying to interpret that and see 20 whether there actually may be 3ome health effects that may 21 be associated with this type of exposure. That's what 22 epidemiology of-- this type of epidemiology is all about when 23 you don't do clinical trials. 24 Q Doctor, I suggest you didn't answer the question r i i s 1 that I posed to you. Was this study designed simply to 2 placate the public? That is, to let the public believe 3 that you ware doing something about thB dioxin problem and 4 then ask meaningless questions and corns up with meaning 5 less means taking-- lumping all the laboratory findings G together and getting just means? Was it for the purpose of 7 letting the public believe that you wars doing something B about the dioxin problem end then announcing the results 9 that there*s no difference between the two groups exposed; 10 they all have ailments that everybody has; and therefore ; 11 dioxin doesn't cause any problems? 12 A No, of course not. We triad the best we could. 13 What I'm trying to explain to you that there are limi 14 tations to what is called observational epidemiology, and 15 you are trying to misrepresent and misinterpret our work. IB Q Doctor, what I've asked you, every question that 17 I've asked you about so far that you submitted to th IB people, every single one that I've asked you about so far 19 you've in effect said is meaningless because you can have 20 swelling in the hands at any time in your life, because you 21 can have-- everybody has headache, because everybody has 22 joint and muscle aches, because everybody has dizziness, 23 because everybody has a peripheral neuropathy. These 24 questions then, every singlB time you've answered you've 9 1 said in effect that question is meaningless; isn't that 2 correct? 3 HR. HEINEMAN; Objection, your Honor, mischar4 acterizes the witness* testimony. 5 THE COURT; Overruled. 6 Q Isn't that correct? 7 A No. B Q Which question did you say was meaningful? 9 A For instance, I said that losing weight, ten 10 pounds-- over ten pounds of weight-- 11 Q I do stand corrected; you did say that was mean 12 ingful . 13 A -- was important. And I never said that any of 14 these questions were entirely meaningless. They are only 15 meaningless if you take them out of context; and that's what 16 you are doing. See, you have to understand and you have to 17 evaluate all of this together rather than just saying-- IB Q Now, Doctor, before we can evaluate it all to 19 gether, we have to arrive at what was found and the basis 20 for determining the validity of what was found. And I do 21 agree that you did say the weight loss had meaning, but all 22 the other questions thus far you've said have no meaning, 23 that they can't in effect use it to asses the health 24 conditions of these people; isn't that correct? 10 1 A I didn't say that they had no meaning; ,1 said that 2 this was something that was very prevalent in the general 3 population and it was difficult to interpret. That's what 4 I said. 1 5 Well, you didn't interpret it at all? 6 A Dr that's what I tried to say anyway. 7 Q You gave no significance to the fact that 36 and B 41 percent of the people respectively had persistent 3 headaches, did you, ma'am, because you said what-- s hun 10 dred percent of the population-- -was that the one you said a 11 hundred percent have headaches-- 50 percent of thB population 12 have headaches; isp't that right, m a 'am? 13 A U!s were talking about numbers here. 14 Q Isn't that what you said? 15 A Us weren *t talking about headaches in general, IB Isn't that what you said, m a 'am? 17 A I said that headache is very prevalent in the IB general population. 13 B No, you said that half the people or battsr have 20 headaches? 21 A Yes. 22 Twenty-five percent of the other pBoplQ have 3 swollen legs, swollen limbs, swollen fingers? 2* A That's the way it is. I mean, there's nothing I r 1 can do about it. 11 S Well, Dr. Kimbrough, I'm not asking whether or not 3 that*s the way it is; I submit to you that that's a flip 4 answer that you've given to me and not one that's meant to 5 enlighten me. Dr. Kimbrough, I 'm asking you specifically 6 as to the meaning of these questions and as to the meaning 7 of this study. I would appreciate if you would respond B accordingly. Doctor-- 9 MR. HEINEMAN: Object to the speech, your Honor, 10 and move it be stricken. 11 THE COURT: Overruled. IS 0 Doctor, what percent of thB population do you 13 believe will have loss of sensation in thsir extremities in 14 the context of the study that was conducted in the way the 15 question was posed for the purpose of using and putting that IB question in, what percent of the people in the general pop 17 ulation would you expect to answer that they had loss of IB sensation in the extremities? 19 A UJhat do you mean by loss of sensation? SO Q Whatever you meant in the question that you put to 21 the people? 22 A I mean, are they totally numb? t S3 Q I 'm sorry, whatever you meant, ma'am. I don't 24 know what you meant; you were the ones that designed the IS 1 studyj 1 did not; it is your question, not mine. Whatever s you expected to get as a response- What response did you 3 expect to get from the general unexposed population when 4 you asked that question? i 5 A There will be some people who will report occa 6 sional loss of sensation-- 7 Doctor, to save some-- are you going to give me a a percentage? 9 A Yea. 10 D All right. 11 A Up to somewhere between 25 and 30 percent. On the 12 other hand, total loss of sensation and inability to feel 13 hot and cold in addition to that would bs a percentage that 14 would bs around five or less. 15 Q Wsll-- and in what context did you ask the ques 15 tion? Which one of those parameters controlled the 17 question you asked? 18 A In this case, it was the broader question, as I 19 remember. I would have to go back to the questionnaire. 50 So, you would expect what-- 50 percent of the-- 51 A No, I said around 25 percent. 52 Q Twenty-five percent of thB people to answer in the 23 affirmative? 54 A For the broader question, which is not total inca 13 1 pacity, But, I would have to go back to the questionnaire a to sort out what additional questions there were to 3 determine whether we were dealing with tha total loss and 4 whether you could actually gather that from tha question 5 naire. I don't remember, 5 Q And you don't have tha questionnaire here, so I 7 can't really examine you on that either; can I? a A No. It's really a study, as you correctly stated, 3 done by the Missouri State Health Department. And that's 10 where the questionnaires and all that would ba. 11 Q Doctor, if you would expect 25 percent to have IS these kind of problems, and you only end up with HO percent, 13 that would indicate that dioxin is doing something to the 14 nervous system as well; wouldn't it? 15 A I 'm sorry, could you-- 16 Q IF you expected 25 percent to answer in the 17 affirmative, and you only got 19 or 20 percent, that would 16 be significant; wouldn't it, m a 'am? 19 A No. 20 Q You don't think so? SI A No. It just depends on-- you sae, you are asking me 2 about the general population. S3 Q Yea. 24 A And then, it depends an the age distribution and a 14 1 lot of other things, r a Q Doctor, you designed this study with the age in 3 mind of that very group; did you not? 4 A Of that very group, but the general population, 5 Q You picked your group to mirror the general popu 6 lation; did you not? 7 A No. 8 Q You did not? S A No, because wa had a comparison group; and that's 10 why uiB picked-- 11 0 What comparison group did you have? IS A That's the loui risk group, 13 Q The low risk group was exposed, What kind of 14 comparison group 'is that? IS A Well, ws didn't think they had any exposure. IS Q Now, Doctor, you just got through telling me yes 17 terday that if they walked on the streets of Times Beach IQ they had exposure; did you not? Didn't you tall me that 19 yesterday? Didn't you tell me that yesterday? SO A That's what you said, 21 Q No, that's what you said, Doctor. Did you not say 2S that yesterday that if they walked on the streets of Timas 23 Beach they had exposure? 24 A As far as uie could determine-- 15 1 Q Doctor, answer my question, please. Isn't that 2 what you said yesterday? 3 A Could we read back what I said yesterday? 4 Q No, because she doesn't have it. I asked you the 5 question if people walked on the streets of Times Beach and S were included in this quastionairE and in the low risk 7 group, and you said they were. I said, "Itfsll, then they had a exposure; did they not?" And you said, ''Yes, they did." 9 MR. HEINEMAN: Objection, your Honor, misrepre 10 sents the witness* testimony. u THE COURT: Overruled; it does not. 12 Q Don't you recall that being asked? 13 A I would have to go back to the record. It*s on the 14 record, so you can clarify it. 15 Q I know it's in the record. But, now you are saying 16 that the people had no exposure; aren't you? 17 A I 'm saying that it was a low risk group, and we-- 18 Q Doctor, that's not what you are saying now, that 19 they had no exposure. They did indeed have exposure in the EQ low risk group, most of them; didfi't they? 51 MR. HEINEMAN: Object to the question; interpret52 ted the witness* answer; argumentative. 53 THE COURT: Not responsive; objection is properly 54 made; your objection is overruled. IB 1 A No. 2 Q Doctor, did you not say that the people in the low 3 risk group, most of them had exposure? Could you answer 4 that question directly? 5 A No. B G Are you in fact answering the question saying "no"? 7 A I 'm not understanding any morB where we are. B Doctor, did you not testify yesterday that most'of 3 the people in the low risk group had some kind of exposure 10 to dioxin? u Pi I would like to go back-- 12 G Doctor, could you answer that question directly, 13 please? 14 ft As I recall the conversation, you said that they 15 walked across the street and couldn't they have had some IB exposure walking across the street. And I said yes. 17 G Yb s . And you agreed that they lived in Times 18 Beachj did you not, ma'am? 13 ft Not all of them; soma of them. 20 Q All right. Most of the people lived in thaa 21 contaminated areas, did they not, that were in the low risk 22 group? 23 ft That's the question you asked ms yesterday, Bnd I 54 said yes. 17 1 Q Yes. All right. And then, after you agreed that 2 most of the people in the low risk group lived in the 3 contaminated areas, I than asked you, ''Well then, if they 4 Just walked on the streets that were sprayed with dioxin, 5 they had exposure; didn't they, m a 'am?" And you then said 6 yes; did you not, m a 'am? 7 A I think we had some-- B Q 'Excuse me, could you answer that question, because 9 . that's exactly what I asked you. 10 A No, your question was slightly different. 11 Q How was it slightly different? c 12 A In that they would have had to use the streets 13 sometimes; wouldn't they? 14 Q Yes. 15 A And I said yes. IB And thBn, if they used the streets that were 17 exposed with the dioxin, they had exposure? IB A They might have had exposure, yes. 19 D Yes. And your answer was yes to that question; 20 correct, ma'am? HI A Yes. 22 Q Isn't that correct? 