Document OENOqDnZ5D506np7nJzokkeVM

JURIS DOCTOR. M ASTER OP LAWS. U .M .. IN T A X A T IO N M onnye R. Gross A T T O R N E Y <fc C O U N S E L O R A T LAW P.O. B O X 1 1 8 3 5 CLAYTON. M ISSO URI 63105 314-991-060 ADM ITTED IN ILLINOIS. PEN N SY LV A N IA MISSOURI July 5, 1990 Peter Montague, Ph.D., Editor Environmental Research Foundation P.O. Box 3541 Princeton, NJ 08543-3541 Re: William R. Gaffey, Ph.D. Dear Dr. Montague: Please be advised that I represent William R. Gaffey, Ph.D., President of William R. Gaffey, Inc. In your newsletter "Rachel's Hazardous Waste News" #171 dated March 7, 1990 you published several false and defamatory statements about the work that William R. Gaffey and Judy Zack allegedly did in connection with the health effect of occupational dioxin exposure. Mr. Gaffey demonstrated the falsehoods to you by letters dated April 4, 1990, April 23, 1990 and May 11, 1990, and included supporting data. To date he has received neither a reply to his letter of. May 11, 1990 nor a retraction. Liability for trade libel results from the publication of false and defamatory statements about a person's business, trade or profession. Specifically, the tort of defamation is a false communication which injures a person's reputation. False statements that disparage another in the conduct of his business, trade or profession give rise to liability without proof of special damages. Mr. Gaffey may recover damages from you for defamation even without proving actual loss of trade. In addition, Mr. Gaffey may recover damages'for the loss of business that he can establish with reasonable certainty. Statements, such as those in your newsletter, which interfere with Mr. Gaffey's prospective and existing business and contractual relationships also constitute tortious conduct for which you may be held liable. Furthermore, the tort of disparagement or injurious falsehood imppses liability for the publication of a false statement that results in harm to another's interests which have pecuniary value. The torts of defamation,.interference with prospective and existing business and contractual relationships. and disparagement involve the imposition'of liability for- : injuries sustained through publication of false statements. Peter Montague, Ph.D., Editor July 5, 1990 Page 2 Mr. Gaffey has authorized me to take whatever legal action is necessary to protect and restore his reputation and protect his economic interests. In order to avoid litigation which will be expensive and embarrassing to you, Mr. Gaffey is willing to settle this matter if you publish a retraction and pay his legal fees of One Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($150.00), which have thus far accrued. If the retraction and payment is not forthwith in coming, appropriate legal action will be taken to protect my client from the torts of defamation, disparagement or injurious faslehood and interference with prospective and existing contractual relations. Please be advised that I intend to fully protect my client's interests, to vigorously enforce all of my client's rights and to diligently pursue all legal remedies. v .. An immediate retraction and payment of Mr. Gaffey's legal fees will be appreciated. MRG/ks RACHEL'S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #171 Providing news and resources to the Movement for Environmental Justice -- March 7, 1990 Dioxin-Part 1 DIOXINS AND CANCER: FRAUDULENT STUDIES For years, industry scientists have been claiming there's no evidence that dioxins cause cancer in humans. Now there is mounting evidence that such claims rely heavily on studies that are fraudulent. Two companies recently accused of producing fraudulent dioxMino-annsda-nhteoalth data are Monsanto and BASF. A scientist with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says Monsanto falsified data in im portant studies that Monsanto used to support its claim that dioxin does not cause cancer in humans. Dr. Cate Jenkins, a chemist in EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, says EPA itself re lied upon Monsanto's fraudulent data in setting health standards for dioxin, and Jenkins has asked the EPA's Science Advisory Board to reopen the matter of EPA's dioxin standards, to take a fresh look at available data.1 Two important sources of dioxins in the environ ment are old chemical dumps and the incineration of municipal solid wastes,2 which is why EPA is con cerned about allowable levels of human exposures to dioxBinA. SF The British technical journal, New Scientist, says, "A new analysis by a West German epidemiologist may have established the first clearcut evidence of a direct link between exposure to dioxins and cancer in humans. Friedemann Rohieder, an independent specialist, has produced a report detailing an unexpec tedly high incidence of cancer among workers exposed to dioxins during an industrial accident at a chemicals plant in 1953.