Document XOYn3kev1Z5and7qL4J1NEMpg

~Px / 77 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OP ILLINOIS, .- 2 -- ... .ST. CLAIR, COUNTY, J. 3 PRANCES E. KENNER#, et. al. ) ,. i m - ' . ' V i , , v - -.v,-. .; ) 4 Plaintiffs, ) ) 5 VS. ) NO 80-L-970 ) 6 MONSANTO COMPANY, ) ) 7 Defendant. > a 9 ? ft ib REPORT OP PROCEEDINGS n Before the HON. RICHARD P. GOLOENHERSB . 12 JURY TRIAL 13 November 20# 1985 14 15 APPEARANCES 16 Mr. Rex Carr Mr. Jerome Seigfreid 17 On Behalf of the Plaintiffs; 18 Mr. Kenneth Heineman Mr. Joseph Nassif 19 On Behalf of the Defendant. 20 21 22 23 Debra M. Musielak, CSR, CM 24 Official Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A Because it would depend on the type of cancer that is developed* Q. If it causes a type*of3cancer-that is fatal and not treated, sir? * A* v:Yesr. it'a possible* Q* And, Doctor, of course if the person that has this cancer initiated by this molecule.of TCDD, if be gets to a ioctor soon enough and if:it's,detected soon enough, he may ae saved from the devastating-effects of that cancer, may he tot,-.sir?'. ;;o A. No, Q, No? Doctor, isn't most cancers, if they are Setected early enough, aren't most cancers treatable, so that rou can survive from-them? A* No, to the part that TCDD is not an initiator* Q* Doctor, I want you to assume that it is, please. 've asked you to assume that, the others have said that it b , and I know that you disagree with that, and I've already old you, I respect your disagreement, but, assuming that it s, sir, if the person that has the cancer, and even if it's ot an initiator, if it's simply a promoter, it's something lse, something in a person's environment, an every day xposure that he may have to something else, that could be an nitiator, even if TCDD is a promoter, sir, in that 1 circumstance, if a person gets his checkup, if be gets the 2 cancer detected at an early enough stage in the formation of 3 that cancer, and if it is detectable, assuming that as well, 4 he can be saved many timeB from the devastating effects of 5 that cancer, may he not, sir7 6 A. Yes. 1 Q. And so, would you say, Doctor, as a toxicologist, 8 it is important that a person who is at risk of having cancer 9 caused by a carcinogen or promoted by a carcinogen, that that 10 person receive careful and meticulous medical observation? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And should it be at least on an annual basis. 13 Doctor. 14 Q. That observation? 15 A. No. 16 Q. That medical observation, sir? 17 A. No. 18 Q. Doesn't have to be that often? 19 A. It would depend on the age. 20 Q. Doctor, if, as you suggest, the latency period can 21 be as little as five ^ears, you are not giving that latency 22 period different for kids or different for adults are you, 23 sir? 24 A No 1 Q. If the latency period is five yearsr shouldn't a 2 person have, at least within five years of the time he's 3 exposed, times he has the risk of having this cancer either 4 initiated or promoted, shouldn't he have that checkup then on 5 an annual basis? 6 A. That's correct, yes. 7 Q. And, should that kind of checkup continue from that 8 day forward to the rest of his life? 9 A* Perhaps. 10 Q. Doctor, referring back to the Ranch Hand study, 11 those persons -- those Ranch Handers were exposed to a 12 molecule of dioxin, weren't they, sir? 13 A. Where do you see that? 14 Q. Well, Doctor, from the Ranch Hand study, aren't 15 they investigating the possible health risk, of persons that 16 the authors of the Ranch Hand study believe were exposed to 17 TCDD? 18 A. The assumption is that they were exposed, yes. 19 Q. All right. Now, if they were exposed to TCDD, the 20 Viet Nam veterans -- those Viet Nam soldiers, if they were 21 exposed, and if TCDD is a carcinogen, either a promoter or 22 initiator in man, they are at some risk, aren't they, sir? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q And if as the authors of this EPA document say, 1 8 ince most' cancer a have- a- latency of-15'year s, are^Vou - A 2 suggesting-that'-those-'people %hif the:151years' is coirfret z 3 that1theyvdon't need an annual checkup until the 15-year 4 period haBypassed?5 A. No* th e " ,,"K : r ^ \ <:<* 6 - l * q , when'do-theyneedtheir bfceckup?1After five 'years? 7 A. After five years. 8 Q* Afterfive-year a , -All-right Now> Doctor/ you doc 9 agree1'thati:there are some cancers/ soft tissue sarcomas for 10 instance/ that have a longer latency period? 11 A Y e s*'1- i*^k i 9 r ^ * -* r gi- t - -> 9 o*e -. wou t fc&fc*'* 12 Q; '^' And this -- I take it you agree with the statement 13 in the next;sentence of^the--- this paragraph at the top of 14 Page ll-88^that the *soft tissue ;sarb6ina may -not'ippear^as'a 15 risk -in this group^until welI^after^thetwentieth^ear,*~you 16 do agree' with that/:theri/'c8ir?"`^`i:i :'`v * " 1 ' n "*i 17 A* Yes, ***' 18 Q* All right. And, the risk of soft tissue sarcoma 19 then would not be current if they have -- if those people 20 have only been exposed for fifteen years prior, isn't that 21 correct, sir? 22 A. No, not necessarily; 23 Q. That isn't necessarily correct? 24 h i NO. rft V.