23 A Yes. < 24 Q All right, Then the people in the low risk group, IB 1 most of the people in the low risk group had exposure to 2 dioxin; did they not, ma'am? 3 A The amount of exposure-- 4 Could you answer that question directly, Dr. 5 Kimbrough? G A There is something in toxicolgoy called a response 7 curve-- B MR, CARR: Your Honor, would you ordBr the witness 9 to answer that question. 10 THE COURT: Doctor, you arQ so ordered. The 11 question was clear. You have to answer it directly. 12 THE WITNESS: Could I have the question again? 13 THE COURT: Could you read back the question? 14 CThe previous question was read back by thB court 15 reporter, as requested.} IS A Yes. 17 Q Now, Doctor, thB control group then that you used 18 here, most of the people in thB control group had exposure 19 to dioxin; did they not, ma'am? 20 A They had negligible exposure to dioxin. 21 Q Is ths answer to my question ljbs they did have 22 exposure, but you consider it negligible? 23 A Yes. 24 Q And most of these people that had exposure to 19 1 dioxin-- well, you compared the group that had the exposure a with dioxin, what you considered a negligible exposure, to 3 people that you considered to have not a negligible expo 4 sure; isn't that correct, m a 'am? 5 A That had high exposure, yes. E Q Is the answer to my question this group in the high 7 risk group had significant exposure or at least not negligi 0 ble? 9 A Yea, 10 G Yes. Now, Doctor, 'What is the range of exposure 11 that you consider negligible? That is, would encompass your 12 low risk people? And what's the range of exposure that you 13 would consider not negligible? That is, significant and 14 would compose your high risk people? 15 A That is in the document that you have. And the IB criteria that we used were, I believe, people that lived, I 17 think it was, two years in-- 10 Q Now, Doctor, I want to know the level of dioxin 19 contaminant that you considered in the high risk group and 50 the level of contaminant that you considered in the low risk ei group? 22 A The area where these people lived had spotty S3 contamination-, it wasn't uniform. And the people that were 24 living or in close proximity in areas that had 200 parts per 0 1 billion-- I guess the cutoff was really 20 parts par billion, e but then had levels up to almost 1 part par million in the 3 soil ware tha people that were in the high risk group. And 4 they would have had to live there for a period of time in 5 order to qualify for ths high risk group. And they would S have had to be gardening and have relatively intimate 7 contact with the soil. B Q All right. If I understand you correctly, then, 9 your high risk group consisted of people that lived in areas 10 that wBre known to be contaminated of dioxin or worked or 11 had extensive soil activity in areas that were known to be 12 contaminated with levels from 20 parts per billion up to 1 13 part par million? 14 A Yes. 15 Q And your low risk group, what? Your low risk group IB would be anything under 20 parts par billion? 17 A These were people where there actually was no 18 contamination and they had no intimate contact with soil, 19 but they might have walked across the street or they might 0 have-- in other words, they were in the general environment, HI but they had no intimate contact as far as we could ee establish with such contaminated soil. 23 Q Well, they would have bean living in areas that 24 could indeed be contaminated with less than 20 parts per 21 1 billion and have activity in an area that's contaminated 2 with lass than 20 parts par billion of TCD0; isn't that 3 correct? 4 A No. 5 Q No? 6 A Us took people that didn't have that. We were just 7 careful to call them a low risk group, because we are still 8 trying to establish their-- t 9 Q Doctor, you are talking in generalities, and I 'm 10 trying to gat specific. These people that lived in Times n Beach, part of whom were in your law risk group-- now, in the 12 parts of Times Beach that they lived in, did they live in 13 areas that were contaminated with lsss than 20 parts per billion? Did you select any of your low risk group from 15 people who lived in a section of Times Beach that was 16 contaminated with greater than HO'parts per billion, or were 17 they-- all the ones that werB from Times Beach-- uerB they all 16 from a part of Times Beach that was contaminated with lass 19 than 20 parts per billion? 20 A As far as I recall, they should not have had any 21 intimate contact with soil that was contaminated above 1 22 part per billion. That was my recollection. 23 Q Doctor, I didn't say intimate contact with soil in 24 my question; I said lived in the section that was contami" 22 1 natBd. Are you telling me that some of the low risk people e i could live in thB section of Times Beach that's contaminated 3 From 20 parts per billion to ons part per million, but if 4 they did not have intimate contact with the soil they were 5 not considered high risk and thus could be in the low risk 6 group? 7 A They would have lived in areas that had less than 1 8 part per billion. 9 Q In areas in Times Beach that had less than 1 part 10 per billion? U A Yes. IS Then your phrase "intimate contact" really didn't 13 mean anything, did it, "intimate contact with the soil"? 14 A In order to assure more-- 15 D Could you answer that question? Did the phrase 16 that you usBd, "intimate contact with the soil", to describe 17 your high risk people , did it mean anything? 18 A Yes. 13 0 All right. Did you select people that lived in 20 Times Beach in areas that were indeed contaminated with 20 21 parts per billion or greater but where they had no history 52 of intimate contact with the soil or Frequent working with 23 the soil or anything of that sort? 54 A Not for the high risk group. 23 1 Q No, I meant For the low risk group? 2 A No, 3 Q Houj many of your low risk group were actually From 4 Times Beach? 5 A I don't exactly know the number; we would have to 6 gat that From Missouri. 7 Q UJellf we've already established that. All of the 8 people from Times Beach, now, whether they lived in the-- 9 strike that. Wars there soma streets in Times Beach that 10 ware sprayed with this contaminated oil and other streets of 11 Times Beach that were not sprayed with it? 12 A Vas, 13 Q And you could use-- or did you U3s in your low risk 14 group people who lived on streets not sprayed with the IS contaminated oil? 18 A Yea. 17 Q Ma'am; is that correct? 18 A As far as I know, but-- 13 Q Yes. 20 A But to make sure, we would have to contact Mis 21 souri . 22 Q But, these people then in that low risk group that S3 lived an streets not sprayed with the oil could quite easily 24 have and indeed would have access to thB streets that were 24 1 sprayed with the contaminated oil; correct, m a 'am? 2 A Yes. 3 Q And they could drive on those streets or walk on 4 those streets, and dust on those streets would blow to them 5 and vapors from those streets could blow to them as well; 6 correct, m a 'am? 7 A No; it doesn't volatilize. Q Q I 'm sorry? e A TCDD doesn't really evaporate. 10 Q Doctor, that's another side issuB. Ida have plenty n of evidencs in this case that it does. W e 've got sworjn IE testimony from Monsanto employees that it does. And we have 13 statements from others that it does. W e 've got lots of-- 14 Monsanto has put on lots of testimony on that point already; IB I don't want to argue. But, assume if you will, that this IB does evaporate, that it does volatilize. Would you assume 17 that, ma'am? 10 A Okay. 13 Q And just insight, you are familiar with thB work of E0 Nash and Beall; aren't you? 21 A I'm sorry? 22 You ere familiar with the works of Nash and Beall; 23 aren't you, ma'am? 24 A Yes. 25 1 0 find they did find that TCDD in the air in their e studies; did they not, m a 'am? 3 A That was never a published and s reviewed article* 4 It uias published and a peer reviewed article* Are 5 you not familiar with it? E A I didn't ssa the pear reviewed article, no. 7 Q Doctor, back to my point anyway. The point is that a people that lived on tha noncontaminated streets of Times 9 Beach had exposure and would use the contaminated streets of 10 Times Beach; would they not? 11 A Yes. IE Q And they would-- might visit back and forth, back 13 yards from one house with e noncontaminated steet might butt 14 right up against tha back yard of another house on a contam 15 inated street; correct? IS A I 'm not absolutely sure, but it's possible. 17 Q And your low risk group then had-- was it their ie residences that had soil with less than 1 part per billion t 19 of TCDD in it? SO A Yes. I mean, the outside of the Ho u s b ; not the 51 inside. es Q So, you would take people and did include people in 23 your low risk group who lived in areas where the contamina 24 tion was 900 parts per trillion or less? 25 1 A No, I didn't say that. a Well, you said you excluded anybody in the group 3 with 1 part per billion; did you not? 4 A Dur analysis, at least For some of thB contract 5 laboratories, the limit oF detection for TCDD in soil was 6 around 100 parts per trillion. So, there could have been 7 nothing or there could have been something below 100 parts e per trillion in some cases, I wouldn't know. 9 Q Doctor, I thought you told us that the low risk 10 group included only thosB people who lived in areas that 11 were contaminated with 100 parts per billion d F TCDD or 12 lass? 13 A The only reason I said that was because oF thB way 14 thB chemical analysis was sat up. 15 Q Doctor, is what you are saying is that your low 15 risk people included people who lived in residences or lots 17 that could be contaminated with dioxin up to 100 parts per IS billion? 19 A Or thBre could be nothing. 0 Q Or therB could be nothing? 21 A Right, 22 0 Is that correct that they could have lived in 23 residences where they had up to 1 part per billion of TCDD 24 contamination? 27 1 A UIb were only quantitating the 1 part per billion e and slightly bBlow that, and then beyond that, although an 3 a qualitative base us would be able to say, "Well, there 4 really wasn't any TCDD" uia mads no effort to quantitate it. 5 Could you answer thB question that I asked you? 6 A I can't, only what I told you. 7 Doctor, I submit that you can. 0 MR - CARR: And would you read the question to 9 her? 10 CThe previous question was read back by the court 11 reporter, as requested.!) 12 A Because of the scientific limitations, I cannot-- 13 Q Could you answer that question, m a 'am? 14 A I can't really answer it. I can't give you tech 15 nical information. IB Did you hear the word "could" in that question? 17 A That's speculation. 10 Q My question is: People you selected from the so19 called noncontaminated areas of the TCDD to include in your 20 low risk group could have included people who had homes 21 that were-- and areas around the homes-- that were contami 22 nated up to 1 part per billion of TCDD; isn't that correct, 23 ma'am? 24 A That's mere speculation, and I don't speculate; 28 1 I'm a scientist. a Q Did you hBar when I said the word-- Dr. Kimbrough, 3 the word "could" is in there. 4 A Yes. But, I don't want tD speculate, because I'm 5 a scientist. 6 Well, Doctor, you are required to answer that 7 question when I ask it. 8 A I can't . 8 Q I'm sorry? 10 A I cannot. 11 MR. CARR: Your Honor, would you direct the 12 witness to answer the question? 