* "The plant, operated by the West German com pany BASF, made trichlorophenol. Rohieder claims the company presented the data in a way that dis guisBedactkhgerocuanncders," says New Scientist Each of these claims of fraud relates to an in dustrial accident in which workers were exposed to dioxins; follow-up medical studies funded by the responsible companies have been published in main stream scientific journals, claiming to Show that no excess cancers have occurred in the dioxin-exposed workers. In fact, excess cancers have occurred, but it appears that the data have been manipulated to hide the facts. The Monsanto Case In 1949, an explosion occurred at a Monsanto chemical factory in Nitro, West Virginia; as a result, many workers in the plant were exposed to the herbicide 2,4,5-T, which was contaminated with dioxin. (This herbicide was later the principal component of Agent Orange, the chemical defoliant used by the U.S. in Viet Nam.) In subsequent years, two Monsanto scientists, J A Zack and R. W. Gaffey, studied the. exposed workers, comparing their health against the health of a similar group of workers who were not exposed to dioxin or ,,2,4,5-T.4 According to court documents attached to the EPA memo,"Zack and Gaffey deliberately and knowingly omitted 5 deaths from the exposed group and took four workers who had been exposed and put these workers in the unexposed group, serving, of course, to decrease the death rate in the exposed group and increase the death rate in the unexposed group." Other studies of this same accident were also fraudulent, according to the same court documents, including a study by R.R. Suskind published in the Journal of the American Medical Association:5 "This published study of the workers exposed in the 1949 accident reported only 14 cancers in the exposed group and ,6 in the unexposed group (a smaller cohort). However, the medical records produced [by Monsanto] to the Plaintiffs conclusively prove gross miscalculations and omissions... there were 28 can cers in the group that had been exposed to dioxins, in 1949 as opposed to only 2 cancers in the unexposed group." Mr. Suskind published two other reports6,7 on the same accident, using his same data, to reach the concTlhuesioBnAtShFat Cdaiosxein does not cause cancer. On the night of November 17, 1953, a runaway chemical reaction spewed dioxin-contaminated chemi cals over workers and community residents of two small German cities, Mannheim and Ludwigshafen. Subsequently, an epidemiological study was used to deny workers any compensation for ailments they claimed they suffered as a result of exposure, In keeping with German law, the workers retained their own expert to review the data. Their expert, Friede mann Rohieder, received the data from the German government but found,,to his surprise, that all the data,. actually came from the BASF company itself. He analyzed the data and found that some workers suffering from chloracne, which is universally ack nowledged to be evidence of high exposure to dioxin, ..had been placed in the low-exposure or non-exposed ;up. He found evidence of "diluting" the exposed group with 20 plant supervisory staff who, Rohleder believes, were not exposed. When Rohleder omitted the 20 supervisory staff, his analysis revealed statisti cally significant increases in two groups of cancers: cancers of the respiratory organs (lungs, trachea, etc.), and cancers of the digestive tract. "This analysis adds further evidence to an association between dioxin exposure and human malignancy," Rohleder told New Scientist. [To be continued.) 'Cate Jenkins, 'Memo to Raymond Loehr: Newiy Revealed Fraud by Monsanto in an Epidemiological Study Used by EPA to Assess Human health Effects from Dioxins," dated February 23, 1990. Jenkins is a chemist with the Waste Characterization Branch (OS 332), Characterization and Assessment Division, U.S. EPA, 401 M St., SW, Washing ton, DC 20460. Loehr is Chairperson of the Executive Committee of the Science Advisory Board (A-101), Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, 401 M St., SW, Washing ton, DC 20460. The Jenkins memo has attached to it 25 pages of a brief filed in Case No. 5-88-0420, in the Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District by attorneys suing (' onsanto on behalf of plaintiffs who say they were harmed wnen a Norfolk and Western railroad tank car derailed, spilling 19,000 gallons of a Monsanto chemical called "OCP-crude" into the community of Sturgeon, Missouri the night of January 10, 1979. Chief attorney for the plaintiffs is Rex Carr, 412 Missouri Avenue, East St. Louis, IL 