Document byB5BZJ5avnL6zOzvJodZYJd0

I IN THE CIRCUIT COURT TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF ILLINOIS 2 ST. CLAIR 3 FRANCES E. KEMNER, et al., ) 4 Plaintiffs# ) ) 5 vs. > ) ) 6 MONSANTO COMPANY.',; et al., ) 7 Defendants. ) ) NO, 80-L-970 8 Before the HON, RICHARD P, GOLDENHERSH, Judge 9 10 11 12 REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS 13 JURY TRIAL 14 June 3, 1985 15 16 APPEARANCES 8 17 MR. REX CARR AND MR. JERRY SEIGFREXD Attorneys at Lav on Behalf of the Plaintiffs 18 19 MR. KENNETH R. HEINEMAN and MR. JOSEPH NASSIF Attorneys at Lav on Behalf of Defendant Monsanto 20 21 22 MARSHA SCHNIPPER 23 Official Court; Reporter 24 1 INDEX 2 DK. GEORGE ROUSH 3 Cross Examination' 4 r 2, 46, 74, 121, 149 5 E X H .1 B I T S 6 7 Plaintiff 's Exhibit 41442 Plaintiff 's Exhibit 41442-A 8 Plaintiff s Exhibit #1443 Plaintiff 's Exhibit 1443-A 9 Plaintiff 's Exhibit #1444 Plaintiff 's Exhibit #1444-A 10 Plaintiff 's Exhibit #1444-B Plaintiff 's Exhibit #1445 11 Plaintiff 's Exhibit #1446 12 Plaintiff 's Exhibit #1447 Plaintiff 's Exhibit 11447-A 13 Plaintiff 's Exhibit #1447-A Plaintiff 's Exhibit #1448 14 Plaintiff 's Exhibit 1448-A Plaintiff 's Exhibit #1449 15 Plaintiff 's Exhibit 1449-A Plaintiff 's Exhibit #1449-A 16 Plaintiff 's Exhibit #1450 Plaintiff 's Exhibit 11450-A 17 Plaintiff 's Exhibit #1451 Plaintiff 's Exhibit 41451-A 18 Plaintiff 's Exhibit 41451-B Plaintiff 's Exhibit #1451-C 19 Plaintiff 's Exhibit #1452 Plaintiff 's Exhibit #1452-A Plaintiff 's Exhibit #1453 20 Plaintiff *9 Exhibit #1454 Plaintiff 's Exhibit #1455 21 Plaintiff *e Exhibit 11455-A 22 23 24 INTRODUCED 2 2 14 14 22 22 22 30 46 96 98 99 108 109 112 112 112 116 116 121 121 121 121 128 129 136 149 151 152 ADMITTED 43 43 15 15 23 23 23 31 48 100 100 100 109 109 112 112 112 116 116 122 122 122 122 129 130 138 150 153 153 i1 BE IT REMEMBERED AMD CERTIFIED that heretofore, on 2 to-wit: June 3, 1985,being one of th regular judicial days 3 of this Court, the matter as hereinbefore set forth came on 4 for hearing before the HON. RICHARD P. GOLDENHERSH, Circuit 5 Judge in and for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, State of 6 Illinois, St* Clair County Building, Belleville, Illinois, 7 St Clair County, Illinois, and the following was had of record 3S t O - W i t ' 9. ' "\ , J N> ,, / r,, ft ft .f t ft f t f t ,,t ^ p 10 DR GEORGE ROUSH, 11 resinning the Witness stand, having been previously sworn, 12 testified as follows: 13 CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued) 14 BY MR. CARR: ..15 Q Doctor, I show you now what's been marked 1438-A, 16 1440-B, and 1440-A, and ask if you recognize those as blowups 17 "' ' ,, jr F * of those pages that we discussed marked those same exhibit 18 numbers last week* This will be 1440-B now and 1438 . 19- A . Right. BAYONNE, N,J, 20 21 r 22 23 24 MR, CARR: Your Honor, I'll offer these three exhibits. I .had them here/last week, but didn't -- forgot to put .v - r h *: ^' ( * ' - . -s ' them on the..board/;You want; to see them, counsel? ; >r i . , ' . 1 J >' . I f ' ' -j* . . . . (At this tim the court reporter marked 1442 and 1442-A for-identification.)/ 2 1 MR. HEINEMAN : Excuse me, Mr. Carr. 1 think this one 2 may be marked wrong* I think this should bo 1438-B. 3 MR. CARR: Okay. Could Z have 1438-B instead of 4 1440? The exhibit now marked -- Mr. Heineman graciously 5 let me know that 1438-B should be on this one instead of 6 1440-B. 7 THE COURT: Yes, fine. Okay. With\th correction, 8 any objections? 9 MR, HEINEMAN: No objection, Your Honor. 10 THE COURT: They're admitted without objection. 11 Thank you 12 Q And, Doctor, I have now handed you an exhibit marked 13 1442. Do you recognise that as minutes from the Biohazards 14 committee, don't you, sir? 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Q And 1442-A is a page for it's an excerpt -- it's 17 excerpts from that document? 18 A Yes, sir. 1 1* 19 i , K MR. CARR: Offer 1442 and 1442-A if it please the 20 Court. ^ 21 THE COURT: Any objections? 22 MR.`.CARR: oh, I'm sorry, he hasn't seen a copy yet. 23 MR. HEINEMAN: Yes, 1442-A is a blowup of which? 