13 THE COURT: Doctor, you have to answer the 14 question. It's a proper question. 15 THE WITNESS: IF I can't give an answer that is IB correct, than why should I answer it? 17 THE CDURT: You understand the question; the 18 question is a proper question to ask of an expert witness 19 such as yourself in a court of law in the state of Illi 20 nois; therefore, you have to answer it, 21 A No. 22 Q Doctor, do you have any-- you did select people 23 that wers from Times Beach; did you not, m a 'am? 24 A Yes. 29 1 Q And there uierB variations of contamination in 2 Times Beach; wasn't there, m a 'am? 3 A Yes. 4 And you identified those areas that had contami 5 nation of 1 part per billion or above; did you not, m a 'am? 6 A Yes. 7 And you did not identify any area of being contam B inated other than 1 part per billion or above; did you not? 9 A Qualitatively. 10 Q Qualitative what? That's not an answer, 11 A That was what I was trying to explain earlier. 12 Q Doctor, could you-- do you understand what I 'm 13 asking you? Is it not a fact-- maybe I can put it more 14 plainly-- is it not a fact that you identified areas of 15 Times Beach that was contaminated from 20 parts per billion IB to 1 part per million? 17 A Yes. IB Q And did you then identify parts of Times Beach 19 that were contaminated from 1 part per billion to 20 parts 20 per billion? 21 A Yes. You always say ''you". All of this work was 22 really done by the Environmental Protection Agency. 23 Q Well, I mean by thosB participants in the study. 24 The values that you used in the study, whether you did the 30 1 identifying or not. I'm not suggesting that you personally 2 or you at CDC did; my question said thB values that you 3 all used; all right? 4 A Yes. 5 And I can understand your problem with that 6 question. There was identified in Times Beach-- whether it 7 was by you, or by God, or by EPA, or by whoever-- the areas Q of Times Beach were identified by /level of contamination; 9 were they not, m a 'am? 10 A Yes. 11 Q And there was identified those areas of Times 12 Beach that had contamination from 20 parts per billion t D 13 1 part per million; is not that correct, m a 'am? 14 A Yes. 15 And you selected from those areas, as you have 16 previously stated, high risk participants; did you not, 17 m a 'am? 10 A Yes. 13 Q Now, there were areas of Times Beach that were 20 identified as having contamination of less than 20 parts 21 per billion and down to 1 part per billion; isn't that 22 correct, m a 'am? 23 A And down to nothing. 24 Could you answer the question, first of all, as I 31 X gave it to you? 2 A Yas. 3 i XJ And did you select from the areas that mere 4 contaminated, or is it possihle that any of the loui risk 5 participants camB from the areas that wBre identified as B having contamination from 20 parts per billion down to 1 7 part per billion? B A As far as I know, we did not try to take anybody 9 out of that middle group. 10 Q That isn't what I asked you. I did not ask you 11 what you tried to do. What I 'm asking you-- because I IS understand it was not your intention to go by this kind of 13 parameter for contamination-- what I 'm asking you, m a 'am, is 14 it passible that some of your low risk participants were 15 taken from the group that lived in areas contaminated with IB 20 parts per billion dawn to 1 part per billion of TCDD? 17 A As far as I know, it's not possible. 18 Q All right. Now, did you also-- or was there 19 identified at Times Beach parts of the community that had SO contamination of 1 part per billion and belnw, down to SI nothing? 2E A Host of those analysis mecs reported as negative S3 or trace or-- and so, I don't really knew, 24 Q Well, the ward trace means there's something 32 1 there, although according to some people in this case it's 2 defined trace as being up to 10 parts per million. 3 A No. 4 Others in this case have identified as trace down 5 to 45 parts per billion. UJb have a wide range of testi6 many 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 B 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 Q Something that's below 100 parts per trillion is 12 trace to you? 13 A Yes. 14; Q All right. 15 A I'm not talking about our own analysis; I 'm only 16 talking about the soil analysis that the EPA did. 17 Q I understand that. Down to 100 pats per trillion IB 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 some laboratories didn't. 23 And sometimes they wauld report it, and sometimes they 24 wouldn't. The lower you go down with soil analysis, the 33 1 (itore difficult the quantitation becomes. 5 Q I understand that, Doctor, but I'm simply trying 3 to-- 4 A So, I really am not competent to ansuiBr thosB ana 5 lytical questions. E Well, I know, and I'm not asking you, m a 'am. I'm 7 asking you how you use the word trace? What values were B included when you said these people lived in areas that had 3 trace amounts of dioxin in the soil? 10 A I cannot answer this question without consulting 11 the EPA and finding out what different laboratories did 12 where. 13 Well, up to what level-- where would it get not to 14 be trace? At what level? 15 A As we were told, all laboratpries had a-- at least 16 limit of detection Df 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-- 13 Dr. Kimbrough, I understand that. But, I'm trying 20 to pin something down here. In general, was tracB used to 21 describe contamination that would bB below the limits of 22 detection for any laborato.-y involved?' 23 A I'm not clear. 24 Well, that's thB reason I'm trying to find out 34 1 what you are talking about. Uhan the word trace is used by 2 you as you've adapted it From the laboratories, do you mean 3 to say that trace is that quantity which we cannot accur 4 ately identify quantitatively or qualitatively? j 5 A Yes. And also wb are not absolutely sure that | I 6 that's really the H,3,7,0-tetrachlorodibenzo7para-dioxin. j 7 Q 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 | 3 mean the laboratory, the chemists involved, the analytical 10 chemists involved-- it is then that the word trace is used. 11 Is that correct? 12 A By some laboratories, yes. I don't know what all 13 laboratories do. 14 Q But you used the word trace, ma'am. And how were 15 you using it? IB A I was using it in that context, yBS. 17 Q All right. IF it can't be accurately quantitated IB or identiFied as to the isomer, thBn it's considered trace? 19 A That's what the chemists have explained to me. 20 Q All right. But, above that-- and that's the way 21 you used the word; correct? 22 A Yes. 23 Q But, above that it is not trace? 24 A Yes. 35 1 Now, the participants in the law risk group, what 2 was the-- strike that. Haw much of Times Beach-- or how many 3 streets tuBre, there in Times Beach, Dr. Kimbrough? 4 A I don *t know. 5 0 How many streets-- were all the streets sprayed by G Bliss? Did all the streets receive thB contaminated oil? 7 A Not as Far as I know. i 0 Q Well, what part didn't? 0 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 11 maps. 12 Q All right. Ulhat 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 Q And you don't really know; is that right? IB A Right. 17 Q Ulsll, to get it down to what you do know is that 10 the high risk group had to I i v b and have intimate contact 13 in soil of 20 parts per billion and above, and your low 20 risk group was taken from pBople who lived in areas at 21 least less than that. Is that right? 22 A Less than 1 part per billion. 23 Q All right. Now-- and were peoplB-- there WBre more 24 than one sitB involved in this study-- what was it; (linker 35 1 Stout, Quail Run-- thare were a whole number of places that 2 wsra included in your contaminated sites, From what 3 areas-- we 've already identified the Times Beach area. Did t 4 you sBlact volunteer participants from the Quail Run area? 5 A That's a different study that's still in progress. 6 Q Now, I 'm talking about the Missouri study, the one 7 that we are talking about now. Did you take anybody from e that area? 9 A No. 10 Q IdBre thB-- 11 A Not as far as I know. IS Were the peoplB that you took Just from the Times 13 Beach area? 14 A As Far as I know it was a Times Beach area study. 15 Q All right. And none of these other-- not Minker 16 Site or Minker Stout; is that right? 17 A Yes. i IB Q All right. And all of thssa-- did all of thesB 19 participants in this study actually live in Times Beach SO then? SI A I'm not absolutely certain. There may have been SB some controls who were slightly outside or who had moved S3 away. I mean, nobody really lived at Times Beach at the 54 time. 37 1 At the time of the study? e A Yes. 3 Well, that was inaccurately put. ThB participants 4 in the study were drawn all From people that had lived in 5 TimBS Beach-- that had lived in Times Beach or near Times B Beach; is that correct, ma'am? v 7 A Yes. B All right. And that's 100 percent of both groups S either lived in Times Beach or near Times Beach; is that 10 correct, m a 'am, to the bast cf ycur knowledge? 11 A To the best oF my knowledge, yes. 15 Q All right. And how oFten thB people that actually 13 went on the contaminated streets is unknown to you? 14 A Yes. 15 All right. UJhat you did do was try to select out 15 these people, put the-- divide them in two groups, the 17 people that had the Ib s s known or lass obvious or less IB oFten or less intense contact with the contaminated-- actual 13 contamination in one group and those with the known, more 50 intense, more active, more frequent participation in these 21 contaminated-- actual known contaminated areas in the other 22 group; is that right, m a 'am? S3 A Yes. 24 Q All right. Now, in the-- in order to speed this up 38 1 a little bit, if I were to ask you the questions about how s many people would be expected to have persistent feelings 3 of pins and needles, and cramps, and loss of power, and 4 burning in body, and tingling in fingers and toes, would it 5 be your answer that you havB no judgment that would be of 6 any significance in this case? 7 A You mean all of these things together or Just-- 8 Q Or independently? 9 A -- or independently? 10 Q Yes. 11 A Independently I would say that 25 percent of the 12 people of the total general population might report some 13 thing likB that, but they wouldn't have all of these 14 things. 15 Q At the same-- all right. What you are saying is 25 IB percent of the population would have persistent feelings of 17 pins and needles in the body, within the meaning of the 18 question and the way it was asked in thB Times Beach pilot 19 study? SO A No. Naybe 5 or 10 percent would say that, and 21 some others would say they had heart burns and-- 22 D All right. But, anyway, what I 'm asking you is a 23 specific question. You say 5 to 10 peircent of the people 24 would respond yes thBy have persistent feelings of pins and 33 1 needles in the bodyj is that what you are saying? a A In their hands or in their Feet. 3 3 All right. And what about cramps? UJhat per * centage of peoplB would respond that they have muscle 5 cramps? S A Judging From the experience yesterday, I would 7 say-- strike that. At some time everybody has muscle a cramps. a Q Yes, Doctor, ujs'v s established that already. I'm 10 asking you again, in the way the question was asked by the n people that did the asking, and they had Follow-up 12 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, the intBviews that went on, in the context oF 15 that question posed in that way-- and so I need not say it IB again-- will you assume that all oF these things that I*m 17 asking you is put in that context about these symptoms and ia Findings and problems-- will you do that m a 'am? 19 A All right. 