62201; phone (618) 274-0434. Our thanks to Margo Blackwell, People Against the Incinerator (PATI), Bloom ington, Indiana, and to EPA official William Sanjour, both of whom independently sent us the information about Monsanto. We can mail copies of the Jenkins memo and attachments (28 pages) for $14.00, which covers our actual costs of photocopying, handling and mailing. ^Dak Ridge National Laboratory. Toxicological Profile for 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dloxin [ATSDR/TP-88/23; PB89-214522] (Springfield, VA: National Technical Informa-' tion Service, June, 1989), pg. 22, identifies dumps and incinerators as "the important sources of 2,3,7,8-TCDD exposure to the general population." This is the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR] toxicological profile for dioxin (See RHWN #169.) 1 Stephanie Wanchinksi, "New Analysis links dioxin to cancer," New Scientist October 28, 1989, pg. 24. Thanks to Paul Connett of Work on Waste USA, we have a copy of Friedemann Rohleder's paper, which he presented in late September at a dioxin conference in Toronto, Ontario; Rohleder's paper is entitled "Dioxins and Cancer Mortality-- Reanalysis of the BASF Cohort" We can mail you the 14page Rohleder paper for $7.00, or you can request a copy directly from the author: Friedemann Rohleder, Friedrich Hebei Str. 13,1712 Werne, West Germany. * Zack, J.A., and W. R. Gaffey, "A Mortality Study Of Workers Employed At The Monsanto Company Plant In Nitro, West Virginia," Environmental Science Research, Vol. 26 (1983), pgs. 575-591. ^.R . Suskind, and V.S. Hertzberg, "Human Health Effects Of 2,4,5-T And Its Toxic Contaminants," Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 251, No. 18 (1984), pgs. 2372-2380. , *R.R. Suskind, "Chloracne, The Hallmark Of Dioxin In toxication,'" Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, Vol. 11, No. 3 (1985), pgs. 165-171. 7R.R. Suskind, "Long-Term Health Effects Of Exposure To 2,4,5-T And/Or Its Contaminants," Chemosphere, Vol. 12, No. 4-5 (1983), pg. 769. Rachel's Hazardous Waste News is published weekly by Environmental Research Foundation, P.O. Box 3541, Princeton, NJ 08543. Editor: Peter Montague, Ph.D.; Associate Editor: Maria B. Pellerano; Assistant Editor: Annette Eubank; West Coast Editor: Tim Montague: subscriptions: Abigail Allen, Office Manager. Subscription rates: $25 per year for individuals and citizen groups, $50 for government agencies, $8 for students and seniors, $250 for businesses and professionals. other countries, add $11.00. All payments in U.S. funds. In CanaPdarinatendd oMnex1i0c0o%, aRddec$y4c.le0d0;Pinapaelrl SUBSCRIPTION ORDER FORM Name: Address: Environmental Research Foundation P.O. Box 3541 Princeton, NJ 08543-3541 ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUESTED TO: FIRPUPSe.SrTrimn.P-CcAPiteLIODtNAoSnoST,,SA4NG3MJ4EAIL State and Zip: EnviroPnrminec2ne3tP1toa.nOlN,.RaNBseJsosaxeu0a38rS55c4t4hr1e3e-F3t5o4u1ndation (609) 683-0707 r )/-*- /v July 18, 1990 Mr. Monnye R. Gross P.O. Box 11835 Clayton, MO 63105 Dear Mr. Gross, Thank you for your letter of July 5, 1990. Please convey to Mr. Gaffey my apologies for the delay that has ensued since he last wrote to me directly. His letter to me of May 11, 1990, contained substantial attachments that I had to try to digest, as well as suggestions and statements that I had to try to follow and confirm. Would you please write me again, after conferring with Mr. Gaffey, telling me what you and he would consider a satisfactory phrasing of the retraction he wishes me to print? Although.it may seem clear to you exactly which words in Rachel's Hazardous Waste Hews . #171 are the subject of dispute between Mr. Gaffey and myself, it is not entirely clear to me precisely which words he would like me to retract. Precise clarification of Mr. Gaffey's.wishes in this matter is essential to a satisfactory resolution. In addition, may I ask for clarification of another issue that continues to confuse me? Monsanto issued a press release October 9, 1980, carrying a headline, "STUDY FAILS TO LINK AGENT ORANGE TO DEATHS OF INDUSTRIAL WORKERS." I am enclosing a copy of the press release. The press release announces results of a study by Zack and Suskind. What confuses me is that all of the numbers in the press release would lead one to believe that the press release was describing a study later published not under the names Zack and Suskind but under the names Zack and Gaffey. It would help me understand who said what if Mr. Gaffey could throw some light on the study that the press release describes and his relationship to it (if any). Sincerely yours, Peter Montague NEWS FOR RELEASE IMMEDIATELY Monsanto D. R. Bishop (314) 694-2891 PUBLIC RELATIONS DEPARTMENT M8 0o0n ia