24 MR. CARR: I think it's two paragraphs from it, 3 1 cui^counsel ^ the third paragraph on the first page and the 2 third paragraph on the second page constitutes 1442-A. 3 MR, HEINEMAN: Your Honor, I have no objection to 4 Plaintiff's Exhibit 1442, My only concern about 1442-A .5 as it presently stands, it would seem that the two para 6 graphs appear to follow each other# where, of course, in 7 the document they do not* 8 MR, CARR: The jury will be given the entire document 9 Your Honor, and i certainly agree that they do not follow 10 each other* 11 THE COURT: Fine* With that notation then they are 12 both admitted* 13 (At this time the exhibit was passed to the jury.) 14 0 Doctor, while the jury is being passed that, I 'd like IS to direct your attention to 1442-B again* Working on these 16 extrapolations by Krump, .that two to seven picograms per 17 kilogram per day is about one-tenth the minimum exposure 18 calculated for pne part per billion in soil, actually that 19 one-tenth would be one huhdred parts :per trillion, would it 20 not, p one-tent. h of.p on\et fp\art pe' r j bill,rion? 21 A Say that again* What would it be? 22 Q One hundred parts per trillion, one-tenth of one 23 part per billion? 24 A Yes, sir, you are right* ,- 4 - 1 Q There is a thousand parts per trillion?, 2 A Yes, you are right. 3 Q All right. And that makes it easier for us to 4 understand it in the terms that we've been discussing before S that he is saying the -- actually the extrapolation of the 6 two to seven picograms per kilogram per day that Krump makes 7 referring to the toxicity studies in this -- in these minutes 8 actually boils down to one hundred parts per trillion, doesn't 9 it, sir? Isn't that what he's saying? 10 A Yes, based on that data. 11 Q And not one part -- well, it's one-tenth of one 12 part per billion, correct? Now, Doctor, if I could refer to 13 the Exhibit 1442-A, and you have the entire exhibit so it 14 might be easier for you to refer to that. This paragraph that IS is first on .the board talks about, again talks about the 16 effect in the immune system, and it points out that the B 17 lymphocytes is responsible for antibody production, but that 18 the T lymphocytes -- .now the T lymphocytes would incude what 19 we know as the OKT 10, T4, and T8 cells, isn't that correct, 20 sir? ze. 21 A I don't know that. 22 Q You don't know that? 23 A No. 24 Q Do you have -- have you done any work in Immunology, 5 1 Pr. Roush? 2 A No, X have not. 3 Q Well, if we have had testimony that to. the effect 4 that as I have told you that the T lymphocytes would include 5 in the subsets the O K T I O and the OKT 4 and the OKT 8 -- 6 A Xt actually contains more than that. X know that. 7 There is about ten at least now. 8 Q Yes, X understand.that X don't mean to say that 9. that's all that it contains, but we've had exhibits that have 10 been introduced into evidence that refers to the natural killex 11 cells, thatrwould be the Leu 11 and the OKT 10 cells and the *' < i <' - : *, ' i .' 12 OKT 4 and T8 and ratios thereof, and that's the reason I was 13 ' ' ''"'r ^ J,7 directing your attention, to this,'that this does include 14 . those -lymphocytes This statement in this paragraph refers to 'W ' ; '.-v i *> * ,'J', ' * IS those lymphocytes among others. 16 A Again X am not an expert, ,bt I have readdand X don't 17 think OKT 10 is no longer listed in my current textbook. 18 Q Well, your current textbook may not be up-to-date, 19 but take it from the testimony that's in this case, if you 20 would, Dr. Roush, since you don't know about Immunology, that 21 we have had a considerable amount of testimony on these OKT 10 22 and other lymphocyte subsets, would you, sir? 23 A Yes. 24 Q , Because X am not going to ask you about the -6- I significance of those things. I don't intend to since you 2 are not an expert in this area. I just simply want to point 3 out that this reference is a reference to that kind of 4 T lymphocyte# is it nott sir? 5 A Yes 6 Q And it points out that the immune system has been 7 studied so that there are some markers for all components of 8 the system. Do you see that# sir? 9 A Yes.,- : \ 10 Q And when the immunologists refer to the OKT 10 and 11 the OKT 4 and .the OKT 8,-they are actually referring to the 12 same thing that's mentioned here# that is# markers# aren't 13 they# sir# or do you know that#, Sir? 14 A The problem you have got is these are -- there are 15 at least ten of them. To talk about three of them# I don't 16 understand why we talk about three. 