20 What percentage oF people would havB cramps? 21 A Persistent cramps? 22 I 'm sorry? 23 A You mean persistent cramps? 24 Q The word cramps was used. I don't know what thB 40 1 question-- I don't have the advantage, the same advantage a that you have. You read the questions; I did not, fill I 3 have are the results, s s b . So , you have an advantage over 4 me. In the may the question was asked, as I've already 5 told you, ma'am, what percentage of people would report 6 that they had cramps in the general population? 7 fi Persistent cramps could be reported in 10 to 15 e percent of the population. 9 Q find loss of power? What percentage would report 10 loss of power? 11 fi That would be lower; somewhere between 1 and 5 12 percent. 13 Q And burning in body? 14 fi 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 IB to know-- 17 Q It's one of the questions you threw in to test-- 19 I'm not going to say honesty, because they were all honest 19 presumably-- but to tBst the subjective view of their 20 health; is that right? 21 fi Partly, and also to try and evaluate their under 22 standing of thB 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 A Well, that's not quite right. IF they may answer 3 that, ua may then go back and sea what else they are, and 4 see how that all Fits together. And we may want to go back 5 and examine them more IF we think they haven't properly 6 answered thB questionnaire. 7 0 All right. Moraso than the other questions, it B can't stand by ItsBiF; it's a more unique question than the 9 others, and you would deFinitely havB to do other things in 10 order to givB 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 to respond that they had tingling in Fingers and 15 toes? 16 A I'v b already answered that earlier. 17 Q 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 S3 didn't design the study. Tingling in fingers end toes. 24 What percentage of the general population would rBSpond 42 1 that they had tingling in Fingers and tees in your esti s mation? 3 A It's thB same thing as pins and needles; it's the 4 same question asked in a different way. 5 All right. What percentage then? r 6 A And 1 said, it was somewhere between 10 and 15 7 percent. a Q All right. Maui, on-- in t h B genaral population, 3 what percentage of people would you expect to respond that 10 they had prolonged infections? 11 A Could be up to 25 percent. IS Q 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 h a v B marked depression in lymphocyte pro 15 liferation? 16 A That*s not very well known; and I can't answer 17 that question. IB You have no judgment at all? 19 A No. SO Q Could be anywhere from 5 percent to 100 percent? 21 A I don't know. 22 Q You have no judgment at all? S3 A N o . 24 Q Would you expect 100 percent to have it? 43 a A I don't knou). 2 Q You've done no work in this ares at all? 3 A I have read the literature, and I 've reviewed it. 4 I had first got involved with that when I was dealing with 5 Love Canal, and there just isn't enough information at the B moment. 7 UJhat you are saying then is that any figure would B be meaningful; but, d h the other hand, any figure would not 3 necessarily have any meaning? 10 A Right, until we get mDrB information. That's an 11 arBa of research that wa don't have good information in IS yat. 13 Q And so, it could be that if as much as 10 percent 14 of the population had a marked depression in thBir lym 15 phocyte proliferation that that could have real signifi IB cance; couldn't it? 17 A I Just cannot answer those questions at the IB moment; I just don't know Bnough about it. 19 Doctor, I submit that if you don't have any scien SO tific basis to dispute it, then what I say to you, anything 21 I say to you you will have to accept as true unless you do 22 have same scientific basis to dispute it. And that's the 23 reason-- I 'm asking this question to test whether or not you 24 in fact have any scientific basis as you say you do not 44 1 havB. Could hB, could it not, ma 'am, that if 10 percent a of the exposed population have a marked depression in 3 lymphocyte proliferation, that could be significant; 4 couldn't it.1 ma'am? i 5 Pi Lymphocyte proliferation is effected by so many 6 things that-- significant for what? I mean, I don't under 7 stand . a In determining whether or not one has had an 9 adverse health effect from exposure to a chemical involved? 10 A N o . u Q Pardon? 12 A No. 13 It could not be then? It could have no signifi- 14: cance? You are saying that-- 15 A You cannot answer that question in a vacuum like IS this, 17 Q Doctor, if I ask you and you have no knowledge, if IB I ask you it could be that there are a million planets in 19 this universe that have human beings, or humanoids, or 20 creatures like humans, you could not dispute that; could 21 you, ma'am? 52 A I sure could. 23 How so? 24 A I can also say that I believe that's not true. 45 1 No; but I'm not asking your belief. I 'm asking H you is it possible, m a 'am, that there are a million planets 3 in this universe that havB humans on it? Is that possible? 4 A I'm saying no. 5 Q And why are you saying no? * 6 A Bb c b u s b I don't think it's passible. 7 Q UJhy do you think it's not possible? B A Because of my experience that I'vs had and the 3 general knowledge that I havB acquired. 10 All right. What is that experience and general 11 knowledge that tells you that there cannot possibly be a 12 million or a hundred or a hundred million other planets in 13 this universe that have humans on them? What is your 14 background? Is it religious, or is it scientific that 15 tells you that that's no so? 16 A Both. 17 Q From a religious viewpoint you believe that then IB therB couldn't be anybody-- any place except earth that's 19 gat humans on it? 20 A I didn't say that. 21 Q All right. Do you believe that there could be 22 another planBt in thB universe that has humans on it? 23 A I don't know. 24 Q I'm not asking you of your knowledge; again, I'm 46 1 testing ths way you are using the words that you are using, 2 Dr. Kimbrough. Is it possible, Dr. Kimbrough, that in the 3 billions and trillions and billions of other solar systems 4 that exist in this universe, is it possible that there is 5 one single other planet out there that have human like 5 beings on them-- on it? 7 A There may be another planet that may have some B life on it, but I don't think there would be humans. S Or human like? 10 A Human like creatures. 11 Q And now, are you giving that answer from a scien 12 tific viewpoint or From a religious viewpoint? 13 A That's from a scientific viewpoint. 14 Q All right. Now, what in science tails you that in 15 all those countless-- and they arB countless-- unimaginable 16 number of solar systems out there-- haven't yet reached thB 17 end of the-- we don't know yet the end of the universe-- we 10 don't even know, therB might be more than one universe out 19 there. UJhat in your scientific knowledge tells you that it SO isn't possible that there could be another planet out there SI with human like beings on it? 22 A You changed it slightlyj you said human like. S3 Q No, I said that before, m a 'am. 54 A Oh, I'm sorry; I didn't hBar that. I wouldn't 47 1 think that the evolution in any one planet would be just a exactly the same-- 3 Q And I carefully did not say-- 4 A Dkay; I didn't catch that. / 5 Q Initially 1 did say humans, and you were correct 6 in humans. But, then I said-- my next question said human 7 like. 5 A Dh, I'm sorry; I didn't hear the "likB", 3 G So-- by your hesitation here and by your inquiry 10 here, are you saying that you bBliBve it is possible that 11 there could be another planet out therB that has human like 12 beings on it? 13 A That could be possible. 14 Is it possible there could be a hundred planets 15 out there that could havB human like beings on it? IB A I dan *t know. 17 Q I'm sorry? 18 A I do not know. 19 G IMo, I didn't ask you whether-- 20 A I mean, I can't even guess. 21 G Dr. Kimbrough, I suggest to you that if there 22 could be ons out there, as you've agreed that there could 23 be, then there could be two; couldn't there, ma'am? 24 A The earth could be flat. 4B 1 0 Well, but us know tbs earth isn't flat; us don't know luhat'a out in the universe as far as life is con 3 cerned; do we, ma'am? 4 A Not-- uib know a little bit, but we don't know a 5 lot. 6 Q UJe don't know enough to say that there couldn't'bs 7 human like creatures out there; do we, m a 'am? 6 A No. 3 Q Ule don't know enough to say that there could not 10 bB a hundred planets out there with human like creatures; 11 do we} m a 'am? IE A Sines this is totally out of my area, I'm not 13 really qualified to discuss that; but, I think a hundred 14 would be an exaggeration. 15 Why, ma'am? How many millions of planets-- or houi 16 many millions of solar systems would you have to have to 17 produce onB with atmosphere and conditions like we have on IB the earth? 13 A I don't know. E0 You haven't the vaguest idea, and nobody else has, 21 m a 'am. Nobody knows. ThBre 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 the same way this 24 earth goes; isn't that possible, ma'am? Could be billions 49 1 of such out there? 3 A IF you-- 3 Q On the other hand, there could be nonB; isn't that 4 right, ma'am? 5 A TharB could not be any other solar systems, 6 Q No solar systems with planets that have the same 7 conditions that cause human life to evolve on this planet? 8 A Yes. 8 Q There could be billions of such planets; couldn't 10 there, ma'am? 11 A Billions? 15 Q Billions of such planets out in the countless 13 universe? 14 A That's-- I don't think so. 15 Q Why not, ma'am? IB A Some of those creatures might have mads contact 17 with us by now, 18 Q You are saying might have. Again, they might not 19 have as well; is that right, m a 'am? SO A I would think they would have, 51 Q Doctor, what makes you think that they would have as evolved any more rapidly than we? S3 A Because I'm an optimist. S4 Q Doctor, I'm not talking about your optimism; I'm 50 1 asking strictly-- and I know this gBts to be ludicrous-- 2 strictly in possibilities, ma'am. UJhat 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 possibls that there ars 5 hundreds of planets out there, billions of planets out 6 there with human likB creatures on them; isn't that right, 7 m e 'am? a A I have problems making these sweeping statements, 9 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 ths 14 significance of it, thBn you can't say that it dees not 15 have significance, if you have no knowledge one way or the 16 other? That's the whole point of this exercise, Dr. Kim 17 brough . IB A I didn't say it had np significance; I said that 19 there 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 havB not sorted that out and we need to do more 22 work in science-- 23 And that's the reason I asked 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 s proliferation may be? find 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, ma'am? 5 A It's also possible that something entirely 6 different could-- 7 Q I agree. I agree, and have no dispute on that a point. One is possible; the other is possible; isn't it, 3 m a 'am? 10 A Well, if one is possible, then the other may not 11 be possible. 