N n . St. lO M io C om om v UAdbafQ h S ii. M itio u ri 6o 3u 1l a0v6i r d STUDY FAILS TO LINK AGENT ORANGE TO DEATHS OF INDUSTRIAL WORKERS ST. LOUIS, Oct. 9 -- Monsanto Company today reported that no apparent relationship exists'between TCDD, the toxic dioxin contaminant in "Agent Orange," and the cause of death of 58 employees potentially exposed to it during 2,4,5-T herbicide production at the company's Nitro, W. Va., plant. This finding was among those reached in a new study, co-authored by Monsanto epidemiologist Judith A. Zack and Raymond R. Suskind, M.D., of the University of Cincinnati Medical Center. Their investigation examined the cause of death of all hourly workers who had been active employees of the plant for one or more years between 19S5 and 1977 and have since died from any and all causes. The entire group was successfully traced and all deaths verified by death certificate. Monsanto produced 2,4,S-T at its Nitro plant from 1948 until 1969. It is currently the subject of widespread controversy centering on its use in the defoliant Agent Orange during the Vietnam War. This is the second major effort undertaken to examine the mortality (cause of death) of Nitro plant workers, either exposed or potentially exposed to TCDD. Mrs. Zack and Dr. Suskind earlier this year co-authored a separate but related study of employees who had experienced high peak exposure 2- - to TCDD during an industrial accident at the plant in 1949. The results of that investigation, published in the January, 1980 issue of The Journal of Occupational Medicine, indicated no excess in total deaths or in deaths from cancer or cardiovascular disease. In this larger, follow-up effort, the mortality experience of the total Nitro plant workforce was analyzed by the modified life-table method using the U.S. population as the standard. Of the 884 men identified for study, 721 (82V) were verified as still alive and 163 (I8t) were confirmed dead by death certificates. The study found no statistically significant excess in total deaths or deaths due to cancer -or-- disease of the nervous system, circulatory system, respiratory system or digestive system. The study did confirm and quantify an apparent excess ' in bladder cancer among Nitro Plant workers (nine observed vs 0.91 expected) which has been known for many years. This finding reflects the established and previously documented association between exposure to Para-aminobyphenyl (PAB) and cancer in man. PAB was used at Nitro from 1941 through 1952, for use as a rubber antioxidant and dye intermediate. Its use was discontinued when its cancer-causing potential was confirmed. The authors pointed out that an intensive screening . 'r'.- :!. program was instituted by the company about 1955 to examine, . on a continuing basis,all workers exposed to this chemical. -more* i / 3- - Seven PAB-related deaths from bladder cancer have occurred among Nitro Plant employees enrolled in this program over these 25 years. These seven deaths are included in this study. A review of the work history records of the 163 decedents further revealed that 58" (35.60 had been exposed to 2,4,S-T and potentially to TCDD. One hundred four (63.80 were considered non-exposed and the exposure of one decedent was not determined. The mortality experiences of these two subgroups were then compared using the proportional mortality method. This was done to test whether any relationship existed between potential TCDD exposure and proportional mortality. No such relationship was observed nor were any unusual patterns of mortality found in this exercise other than the PAB-related deaths described earlier. The expected number of deaths in the 2,4,S-T subgroup was calculated on the basis of the percentage of deaths from various causes in the U.S. general population. Specifically, cancer deaths among 2,4,5-T workers (nine observed versus 10.94 expected) were found to be lower than in the non-exposed group (2S observed versus 20.43 expected). Deaths due to disease of the nervous system, respiratory system and digestive system were also found to be lower than one would expect to find in a group of this size. While not statistically significant, deaths due to disease of the circulatory system (largely arteriosclerotic heart disease) were elevated at 31 versus 26.48 expected. -more - 4- - The analysis of the total Nitro plant population found a similar excess in deaths from arteriosclerosis. In the discussion section, the authors pointed out that these excesses most likely reflect the higher mortality from heart disease which has been observed for Charleston and Kanawha County, tf. Va. A third study, based on health information gathered from extensive physical examinations of over 400 present and former Nitro plant employees is currently being conducted solely by Dr. Suskind and his medical team from the University of Cincinnati's Institute of Environmental Health. Included in this ongoing study are both those workers exposed during the 1949 accident as well as those exposed during normal 2,4,S-T operations between 1948 and 1969 when the unit was shut down. A control group of employees who worked in other areas of the plant during that time frame is also being studied for comparative purposes. The results of this study are expected later this year and will be submitted for publication in an appropriate medical journal. 