17 Q Well# Doctor, it was those three for your information 18 that was found to be abnormal in a significant number of the 19 Sturgeon plaintiffs. That's the reason I am directing the 20 question in that area. 1 don't intend to talk about any of 21 them# but this serves to point out to you and to the Court that 22 you did know back in October 25, 1982# that your Biohazards 23 committee didrknow that there was work taking place -- Dr. 24 Flaherty called it reviewed advances in the understanding of -7- 1 1 the function of the immune system, that there was work taking 2 place, significant work, that well, it says here the immune 3 system in both mice and men has been studied to the point 4 where there are some markers for all components of this system 5 from the xnilar stem cell to all immuno-confidence cells. It 6 says that, doesn't it, sir? J 1 MR. HEIHEMAN: Excuse me, pr. Roush. Your Honor, 8 ' v ^ \J J' ' ' * *** I'd like .to object to tlae form of the question insofar as 9 its premise was stated, and thati;is Mr. Carr said that the 10 T-4, T - 8 a n d T - X 0 were found to be abnormal in a significant 11 number of p*l*aintifr fr ayrj *at *n'du X.objtect to that ar s not reflekcting 12 accurately the state of the evidence. He should qualify 13 that by saying that it was Dr. Carhow's opinion in 14 interpreting some of those results that there were abnormal 15 findings in those areas, and Z further object to the use 16 of the.word significant as being a matter of qualitative 17 interpretation and not a .fact to be assumed by the witness 18 MR. CARR: Your Honor, if I might respond to that, 19 it was the report, of the Midwest Laboratory that was used 20 by Monsanto to analyze the lymphocyte subsets that reported 21 these findings and reported those findings as abnormal. 22 It was. not Dr. Carnow. Dr. zaha1sky interpreted those 23. abnormalities reported by Monsanto's laboratory, and it 24 was Dr. `aha1sky that said they were significant, and it -8- `` I was Dr, Carnow that said they were significant. There is 2 that evidence in the case and counsel is -- I didn't mean 3 to imply;!that all of the plaintiffs had abnormalities in 4 all of those lymphocyte subsets. Some of the plaintiffs 5 have abnormalities in one subset and some have in others * .f *. - ,i 6 and some have abnormalities in more than one, so X don't 7 want --'I want the record to be clear but 1 didn't mean to ** t '> 8 imply that all of the -- to the witness or to the Court 9 ' that all of! these were abnormal in all of the plaintiffs, 10 but other than that Z will stand on the characterization 11 that I have given to the jury -- to the witness as 12 supported by the vidence in this case, 13 MR, HEINEMAN: Your Honor, my only objection is that 14 it is reported -- this witness is being asked to assume IS it as a fact when what it is is an opinion offered by 16 witnesses for the plaintiff, . 17 MR. CARR: Your Honor, it is not an opinion. It is 18 a reported fact by a laboratory used by Monsanto that 19 these lymphocytes were abnormal. That is not an opinion 20 of the witness. It is indeed the opinion of Dr. Zahalsky 21 and Dr. Carnow that those abnormalities are significant, 22 but the report is a report of fact as counsel well knows. 23 THE COURT: Objection is overruled. You may proceed. 24 Q And, Doctor, your Biohazards committee was keeping - 9- ] abreast or the latest developments in studies of the immune 2 system in 1982, were they not, sir, as indicated by this exhibit 3 A Yes,, i- si' r. r ~ 4 Q And, Doctor, on the next page, and that is the second 5 paragraph of 1442-A,'`this discusses -- the committee discusses 6 the importance of these findings -- 7 A Are you talking about th paragraph that begins with 8 nIn further discussions"? 9 Q Yes, that's correct. They talk about the -- that 10 the -- it's been recognised that in tudis in animals, long 11 term cancer studies, that the animals have increased rates of 12 infection, and the question is posed to the Biohazards committe 13 as to whether or not the cancer effect, that is, animals that 14 have -- since they have cancer and there is a corollary 15 depressed or rather Increased rate of infection the question 16 is posed by your Biohazards committee as to whether or not 7 this effect could be concomitant depression of the immune 18 system, do they not, sir? 19 A Yes. 20 Q And what they are asking actually, what you on 21 that committee were posing a query there wanting to know 22 whether or not the fact that there was cancer caused in 23 animals, whether or not this could be an effect of a depressed 24 immune system, isn't that correct. Dr. Housh? j/ ^ - 10 - 1 A That's one possibility raised by the question, but 2 only one* ': \^ * 3 Q Yes, that's all that I am asking you about at this 4 point, Dr. Roush, is that your committee at least thought that 5 this data, these studies suggested that if the immune system 6 is depressed by some material, that that could lead to and 7 would lead to increased rates of infection and could also lead 8 to formation of cancer,* isn't that the thrust of the question 9 posed by your committee? 