12 No, both could be possible. There could be a 13 thousand possible solutions to the problem. When in fact 14 therB's only one real solution, there are a thousand-- until 15 we identify it, there are a thousand possible solutions. IB In this particular case, m a 'am, dD you not agree that if 17 one is possible, the other might also be possible? Perhaps IB not as likely, but passible? 13 A That's putting it a little too loose. I think by 20 carefully reviewing thBse people's records and the find SI ings, doing some follow-up, and doing some other things, we 22 could limit down the possibilities. 23 Yes; but that hasn't been done, and I 'm using-- has 24 it, ma'am? 52 1 A No. 2 Q I'm obligated here to prove this case with what 3 w e 've got; not what 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, m a 'am? 9 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 12 would have that ratio of less than one of the general popu 13 lation? 14 A W e 're just going to go through the same thing. It 15 all goes together. I don't know. IB Would your answer be then that you don't really 17 know the significance of that related to this case, but it 10 might possibly have significance? Is that the answer to 19 the question? 20 A Yes. 21 All right. What about porphyrins, m a 'am? I know 22 that you've worked with porphyrins. What percent of the 23 population would you expect to have chronic hepatic 24 porphyria as defined and used in the Missouri Health Study? 53 1 ft Now, there is a human disease called porphyria a cutanea tarda-- 3 Q Now, 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 want to get into all 6 kinds of porphyria that there might be; I 'm asking you a 7 specific question cn the study you designed. What percent a of thB general population uiould you expect to have chronic 9 hepatic porphyria? 10 A The disease, which is porphyria cutanea tarda-- 11 Q -Doctor-- Doctor, did you understand my question? 12 I'm talking about the chronic hepatic porphyria defined, 13 discussed, identified, used in the Missouri Health Study 14 which you hBlped design. What percent of the general 15 papulation would you expect to have chronic hepatic > IB porphyria? 17 A Since we seen to have difficulties with SBmatics, 18 I'm trying to explain what I mean by my percentages. 19 Q 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 22 on the porphyria section; did you not, m a 'am? 23 A Yes 24 Q In that study, m a 'am, in the way you used the term 54 1 chronic hepatic porphyria, they way you defined it then, 2 the way you took it then, the tables you used and every 3 thing you did in that study, what'percent of people did you 4 Bxpect to find had chronic hepatic porphyria in the general S population? 6 ft What I mean by chronic hepatic-- 7 MR. CARR: Your Honor, would you direct the B witness to answer the question as I've posed it. 9 -THE COURT: Doctor, you have to answer the 10 question, Doctor; it was directly posed; it did not call 11 for an explanation of the term. 12 A The percentage would be very Id w ; it would be ana 13 in a thousand or less. 14 Doctor, how much time did you all spend at least 15 that you are aware of in discussing what kind of parameters IE to put up in your tests dealing with chronic hBpatic 17 porphyria? 18 A I don't understand the question. 19 Q How much-- what I mean is how much time did you 20 dBvote to that-- to setting up Dr designing that as part of 21 your study? 22 A We started several years ago to set up a method, 23 and we've done a lot of work in that area with other pop 24 ulations, and so it is something that we now routinely da. 55 1 Q All right. And as far as the Missouri Hsalth E Study is concerned, than, you had a grBat dsal bf back 3 ground when you designed and suggested and had made the 4 porphyria protocol part of that study; is that correct? S A Yes. 6 It wasn't done as an off-the-shelf kind of thing; 7 it was done after careful and deliberate thought? B A Yes, and also because we put time into developing a the hot pressure liquid chromatology method, 10 All right. And as a pathologist, you wBre well 11 versed In the various kinds of porphyria? 12 A Yes, to some extent. 13 Q Yes. And you knew all about Doss and Strik and 14 their work; did you not, m a 'am? 15 A Yb s . 16 Doctor, what percent of the general population 17 would you expect to come up with the results that would not 18 be typeablB in your porphyria exam as far as the type of 19 porphyria they may have? BO A There are-- all the porphyrias that would not fit 21 into this classification; is that-- 22 a No. 23 A I don't understand the question. 24 a No. All right. In your Missouri Health Study, SB 1 you put dawn the number of people that had various kinds of 2 lab results and you determined uihethBr or not that was or 3 was not an indication of hepatic porphyria-- or chronic 4 hepatic porphyria. All right? 5 A Yes. 6 Q There was a category that you put, not in the 7 normal-- you had two sections, you had the normal and you B had the chronic hepatic porphyria section. And then you 3 had an untypsable section. Do you follow me? You had 10 normal, you had chronic hepatic porphyria, and then you had 11 untypeable. 12 A Yes. i 13 Q Uihat percent of people do you expect to be-- to 14 fall into that untypeable classification? 15 A There are-- there's probably about a third of the 15 population that has some variance from the rest of the 17 papulation. We feel that it's a variance in the general IQ population which has nothing to do with disease. 19 Q That isn't what I asked. 20 A Is that-- 21 Q Probably not, but I think it would bB so long to 22 get an appropriate explanation to you so that I could get 23 an answer that would fit my needs; I think it would prob 24 ably be best if I use this time for something els. And do _____________________________________________________________________ 57 1 let me pass on to something Blsa, Doctor. You have 5 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 casB in Missouri, did you 5 not, by way of deposition? To refresh your memory, you B gave a deposition, did you not, in the case of Patricia 7 Drinkard, Paul Drinkard, Lori Platt, and Andrea Platt B versus Independent Petrochemical Corporation, which was on 9 File in the Circuit Court in the City of St. Louis, State 10 of Missouri, case number 702-559. You gave such a depo 11 sition; did you not, m a 'am? 12 A Yes, I guess so. 13 Q Y d u didn't mention it, but-- 14 A I'm sorry, but-- 15 Q That's all right. You see, this is your depo 16 sition, deposition of Renats Kimbrough. 17 A Yes. IB Q And it took place on the 18th day of February 19 19B3, 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 '64. 22 Q All right. Your deposition was given a yBar, 23 then, before this case started. 24 A Okay. 58 1 All right. Da yau remember that now? A Yes. There were a numbBr of things wb went round 3 and round about It, but I'm not really quite sure-- 4 No, all I want to establish is that you gave an 5 evidence deposition in that case. 6 A Yes; okay. 7 Q Did you not, m a 'am? 8 A Yes. a G And you gave an evidence deposition in the case 10 filed in the Circuit Court of Pike County, Missouri. You li gave it a long time ago. That was the 2Bth of February 12 1875. Did you not, m a 'am? And I could forgive you for 13 forgetting that one. 14 A Yes. 15 Q That was the^casB of Frank J. HampBl and Judy 16 Piatt versus Russell Bliss and a whale bunch of others, and 17 some chemical companies. ,00 you recall that? IB A Yes. Now I remember the lawyer's name again, too. ia Q That's all right. And that was also an evidence 20 deposition that you gave; was it not? El A Yes. E2 You also gave an evidence deposition in the case j 23 of-- E4 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 In other words, you give your testimony in Atlan 5 ta, Georgia, as you did in the two cases I've just talked 6 to you about-- 7 A Ybs . 8 And it's subsequently read at the trial. 9 A I don't know that; you see, that would be some 10 thing you would have to talk to-- 11 Q Okay; I'll Just eliminate the word "evidence" for ie now. And you did-- well, I'll have to say evidence 13 deposition, because that's what it was-- you gave an 14 evidence deposition in the case of Jerry Russell Bliss 15 versus Fred Lafser, State of Missouri, Number HW B1-1A, did ie you not, ma'am, on December 8, 1SB2? 17 A Yes, 18 Q Is that correct, m a 'am? 19 A Yes. 90 All right. Now, in that-- in the situation of the 21 Missouri Health Study, there is such a thing as a-- strike 22 that. What health effects do you expect to come 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? e A -- that's what we hopB, 'S 3 Well, what are thB signs that may be present, or 4 is it simply you da not know what it may be? 5 A Wb don't know. B Q And the reason you don't know, ma'am, is why? Why 7 don't you know what the Bffects of long term low dose expo B sure to dioxin may be in human beings? 3 A Two reasons. One is that different animal species 10 respond quite differently; we don't know where humans are. 11 And then, the only experience that we've had has been in IE workers that have been exposed to very high doses and often 13 over short periods of time. And even there, any chronic 14 health effects that have been reported, if you really 15 examined all of that information, it isn't very clear, and 16 some Df it may actually be chronic disease that you get 17 with aging. And so, it's-- that's also because of that. IB And it's very difficult to design epidemiology studies, and 13 you have to sort of throw out a big net and then try and SO see whether there are any differences between that and a El comparison group. The things that we have concentrated on, E2 partly because of the animal data, has been the sensory S3 nervous system, the immune response, and the porphyria 24 utanea tarda. And therB are things in the workers with 61 1 acute exposure that have had some general malaise, and so a we havB included all of thosB things, too. 3 Q Well, to get it back to uihat 1 thought I was 4 asking, is that you havB not reached-- and by you I mean the 5 scientific and mBdical 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 B of, one, the human life span is so much longer than the-- 9 most of the animals that you tested and studied, and there 10 there isn't yBt a sufficient history length of time to come 11 to any results positive-- or absolutely sure results in thB IS case of long time low doss exposure in the cass of human 13 beings? 14 A Yes. The only thing is chloracne. 15 And chloracne may be present in somQ instances, 16 and it may not be present in others; isn't that correct? 17 A That's a very complicated question. Most people 16 that have had-- most workers that have had exposure to high 19 concentrations have developed chloracne. SO Yb s . But you ars talking about a high concentra 21 tion; aren't you? fly question is aimed at chronic long 22 term low dose exposure tD dioxin. M a 'am? 23 A Could I get the question again? 