100980 -oOo- , j u r is d o c t o r , m a s t e r of* LAWS. LLM _ IN TAXATION M onnye R. Gross A T T O R N E Y <fc C O U N S E L O R A T LAW P.O. B O X 1 1 8 3 5 CLAYTON. M ISSO URI 63105 314-991-0607 A D M ITTED IN ILLINOIS. PEN N SY LV A N IA A MISSOURI July 31, 1990 Peter Montague, Ph.D., Editor Environmental Research Foundation P.O. Box 3541 Princeton, NJ 08543-3541 Re: William R. Gaffey, Ph.D. Dear Dr. Montague: Thank you for your letter dated July 18, 1990, in which you agreed to print a retraction regarding William R. Gaffey, Ph.D. Dr. Gaffey has forwarded to me the retraction and clarification that you requested about the Monsanto press release. However, before sending you the retraction and clarification, please send a check in the amount of One Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($150.00) to cover Dr. Gaffey's legal fees. Dr. Gaffey is unwilling to settle this matter unless he receives a satisfactory retraction and payment of his legal fees. If payment is not received by August 17, 1990 followed by an immediate retraction, which will be forwarded to you upon receipt of this payment, appropriate legal action will be taken to protect Dr. Gaffey from the torts of defamation, disparagement or injurious falsehood and interference with prospective and existing contractual relations. Please be advised that Dr. Gaffey has authorized me to vigorously enforce all of his legal rights and remedies in order to rectify his good name. Thank you for your attention to this matter. An immediate payment of Dr. Gaffey's legal fees followed by a suitable retraction will settle this case. Very truly MRG/ks Monnye R . Gross EnviroPnrminec2ne3tPt1oa.nOlN,.RaNBseJsosaxeu0a38rS55c4t4hr1e3e-F3t5o4u1ndation (609) 683-0707 August 8, 1990 Mr. Monnye R. Gross P.O. Box 11835 Clayton, MO 63105 Dear Mr. Gross, Thank you for your letter of July 31, 1990. Please re-read my letter to you dated July 18, 1990. In that letter I certainly did not agree to print a retraction. Since you refuse to provide me with a clarification of the exact phrase or phrases that Mr. Gaffey finds objectionable, I must refer back to his letter to me dated April 23, 1990, in which he said he wanted me to retract two items: (1) an "allegation" about "fraud" and (2) "false statements about what Zack and i did." I do not know what "false statements" Mr. Gaffey is referring to, so I will have to ignore that portion of Mr. Gaffey's April 23 letter until I receive further clarification from you or from Mr. Gaffey. Here I will deal only with the allegation of fraud. The allegation of "fraud" that Mr. Gaffey cites in his letter appeared in a quotation that I printed and attributed (100% accurately) to attorney Rex Carr. Mr. Carr made two claims regarding what Zack/Gaffey did in their study entitled, "A Mortality Study of Workers Employed at the Monsanto Company Plant in Nitro, West Virginia": (a) Mr. Carr claimed that Zack/Gaffey deliberately and knowingly omitted five deaths from the exposed group; (b) Mr. Carr claimed that Zack/Gaffey deliberately and knowingly took four workers who had been exposed and put these workers in the unexposed group, serving to decrease the death rate in the; exposed group and increase the death rate in the ; unexposed group. Mr. Carr concludes that these actions by Zack/Gaffey constitute "fraud." 2 My dictionary says that fraud is "something said or done to deceive...." and the same dictionary says that "to deceive" means "to make (a person) believe what is not true, to mislead." So the question is, did Mr. Gaffey knowingly and deliberately do something to make (a person) believe something that is not true in either of the matters Mr. Carr cites? If the answer is "yes" in either case, then I must conclude that Mr. Carr is justified in saying what he said, in which case I feel I owe Mr. Gaffey neither an apology nor a retraction. Regarding Mr. Carr's first point, I believe Zack/Gaffey did omit five deaths from the exposed group but I am not yet sure in my own mind whether this omission was justified or not. I am continuing to gather material about this matter and will reach a conclusion when more