24 Uell, you said chloracne. -- BE 1 A Yes. 2 Q And when I asked you uihat were the findings from 3 long term law 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 acute 6 high dose exposure to dioxinj isn't that correct, ma 'am? 7 A Yes, B Q Yes. And whether-- and chloracne is not-- let me 3 ask it another way as well. Even in those instances, r 10 chloracne is not a constant finding; is it, m a 'am? 11 A In most paopla it is; not in everybody, but in 15 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. \ 1G Pardon? 17 A ThBy are rare in those situations. ia Q 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 SI his fellow right next to him doesn't get chloracnB. You SS know that; don't you, m a 'am? 23 A As far as the 2,3,7,8-tstrachlorodibenzo-para24 dioxin is concerned, there were a few workers, maybe two or 63 1 three, in the Spulana factory that Dr. Jirasek reported 2 that didn't have any chloracne. 3 Q Yes, but as a matter of fact, what happened there, 4 as you pointed out in one of your statements or papers, 5 something that I read, they just really studied the people i B that had chloracne. ThDSB were thB ones that they thought 7 were exposed, and those werB the ones they went after; B isn't that right? a 0 That's true. 10 Q So, actually what that study was and what so many 11 of these studies were, including the Suskind 49 studies, 12 these are studies of people that have chloracne; isn't that 13 correct? 14 A Yes, 15 Q And thay are not studies of people who had 15 exposure to 2,3,7IB-tBtrachlorariibenzo-para-dioxin per say; 17 are they, m a 'am? IB A They also had exposure to TCDD. 19 Q Who? * 20 A ThB peoplB with chloracne had exposure to TCDD, 21 Q Right. I didn't mean to say thBy did not. 22 A Yes. 23 What it was a study of-- what most of these studies 24 if not all of the studies was were studies of people who B4 1 were exposed to ,3,7,0 TCCD and got chloracna; isn't that E correct, ma'am? 3 A Yes. 4 Q They were not studies of people who were exposed 5 to ,3,7,0 TCCD period; were they, m a 'am? 6 A No. 7 Q No. 8 THE COURT: Is this a point for a short brBak? 9 HR. CARR: Sure, your Honor. 10 THE COURT: Okay. We'll take a short break at 11 this time and resume testimony. IE CAt this .time a short break was taken.5 13 CThe Following proceedings were had out of the 14 hearing and presence of the jury.5 15 THE COURT: hr. Carr? IB Doctor, on the point that we werB discussing on 17 the effect of long term Id w dose exposure, there's been a IB population that has been considered to Fall into that 13 category, but in Fact that have not, and that's the Sevsso E0 group of people; isn't that correct, ma'am? SI A They have nat had long term exposure? EE Right. They've had low dose exposure, but not S3 long term? 24 A They had initially a relatively high exposure, and 65 1 then they really haven't had long term exposure. a Wall, what mas the extant of the exposure that you 3 would call high initially? 4 8 The exposure to ths cloud and the vegetation 5 during the First two weeks after thB accident. 6 Q I understand that. But, I want to know the level, 7 ft I 'm sorry. Q Q The level of contamination? 9 ft I don't know what the contamination in the cloud 10 was; on the vegetation there are some measurements of 15 11 parts per million. 15 Q ftnd there were-- are you familiar with the studies 13 that-- thB tests that were performed later on showing-- I 14 think thBre's exhibits in this case which if I had time I 15 cculd pull it out and show you-- but are you familiar with 15 the studies that showed that the contamination in general 17 was much less than that, down into the low parts per 18 billion or even down in the parts per trillion? 19 A In the soil measurements-- or there are three 50 zones; and except for Zone ft, all of the soil measurements 51 in Zone B and Zone C were in parts per trillion. 55 Q Yes. And the people living in those areas, 53 including some of them in Zone A-- ZonQ A, if I remember 54 the map, was that small area that was in the direct path of 66 1 this cloud, and I've seen the drawings that I have, like a a largB long teardrop of water. That would be the ZonB A 3 that you are speaking about? 4 A It was adjacent to the plant. S Q Yes. 6 A Now, recently they have redefined the zones, but 7 I'm talking about the original zones. B Q Actually, as far as those people are concerned 9 then, they did not actually have long term exposure; did 10 they, ma'am? 11 A The people that lived in B and C, no. 12 Q Well, in A, B, and C. None of the people in 13 Seveso had what's considered long term exposure; did they, 14 sir-- ma'am? IS A N o . 16 Is your answer to my question yes, that's correct, 17 they did not have long term exposure? IB A Yes, to-- 19 Q I'm sorry? 20 A To Ib v b Is that would be important. 21 Q By your definition of importance? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Well, none of those people would have thoss 24 levels. What do you consider important; what levels? B7 1 A ThsrB is soitib-- there is soma contamination in the 5 part per trillion range. 3 Q Well, but you don't consider that important; do 4 you? 5 A No. 6 Q Well, I want to know what you do consider impor 7 tant. In what range? 8 A Wb have developed this paper that gives you all of 9 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 12 tant? ' 13 A Wa said that anything below 1 part per billion. 14 I know what you said, m a 'am, but my question is 15 what do you consider important level of contamination? IB 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 per billion is important, 19 and contamination levels below 1 part per billion are not 20 important? 21 A Levels below 1 part per billion are negligible. 22 They are not important in residential areas. 23 Dkay. Than, thB answer to the question is they 24 are not important if they are below 1 part per billion? BB 1 A In residential areas, a Well, in any other area are they important? 3 A If you had pastures inhere cattle was grazing, you 4 might have to go doum to lower levels. It depends on the 5 circumstances. 6 Ulhat about lakes or ponds where fish are located, 7 where you have drain off into those ponds-- run off? 8 A That is not really my area. This is the responsi 9 bility of the Environmental Protection Agency, and I have 10 not evaluated that. 11 Q Doctor, you have evaluated and you do know, 12 however, that if one eats fish contaminated, that his 13 Ib v b Is of dioxin-- that one can accumulate in one's body 14 ilevels of dioxin from eating just that contaminated fish. 15 You know that; don't you, m a 'am? IB A Yas. 17 Q And you can get that significantly high concentra 18 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 Dioxin accumulates in the body; doesn't it, m a 'am? 22 A Yes. 23 Q And any time ycu are exposed to dioxin, you-- and 24 you ingest it, absorb it-- you are accummulating some of S3 1 that dioxin; aren't you, m a 'am? s A Yes. 3 Because of it's half-life? 4 A Yes. S Q And every day if you arB 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 a are ingesting or taking in daily; isn't that correct, 3 m a 'am? 10 A Yes. 11 Q And, depending upon it's half-life, you would IS 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 IS in-- equal to or greater than the amount that you are taking IB in on a daily basis; isn't that correct, ma'am? 17 A Yes. IB And that to a great extent depends upon the half19 life of the dioxin? SO A Yes. 21 Q In human tissue; isn't that right? 2S A Yes. 23 Q And all during that period Df time, whether you 24 are exposed to it in thB air, in the soil, in the dirt, in 70 1 liquid, in Fish, in bBef, in chickens, and however you might be getting it into your body, ycu are accumulating 3 dioxin; aren't you, m a 'am? 4 A Yes. 5 Q And you'll accumulate it until you reach a paint 6 uihers your excretion becomes greater than your intake; 7 isn't that correct, ma 'am? 0 A Or equal to. S Or equal to. 10 A Greater or equal to. 11 Q Equal to or greater than. All right, m a 'am. IE That's one reason that the F.D.A. or whoever made the rules 13 on BatingiFish 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. V 18 All right. And of course, that's a reason that 19 you at GDC set the level in soil, again, because of the E0 bio-accumulation Factor? El A Yes. S3 Q New, a lot oF this depends upon half-liFe in S3 humans then. What is the halF-liFe oF,humans that you E4 believe to be thB appropriate half-liFe in Fat tissue in 71 1 humans? 2 A There is really not enough information. TharB's 3 one scientist who took some TCDD-- 4 Q Dr. Froyar. We know that. 5 A Right; I heard that story, too. And that's all I 6 know. 7 Q Wall, you know that thB volunteer wasn't described 6 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, m a 'am? 11 A Yes. 12 Q And that it was concluded by Foiger and Schlatter 13 at that time that halF~lifs was right at four and a half 14 yaars, five years-- what is it; I forget now? 15 A Something like that. 15 Yes. And do you have any reason to doubt thB v 17 validity of their experiment and the result? 18 A No, except that it was a single dosB and just one 19 person. SO Q That I understand. But, my question is: do you 21 have any reason to doubt that validity of that single 22 experiment with that single person? ,/ 23 A No. 24 Q And you used and relied upon works and experiments 75 1 of PoigBr and Schlatter in other instances; have you not, e m a 'am? 3 A Ybs . 4 Q For instance, in your book-- in your health assess 5 ment document, I noted that you relied upon a number of 6 Poiger and Schlatter rasults; did you not, ma'am? 7 A Yes. 8 Noui, dioxin is by consensus, and by yourself as 3 well I 'm sure, the most potent or one of the very most 10 toxic-- I shouldn't say potent-- toxic chemicals made by man; 11 isn't that correct? IS A Yes. 13 Q And, however, it is not the most toxic substance 14 or material known; is it? 15 A No. IS Q The botulina toxin is more potent than dioxin; is 17 it not, m a 'am? IB A Yes, And there are some chemical war gasses. 13 Chemical war gasses that I guess the rest of us, SO we don't know about yet; correct? 21 A Yb s . 22 Q All right. But, the difference between the 23 botulina toxin and dioxin is that thB botulina toxin will 4 not bio-accummulate; will it, m a 'am? 73 1 ft Yes. s Is that correct, m a 'am? 3 A Yes. 4 So, the toxicity of dioxin can be greatly expanded 5 and magnified over and above the botulina toxin toxicity 6 because of the difference? That is, cns accumulates in 7 the body and the ether-- that is, the botulina toxin-- does 8 not accumulate in the body; isn't that correct, ma'am? 8 ft That doesn't necessarily follow. It's just a 10 difference. 0ns causes chronic toxicity, might cause 11 chronic toxicity, whsre the other might not. There is 15 also, in humans at least, a protective mechanism in that 13 they-- the human-- while ha has a lot of trouble excreting 14 it, stores it away in fatty tissuB where it is net as 15 effective on the cells. 