information becomes available to me. (More on this below.) Regarding Mr. Carr's second point, I believe Mr. Carr is correct in stating that 4 individuals who were labeled "not exposed to 2,4,5-T" by Zack/Gaffey had, in fact, been heavily exposed to 2,4,5-T during the 1949 accident at the Nitro plant. I believe Zack/Gaffey knew these individuals had been heavily exposed because they used the term "TCDD exposure" to describe the condition of these four individuals (and others who lived through the accident): "The workers involved in that incident had presumed TCDD exposure as evidenced by chloracne." (pg. 590) Furthermore, according to published information, Ms. Zack has admitted in a court of law that the four workers listed in the two different studies are the same four workers.1 Zack/Gaffey did not mention anywhere in their published article that they were including four workers with "presumed TCDD exposure" (pg. 590) in Table 11, which is a table labeled "not exposed to 2,4,5-T" (pg. 589). I therefore conclude that Zack/Gaffey deliberately and knowingly took four workers who had been heavily exposed and put these workers in the "unexposed" group, serving to decrease the death rate in the exposed group and increase the death rate in the unexposed group, which is precisely what Mr. Carr accused them of doing in the sentences I quoted in #171. I believe Zack/Gaffey had every opportunity to tell their readers that they had done this, and to include whatever justification they might have offered for doing this, but instead they chose to remain silent on the matter and thus they chose to allow their readers to form the impression that 3 Zack/Gaffey had no reason to believe anyone in Table 11 had suffered substantial exposure to 2,4,5-T. This causes me to believe firmly that Zack/Gaffey tried to make their readers believe that something was true when it was actually untrue and they knew it was untrue; in short, I believe they willfully tried to deceive and mislead their readers, constituting a fraud. I therefore believe Mr. Carr had adequate justification for writing what he wrote. As a journalist, I have both a right and an obligation to report such matters. I am also aware that other journalists have quoted Mr. Carr's use of the term "fraud" in describing the Zack/Gaffey study.2 Furthermore, I notice that other scientists have called for a complete rvaluation of the Monsanto data because they noted that the four workers were termed "not exposed" in one Monsanto study (Zack/Gaffey) but were listed as "exposed" in the Zack/Suskind study; these scientists further allege that Zack/Gaffey omitted 19 individuals who died of circulatory disease or of cancer while in the employ of Monsanto "and who met the criteria for inclusion in the exposed group" but were, for some unexplained reason, omitted entirely by Zack/Gaffey.1 As I try to learn more about these 19 individuals, I intend also to learn more about the five individuals mentioned by Mr. Carr in the quotation that I printed in #271. Mr. Gaffey may challenge my right of free speech if he so chooses, but such a challenge would clearly be nothing more than harassment, since Mr. Gaffey. knows that I have excellent reasons for believing that Mr. Carr was justified in saying what he said. Furthermore, both you and Mr. Gaffey surely understand that I have a fundamental Constitutional right to reprint a quotation from Mr. Carr's legal brief. Given these facts, your initiation of a lawsuit could not serve any purpose other than harassment. Naturally, I intend to defend myself with great vigor. I will not take Mr. Gaffey's harassment lightly, and I will respond to it in every way the law provides. This is clearly an unwarranted attempt to restrict my first amendment rights, and to frighten me away from pursuing my obligation as a journalist to print allegations of scientific fraud. I am not easily frightened. I believe the exposure of fraud in science is an important service that journalists must provide their readers, since the public health consequences of scientific fraud can be very great indeed (and, in this particular case, appear to be extraordinarily so, since U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says it has relied upon the Zack/Gaffey study to establish standards for human exposures to dioxin). 