16 Q But, that's-- most of that is speculative; isn't / 17 it, m a*'am? j > 16 A Yes and no. Monkeys, for instance, and also 19 guinea pigs have vary little fatty tissue, and they are SO extremely sensitive to these types of compounds. And that SI may be one reason why they are. 55 Q All right. That's not an important point that I S3 really want to pursue. You mads a mention about dioxin in 54 the half-life in soil. It is a fact, isn't it, ma'am, that 74 1 as far as whan wB'rB talking about half-lives, that in the s soil dioxin doesn't readily decay in the environment and 3 it's extremely persistent in soil? , 4 A It's extremely persistent wherever it does not 5 come in contact with UU light. G 0 Well now, Doctor, that's not exactly correct. 7 It's got to be in contact with UU light and it has to be G associated with some kind of solvent as well; does it not, 3 ma *am? 10 A It has to have a hydrogen donor. 11 Q Yes. 12 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 need to have a hydrogen donor; any hydrogen donor , 17 will do. IB Didn't he study half life in soil, and haven't you ia agreed that half life in soil is anywhere from what-- one so year to ten years? 1 SI A Crosby published a paper where he, I think, 22 measured the degradation on vegitaticn which was exposed. 23 And we may bB talking about different papers. 24 hay w b II. But, I want to talk about thB soil and 75 1 not ths vegitation anyway. e A I don't know about Crosby's work in soil. 3 All right. And, Doctor, you have statsd in the 4 past, have you not, that the half-life in soil is what? 5 Ten years? 6 A I 've estimated that; nobody really knows. 7 Yb s . And is that still your best judgment that B the half-life in soil, or you best estimate I should say, a is ten years? 10 A Yes, in soil that is not exposed to DO light. n 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 knows yet what happens to the dioxin IS 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 IS knows what happens to it in the sunlight in that Form; do 19 they, m a '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 takB it, to what they've 23 said on the point; isn't that correct? 24 A UJell, I don't know what they've saitiV 7B 1 Q Wall-- 2 A But, I don't know anything about it* 3 Q You don't know anything about the subject? *1 A Yes, 5 Q 2s that correct, ma'am? 6 A I 'm sorryj is what correct? ? Q That you don't know enough about the subject of 8 the resistence or life of dioxin in the soil or in the sir 9 to make-- to give us an expert opinion on the view on the 10 issue? 11 A That's correct. 12 All right. N d w , 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 \ IS parts per billion, do you not, m a 'am, and below? Or is it IB fair to say that you consider anything above one billion a 17 high dose exposure-one part par billion? ie A This is in soil, or where people ingest it, or-- I 19 mean, what-- 20 Q Well, whatever? Well, in sail, for instance? HI Anything above 1 part per billion in soil, do you consider 52 that to be high exposure? 23 A No. 24 D All right. What is tha level of contamination in 77 1 the soil that you would consider to be high exposure? a ft That would depend on the circumstances, 3 Q In a residential area where people will be exposed 4 to it? 5 ft I would call anything-- anything below 1 part per S billion I would not be concerned about at all. That's one ? The nsxfc category of low exposures-- and you ware 6 asking me about low exposure or high exposure? 9 Q High exposure. 10 ft High exposure. Then, anything above 100 parts par 11 billion I would consider high exposure. 12 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, 16 bBtuisen 20 and 100, as far as I'm concerned. 17 Q All right. 18 ft Now, there are ether variables. In Missouri, and 19 that's why we were always-- we always said that whatever w 90 evaluated was far Missouri. In addition to the 2,3,7,821 tatrachlorodibsnzo-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 tha oil. 70 1 Q All right. You mentioned from 20 to 100 is n 2 intermediate zone. And from 20 parts per billion and 3 below, down to 1 part per billion, what da you consider i 4 that zone? 5 A In a residential area with small children, I would 6 also be concerned. In an industrial site, depending on the 7 situation, and depending on the typs of exposure-- and of 8 course, all of this is explained in our paper-- 3 Q I know. 10 A I would not-- -you might not have a lot of concern, 11 and your actions might be different. 12 8 I 'm talking about residential zones right now. 13 And from 1 part per billion and below is what you consider 14 low dose or-- I'm sorry, not low dose, but,exposure-- wall, 15 yes, I do mean low doss exposure. Correct; me *am? 16 A I consider that as of no concern. 17 Q And you coneidei:-- wall, all right. You consider 18 it of no concern. But, you hava no knowledge as to what 19 the long term health effects will be from exposure to 20 levels of 1 part per billion and below; isn't that correct, 21 m a 'am? 22 A Baaed 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 effects, 79 1 or I don't think there are any health effects. s That isn't really what I asked you. You don't 3 know the health effects from that kind of exposure; isn't 4 that correct, ma 'am? S A Yd s , I do; they arB none. 6 Q I'm sorry? 7 A I do. There are none. e Q There ere none? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Whore have you had human long term exposure to low 11 doses to allow you to come to that conclusion, ma'am? 12 A The general population has been exposed to low 13 doses. 14 Q And how do you know that the general population 1S hasn't bBen effected by it? 16 A The health of the general papulation-- the health 17 of the general papulation seems to ba improving. U)e live 10 longer now and our life Expectancy is increasing. 19 Q Doctor, that doesn *t mean that our health is 20 improving. You can have-- you can livs BO years with pains 21 in the back; you can live BO years with joint pains; you 22 can live 90 years with having colds; you can live BO years 23 having headaches; you can have all kinds of health Bffacts 24 and have long life; can you not? 80 X MR. HEINEMAN: Object to the question as argu 2 mentative , your Honor. 3 THE COURT: Overruled. It*s proper cross. 4 A ThesB sorts of health effects have always bean 5 there. They*ve bean there before. 6 There's no doubt about that, ma*am. But, if they 7 are increased or exacerbated by exposure to dioxin, that a still is a health effect caused by dioxinj is it not? 9 ft They are not increased or exacerbated, 10 Q How do you know that? 11 A If you compare what data we have from years in the 12 past, and I*ve sometimes tried to do that, to what we know 13 now, there either is no difference, or there is something 14 like the increase in cancer cf the lung because of smoking, 15 or there are declines in health effactB. IB GJ Wall now, Doctor, ycu are talking about signifi 17 cant health effects when you talk about lung cancer. I*m 18 talking about Just general health. Let me put it a differ 19 ent way. Isn't it a Fact that whether or not there will be 20 chronic health effects is not known yet, because it takes a 21 long time for such a health effects to show up, and because 22 f the life span in humans is very long? 23 If you are talking about the low level background 24 contamination in our environment, we have now had that, as B1 1 Far as commercial products ara concerned, For-- s Q Pardon? 3 A As Far as commercial products are concerned, For 4 at least since right after tha Second World UJar. And as S far as the fire and combustion and incinerators are con 6 cerned, we've had that longer than that. 7 Q Doctor, would you answer my question? B A There has been enough long term exposure that, S this low level long term exposure,^that you could makB some 10 judgment. 11 And when did you make that judgment, m a 'am? Haw 12 long have you had that opinion? 13 A I'v b had that opinion for several years and For 11 some-- Far quite a number of years. 15 Q 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 SBdiment, I think in LakB Michigan, which give us 19 also some information about some of this background contami 20 nation. 21 No; but, you've had this opinion as to thB long 22 term health effects-- chronic health effects-- for at least 23 five years or seven? 24 A I have started looking at that in connection B2 1 with-- in the publications-- e Q Can you answer-- 3 A I don't quite know tbs year, you see. When the 4 papers came out about the incineration, and also this paper 5 about the various Ib v b Is of TCDD that were found in the 6 sediment in Lake Michigan where they found an appreciable 7 increase over a period of time and then tried to relate B that to the period when the sediments were put down. a Did you have that opinion at least by the time you 10 wrote your article ''Health Complications of 2,3,7,B-tetran chlorodibenza-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 fiftBr-- 16 Q Could you answer that question? 17 A Yes. IB Q And that-- published that in *B4. Did you have 13 that opinion in-- are you talking-- when you talk about your 20 sediment in Lake Michigan, you are talking about the 21 Kingston Ottawa Study? 22 A I think that's the study; I 'm not-- 23 0 With the fish? 24 A I-~ 63 1 Q Now, Doctor, in your deposition that you gave in 2 138S, did you have that opinion then? 3 ft I probably did; I don't remember whether it came 4 up. 5 Q Well, let me read you what you answered at that 6 time. And this is-- I'm giving it to you as part of your 7 answer-- B MR. HEINEMAN: May I see it, please? 3 MR. CARR: In a moment. 10 Q "Whether thers will be chronic health effects is 11 very-- not known yet, because it takes a long time since the ie life span in humans is very long." Did you make such a 13 statement? You recall that; don't you, m a 'am? 14 A But, that's in connection with .high level 15 exposure, and you are asking me about background exposure. IE Q No, I 'm asking about low level exposure. 17 A You were talking about 1-- below 1 part par IB billion. 13 Q I was talking about Id w 'Ib v b I exposure-- chronic 0 long term low level exposure. 1 A To me that goes into the background exposure that the general papulation is getting, and that I don't-- has no 3 effect on the general well-being of the population. 4 Q Well, what about exposure like at Seveso? 84 1 A The long term exposure is generally in that-- first 2 of all, that population hasn't had any long term exposure; 3 it only had short term acute exposure. They were then 4 removed, the placB was cleaned up, they were moved back in. 5 Doctor, the question was asked you relating to 6 Seveso, on page 57, "Were there any reported-- anything 7 reported in connection"-- and this is at thB deposition in B December 19BH where Bliss is suing Lafser-- the question 3 askBd you, "Were there reported-- anything else reported in 10 connection with the Seveso, Italy incident with which you 11 agree?" You answer was, "ThBre werB some abnormal liver 12 function tests, and thrs were some abnormal nerve con 13 duction tests. I 've not actually reviewed that in detail. 14 Whether thBre will be chronic health effects is very-- not 15 known yet, because it takes a long timB since the life span 16 in humans is very long." Da you recall that answer at that 17 time? IB A That population had-- 19 Q My question is: do you recall that bBing your 20 answer? 21 A I don't recall that answer, but-- 22 Q That would havB beBn the truth at that time? 23 A Yes, that's what I said; but that was talking 24 about the population in Seveso, which was a population that B5 1 had high levBl short term exposure. So, it's-- 2 Q Some of them had high level short term exposure; 3 some of them had low level exposure? 4 A Some of those tests that they are talking about 5 there tuere in people that actually had chloracne. 6 Q Yes; but, that test isn't what I'm directing your 7 attention to. I'm directing your attention to the fact 6 that you said there as far as chronic health effects, it is 3 not known yet, because it takes a long time since the life 10 span in humans is very long. n A Yes. That's for high level exposure. 12 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. 16 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 20 certain results-- 21 THE COURT: Let me see the question. 22 M R . CARR: SurB. 23 CAt this time the deposition was taken to the 24 bench and reviewed by the Court.3 SB X THE COURT: Your objection is overruled. I don't 2 think it's out of context. 3 Now, Doctor, your answer there regarding the 4 Seveso people uiere based upon people who had a short term 5 exposure, and you responded that whether or not there are 6 going to be chronic health effects From the exposure the 7 people of SevBso had is not known yet, because it takes a a long time since the lifB span in humans is very long. 9 Isn't that what you 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, ma'am, on the high dose or high ie 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 one question is canoer. 23 Q All right. That hasn't been worked out yet. So, 24 there's a question-- you certainly would worry about cancer; 87 X mould you not, ma'am? 2 A That mould be a chronic health effect that you 3 mould-- 4 Q I'm sorry? 5 A Yea. 6 Q And, what other health affects are there from high 7 levels of exposure to dioxin? 8 A There are no health affects that we know of. The 9 things we would worry about would bB things like cancer. 10 Are you saying that there are no risks involved 11 with exposure to high levels of dioxin other than the risk 12 of cancer? 13 A There have not been any demonstrated health 14 effects other than chloracne. 15 Q fly question is that sofsr as you, Dr. Kimbrough, IB is concerned, there are no health effects connected with 17 high dose exposure other than chloracne and the passible 18 worry about cancer? 13 A hJe're not talking about chronic health effects-- 20 Q Yes, we're talking about any kind of health 21 effects, Doctor, from exposure to high levels of dioxin. 22 A Any kind of health effect is different from 23 chronic health effect to mB. 24 Q Well, then, let me include it to any kind of 88 1 health effect. Ulhat are the health effects that are conse 2 quences of exposure to high levels of dioxin? 3 8 There have been in workers acute health effects 4 which have been described. 5 And those are what? 6 A And some of-- there's the chloracne; there can be 7 hyperpigmentation; there have been things like general 8 malaise; and there have been some abnormal liver function 9 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 themsevles. But not always? 18 A Not always. 19 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. B9 1 Q Wall, what about the thymus and the kidneys-- the a " thymus and thB kidnsys? Aren't they also effected? 3 A We 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 tlissouri that had the hemorrhagic 6 cystitis. But, that has not been reported in any other 7 people-- in workers. S Doctor, didn't you testify in this Lafser case 3 when they asked you, ''What are the symptoms that you as a 10 toxicologist would look for or expect to see when an animal 11 Dr human, etc., was exposed to dioxin. Aside from hyper12 caratosis and the chloracne, are there other symptoms?" 13 And you said, ''The symptoms and signs in different spBCias 14 vary. The organs that might be effected are the liver, the 15 thymus, the kidnBys. In addition, there seems to he a 16 general effect which produces severe weight lass; and often 17 less of adipose tissue, fatty tissue. If the exposure IB occurs to high degrees or high concentrations of diDxin, 19 there may be an effect on reproduction. From long term 20 exposure, you worry about cancer.*' Wasn't that your answer 1 to that question at that time? 22 MR, HEINEMAN: Excuse me, your Honor. Excuse me, 3 Doctor. May Counsel approach the bench, your Honor? 24 THE COURT: Sure. 90 1 CThe following proceedings were had at the 2 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 askBd at that time about both animals and humans, and on 7 this ocassion she was asked about humans. And therefore, B that's not impeaching. And X abject ta it as an improper 9 use of the prior deposition. XO MR. CARR: Her answer, she did not limit it to 11 animalsj her answer was a response to a question that said 12 animals and-- or was it or-- an animal or a human. It 13 doesn't say just animals; is says animals or humans. 14 THE COURT: She had thB opportunity to limit it 15 if she wanted to limit it during the answer. Apparently IB she didn't. I don't think that the fact that it was asked 17 of either or takes away From it's value as impeachment IB given the answer that was made. Overruled. 19 CThe following proceedings were had out of the 20 hearing and presence of the jury.) 21 Q And Doctor, when you said "and for long term 22 exposure you worry about cancer" your answer therB 23 certainly was directed to a human being-- worry about human 24 beings; wasn't it? 91 1 ft It was directed to the animals and human beings. 2 And we have found cancer in animals. 3 Q Well, my question is that your answer related to 4 animals and human beings; did it not, m a 'am? 5 A My answer related to animals and human beings, 6 yes. 7 Q All right. And you said far long term exposure e you worry about cancer; didn't you say that, m a 'am? 3 A Yes. 10 That was thB truth at that time; wasn't it, m a 'am? 11 A Yes. 15 Q Related to human beings; wasn't it, m a 'am? 13 A Also, yes. 14 Q Now, Doctor, in point of fact, you haven't really 15 done any study or any work to see what someof the lesser 16 typB ailments might bs that result from dioxin exposure 17 such as headaches, and peripheral neuropathies, weakness, 18 and the joint aches, and general malaiSB? You really 19 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 da 23 you mean me? 24 Q I mean CDC. 92 1 A Us have-- NIOSH is part of CDC. s Q Well, NIOSH just works on cancer. 3 A No, they also do cross sectional studies. 4 Did they do some studies on dioxin exposure and 5 thBSB other types of problems? 6 A There hasn't been anything published. 7 Q There's nothing that uie can see or read or that's B available to us? 9 A No. 10 Q Actually the only study that we've got in which 11 they went out and asked questions and tried 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'vb dis~ 14 cussed with yo. The only thing w e 've got is this Missouri i 15 Health Study; is that correct, m a 'am? IS A Thetis the only thing that has been published. 17 Q Yes. And insofar as your-- the study that you IQ published in 1984, 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, m a 'am? 24 A Yes. 93 1 Q So, actually when you set a Ie v b I of 1 part par 2 billion as being below that-- or above that of concern, 3 you're actually talking about of concern for risk of 4 cancsr; aren't you, ma'am? 5 ft Yes. 6 Q And you are not talking about any other singlB 7 health affect; are you, m a 'am? B A All other single health effects you could proba 3 bly have-- for othBr single health effects, you could have 10 higher doses and you would not havB a problem. 11 Q 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 these 15 Ib v b Is of dioxin; isn't that correct, m a 'am? 16 A Ybs . 17 G And there are a world of other health problems-- 10 haart attacks, brain disease, paralysis, porphyria-- there's 19 any number of other health problems besides cancer; isn't i 20 that correct, m a 'am? 21 A Yes. 22 D And this paper of yours did not address thB health 23 complications of any of those oher problems; did it, 24 m a 'am? 94 1 8 Thera uas 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. E THE WITNESS: Could I have the question again, 7 pleasB? 8 CThB previous question was read back by the court 9 reporter.D 10 A Yes, it did. 11 Q And what other problems did it address in addition 12 to cancer? 13 A It addressed reproduction, and it also discussed 14 thB human health effects. 15 What level did-- where did you-- well, you discussed IE those things, but-- maybe my question was imprecise. The 17 risk assessment that you undertook for just related to 16 cancer; did it not, sir-- ma'am? 19 A N o . We also looked at the effBets on repro 20 duction in monkeys. 21 0 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, 4 m a 'am? 95 1 8 Because those seamed to be the meet sensitive. 2 Q 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 90, m a 'am, ''For these reasons this 8 study was not used for risk assessment calculations, but 9 only the chronic toxicity studies which demonstrated a 10 carcinogenic response in rodents were used." Didn't you 11 say that, m a 'am? 12 A But, I have reasons for that. 13 Excuse me; my question is: didn't you say that, 14 m a 'am? 15 A I said, ''For these reasons", yes, 16 Q And on the next page, didn't you also say, "It 17 must be stressed that the exposure assessments used in IB estimating risks for carcinogenicity and reproductive 19 health effects contain critical assumptions that are not 20 likely to be actually encountered." Isn't that correct, 21 ma'am? 22 A Yes. 23 Q And did you also discuss about these are 24 calculations for-- that you made for long term^risk as far 95 1 as cancer is concerned? s A Yes. 3 THE COURT: Is this a good point to break? 4 MR. CARR: Yes, your Honor. 5 THE COURT: Okay. We'll start Monday morning at 6 3:30. Thank you, Doctor. 7 CAt this time Court adjourned For the day.l a a 10 ii 12 13 14 15 15 17 IB 13 20 21 22 23 24 97 X STATE DF ILLINOIS . j COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR 5 3 4 5 6 I, TRACY LYBARGER, C.S.R., Official Court 7 Reporter in and for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit,, end the e I Official Court Reporter who transcribed the above-stylad i \ B cause had on January 10, 1986, do hereby certify \that the 10 foregoing transcript of proceedings is a true, correct and 11 ' V -\ complete transcript of the proceedings had on said^date. 12 DATED this 16th day of January, 1986., \ \ \13 . it a ' 14 . : J . > ,\ S 15 1 ii \ 16 17 ft IB -/UluCL^ J l `N 19 TRACY 0YBAR^R, .S.R. 0 Official Court Reporter 21 22 23 54 98 1 STATE OF ILLINOIS D) ss. a COUNTY OF ST, CLAIR ) 3 4 5 I, RICHARD P. GOLDENHERSH, Circuit Judge in and 5 for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, hereby certify that the 7 above ie a true ar.d correct transcript of the proceedings 6 had in the case captioned: FRANCES E. KEMNER, ET AL v. 9 MONSANTO COMPANY, Cause No. 90-L-970, heard on January 10, 10 1965. 11 DATED this---- day of January, 1986. ie 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ao ai aa as a4