4 It goes without saying that I have no intention of paying Mr. Gaffey, or you, any money, so you can stop suggesting that I do so. Further, I request that you advise Mr. Gaffey that he should stop harassing me. It is he who will find litigation costly and embarrassing, if he chooses to initiate it, not me. Mr. Gaffey should know that the American Civil Liberties Union has agreed to defend me if Mr. Gaffey initiates a lawsuit because they have reviewed this matter in detail and have concluded that I acted properly, and entirely within my Constitutional rights, in printing what I printed; their representation will cost me nothing. As for embarrassing me, Mr. Gaffey will be disappointed on that count as well; far from being embarrassed, I am proud of the small part I have played in bringing this matter to light. My readers, and my journalistic and scientific colleagues across the country, will follow the proceedings with abiding interest if Mr. Gaffey initiates a lawsuit, and I will take pains to keep them ail apprised. After all, it is Mr. Gaffey who has invented a new meaning ("not exposed") for a common English word ("exposed"); I am not embarrassed to label this invention a fraud. My advice to you, as Mr. Gaffey's attorney, is that you should learn more about Mr. Gaffey's past before you suggest that he has been libeled in my newspaper. It is evident from the information about Mr. Gaffey's work that has appeared, in print elsewhere, and that resides in the Kemner trial transcript, that I merely scratched the surface in #172. Before you initiate a lawsuit against me on behalf of Mr. Gaffey, ask yourself why Mr. Gaffey was not called as a witness by Monsanto in Kemner. Sincerely yours, r S u c i 1X1 0 i l O d y U S y l r n L/ Attachments: Photocopies of the two articles cited below. 1 Alastair Hay and Ellen Silbergeld, "Assessing the Risk of Dioxin Exposure," Nature Vol. 315 (May, 1985), p g s . 102-103. 2 Carol Van Strum and Paul Merrell, "Dioxin Human Health Damage: Damaged Data?" Journal of Pesticide Reform Vol. 10 No. 1 (Spring, 1990), pgs. 8-12. I suggest you read the footnotes? carefully, and bear in mind that Mr. Merrell is an attorney. i Environmental. Research `Foundation 21- KFovr.94 16 s 15 page 2 of '2 'fa ttu ra rm i. 3 tf, rz P e c -rtV ----- --- -- -- -- -uurttLor ui w a n u l - Dioxin exposure at Monsanto- | expected number. Hay and SUberggld cxitidze studies that use chioracne as the'eriterion of exposure* ' Sm--Hay and Silbeigetd urge -a re- dence to th contention that accident* They arc on firsis ground when they say examination of 'the information about exposed workers were more-heavily-jete ..that.the disease is a depeBdept variableM workers exposal todiosji* at the Monsan* posed. I am uncertain what point Hay and e^p0sure m d that epidemiologies! studies to plat! m Nitro* West Virginia7. They do Stlbergdd want to make m they labour u&ually use some Ind^pe^ci^a^ mesuti^, lips actually challenge the ccmciusioas of over the conjecture that there may have such as work histories* as the criterion for two studies, that there were no excesses of Jbeen n.odifferences ifi exposure levels* but ra p tu re . However, they mise m e n t e career' or heart disease deaths among .they follow that effort .with criticismof the km of the health survey*for depemfing on dSoxin^xposed workers,- ter they convey authors ofjhg moctsdily stud^s for fep^r- ` [diforacne as a measure of esposte* t e impression t f e t t e studies are serious- mting the bt-m.esl;i iteli t e "Apparently, a double standard it iss@d* iy flawed* i dies. The rifras is misplaced* While one studies-that earmot be Imrerpreto4 to show In particular,theydrawattention tothe paper1was iimiled to w riters Involved In excess to tb s being heSdto &higlier one. fact that four m m ..classified'as exposed to the ^ftemaffe of the J949 aedderst* the In Hy m Sitfergefafs words. wthe d te in in paper we dassifsed m not other* teluded i tourly workers who epiderrad-logfcal pktar .at Monsanto re* ep$m in the otter. The first 'paper., ^tm km ^ their empfoymeut.after 1955, tnuiits is TOre un whichclassified the mm asexposed de w teb e r or not Involved m the 1949 aod* clear ihm anyone would desire^ but it fe fined exposure by the presence m M&tosy dent* . notquitesocon&sed asthey haveit. 'Their of dtloracte* a Asease' kwss to be Havseg te n d mo evidence of cess M m -tews that it Is possfbl m focate associated' withdioxin. Tteother, which cancer in the Hitro workers. Hay sud $H- Hawsasd select stucSestosiapportm arfa- classified the m m not'exposed, tm bergeld turn the-Idea of dtese-response 'mem that Is possibly a scourge. exposure b f mhistoiyofwork assignments rdatbnships m its bead and suggest tfiat Equally, it ispossible to read the libratore in processes involving 3P Neither diseases such as cancer ""maybe expected^ and w ive at a sai&lfo cotcissois that s u r e fe perfect., and they axe not con ixt'people ip o t Ici *1ower m rsnort lmi km boi caused early death m canr gruent Although the differing c t e i f l c te ^ ic Refereisces offered in m r in hesviiy workers. Thai con- .tkrns ite dlsqyedns* M least three of the of' that Mm are, two books t e l dttston `rhich is widely a ^ p te s f m d M r dmths are pwbtMy independent both suggesting: and not sug draws mmiafosmatlcm f i , dozens of stu ofdioxin exposure* T hc^ three werete g gesting a link between dioxin and human dies done m the pm t decade, might Sit cancer deaths among smokets; the fourth* cancer &bI two papeis associating ctksr some am ety from peoplt who have bm wm fmm Hodgkin's dgase, fiar which' in terhkkle sprayers-with'cfioxici. The her^ esmsonmenrelfy' exposed to lower levels t e r e k iso itropg wiilgM for association Made sptSQfere aschtontei- dioxin. with dienteIfthei&mmmmtm . ly @s.posec| w . exposed % duosm MtctiAEt.'Qo w h forthetermessare to destroythe m two m onte a je&f, for a. d t e total C m gm s o fiM UmmiSmm, concSussOKtapeached by theauthors of the expoanre t e e of 42 days* Studies of Offl%o f fm hm logy A m w n m t dies* thatastalpls should te devdap^d m oM r population* whjehinciuded more B C im m , USA by Hej SHtetgeld than l4wx$^ymr$whofed W nesposed Fmm Monsanto -mot* that they 4 . for &t least 12 months* t e n d cancer toi further identify* Hay and Sfibesgeld. gKes. Purthemiore Wmo essi- stale .that If workers who would be dassl* ptoyees worked for ym m in production Sed as exposed aid: whodiedIran c ta tte processes t e l involved'dSoxm m some, im y Asease m cancerwere not inducted m mot. exposed through the optekm * de . the second mortality-study* They do m l veloped chloracne^ T h m m were sure provide reformation about tew they d e -. ly chronfeally posed to d&oxm many termiped the fia'sexjjosnse, she t e r were lncfed^d Is t e Zack m Gaffey* of unexposed men who died (tom the study, m ihm% Um ca'ncer Thg same causes d te ig the $<tm#ifme p^iW* hypofiieste that low-fevel, intermittem cx- %i Is WS'fSM4eiawftu^esVsns.4tl$$*r.fAf&aMt<,.r-I0Wf&e. OgVf}t.io.Mng*.W!2iAmt,,^JRmzLm,. l&x.m^ffi^frmJamfyma*MMx<*e&Tmy4,.?tCm5X!Sh^B1sH?^t?OfiiKsetDinsfwis, 54<wSmAXEaSt5n03Fl^^a&nX,.Afa>-,f><*&smD?ziltf)aA/a.sm^mmA,kmShs'A.sMnCSwm.v^mMfi^?&afa.a,sRXnm,.tn'[fj?USL^SqhAS1^m^4sZjim^tk.sUai 0CS&(K1C0InMKt1|nf.ej r. AtEKH^*t0atite,/. Mt.S.MO&9&& & jySwAii IKiiitoBiR. Msksi f -teOwtim%M%%teirara, W.W. nor when the mea died Iftheydtedfeefore pimires ear mm risk than isgter-lsvel 1955,they w to d not h m been lighted exposures re<|mressub$tamiatlon* AIDSin the study, which* I s of reesmls Ifey m SBbetgeld's penuitimaie pare- BmiretionS' was restricted imm who left graph.refers to a health m r ^ f as support Sim-^MMufonTratte on ' aa?ifed the company after that time. A telephone of t posMe coB^ecite between dtsis- m nm feirney syudrome. fAIDS) mm- call sot e stitfaore might havedail&d. the reason' that those . a were m i te W e d and an wexce5 of raiteasterrd&tij d'Sgths^ TSie kealth survey presents no .4mmea&t (tNo^tiuomEi3s1?as6d6Ifmc IDfaEvSi)dskonm1^mcborMe-r Whatever the outcome of suda a call it sew?' dare about mortality; it dots refer to 'exarapie .would m i fe w cntrSbtttod to te n u re o m eeess ofcardiovaseolardeatelff Mon Jt m wrong m Pmmumm: (1) ft Ssper- conspiracy achieved by the sentence *T% santo workers already reported by Zack ;&Xy to protec^m-^gmdkm reason Is givers for not indudiag tes m Q&tetf. An editorial that m sipa- little risk of eonsracting AIDS, ptmidfog casesT. rued pubEtcfttion of die health m n yy sisg* avoids ce'statn Mgtcisii sexualpract Workers exposed-asa result ofthe 1949 that the health survey might m- ices; - (SI Non-promiscidty m s poi essplosion et-Nino- afe-genem%-cstisi--. elude- -sonae-evldeact. fo r.aat .fi__ ^ arexitK..tl8ai.one will not cw toss dered to have teen, more heavily exposed myocardial iteri& (mot teaths) AIDS. Certain, gstrnps are'stlU zi risk* for than workers involved ig usual processes mum g m m who- ted fed chiforaerte'. but example wivesof gay or bisexual mat, arid m t&eplant. Hay and SiKwgeldPreferring that the appropriate analysis h warning. imrasfemius. dtmg bissers, to a 1953study*, contend that t e tesis for Finally t e Bmsrtality study that reported ; I dor eoi te&w .if chastity has replaced ;imt conclusion was more severe chfor- the excess .of cardtovascuar-related ' death as the 4lgrsai uniiienttons^[ev , t o among tfa acctent-exposed t e - 1 deaths in Momamo workers found to dif : fe lo n seems, m have replaced fact when it e a ;.While, chloracne was worse among ference hi .death rates from the cause be : comes to the truth zb&ui AIDS. those 'workers.-a panoply of otter health tween workers exposed and not exposed Fac^l Cumbletow 't e m p b i n i s f e i t g u e . ineapaciuning to d o m \ m she atsm te of cardiovascu ReadingArm AIDS Support Grmp+ "ades stud pains libido and potency prob lar deaths among chioracne-sericken PO Box 73. lems --- wm also ekvared. lending ere- workers was less than^75 per mat of the Reading.Buries,UK