10 A If -- X don't think they have gone that far. I 11 think the fact that these animals have infection, it may be 12 related to an immune response. That's all, that's as far as 13 you can go* 14 Q And that's all your committee posed the question for? 15 A Right. 16 Q Was that the two could be the malfunctioning of the 17 immune system, could beconnected with the formation ofcancer* 18 Isn't that the only question that theyare posing by this query 19 A No* 20 Q No, they are posing more than that? 21 A Yes, sir* 22 Q What are theyalso suggesting or asking? 23 A They are asking -- since there are infections that 24 happen in animals on study for possible carcinogenesis because - 11 1 they get infections the q^ uestionV is is that related to an r `S 2 immune breakdown, and that has nothing to do with cancer, 3 because when -- in doing a cancer study this happens before the 4 animals get cncer* 5 Q . Yes, the immune system is affected first, then they 6 get the cancer, and that's the question being asked by the 7 committee, asking is there a connection -- the committee is 8 saying that this study where you have been giving -- or not 9 you, but scientists have been giving toxic substances by food 10 or by injection or whatever to animals in order to see if they 11 induce cancer it has been noted that in those animals where 12 cancer is due -- or produced, that first their immune system 13 is affected and they have thereby increased rates of infection; 14 isn't that what this is saying, Dr. Roush? IS A The opposite is true.is that they are saying that 16 it's been observed that animals get infection and the question 17 is is whether this is due to an immune response or some other 18 response in these animals undergoing carcinogenesis testing* 19 Q Yes. 20 A And that doesn't mean -- that has -- there is no 21 implication that there is a relationship to whether they get 22 a cancer or not* 23 Q Doctor, the fact that when they have been working 24 on these animals in long-term carcinogenesis -- carcinogenesis - 12 - 1 1 means genesis/ the start of cancer or starting cancerr isn't 2 that what that'-- ' 3 A Its results and formation of cancer. 4 Q In long-term studies of animals where they have been 5 trying to find out what forms cancer, they have noted increased 6 rates of infection, have they not, sir? 7 A Under certain circumstances. 8 Q That's what I am ashing you. 9 A Yes. 10 0 Now because these animals in those studies where 11 they are trying to invoke or study the formation of cancer, 12 because somebody has noted that there is also an increased rate 13 of infection, your committee is simply saying that this effect, 14 could this effect be due-to the fact that the immune system is 15 depressed at the same time, and that's all they are asking, 16 isn't that correct? 17 A Yes. 18 Q All right. And that's the only point, Dr. Roush, 19 that I wanted to make at that time, that somebody at least 20 thought there might be a connection, and it's not proven by 21 any means * 22 A They haven't gone that far. All they -- they haven't 23 gone as far as you are saying. 24 Q All they are doing is posing the question, Doctor -- 13 1 A No, they are not. 2 Q They are not even posing the question? 3 A No, sir. 4 Q Isn't that what that is on that second page? 5 A No, sir. 6 Q Could this effect be due to concomitant depression 7 of the immune system? 8 A Could the infection be due to it, that's right, 9 that1a all 10 Q Doctor, what they are saying is the immune system 11 is depressed, aren't they, sir? 12 A They are saying it might be. 13 Q All right. And they are saying the immune system is 14 depressed and there's an increased rate of infection. It says 15 that, don't they, sir? 16 A Yes. 17 Q And they also are starting cancer, aren't they, sir, 18 in these animals? , 19 A Yes. 20 Q All right. Now, that's all that I wanted to point 21 out, Dr. Roush. I don't want to make anything more with you 22 than simply that. All right. 23 (At this time Plaintiff's Exhibit 1443 and 1443-A 24 were marked for identification.) - 14. aI V. t 1 -. *' : 4-' V ,,A 1 Q Doctor, X show you now , 2 MR. CARR: I don't know whether I am going to foul-up 3 our system or not, .Your Honor, i got the page that is 4 blown up, both of"those being:marked 1443-A. 5 THE COURT: Yes, that's fine.. 6 Q .All right. Doctor, I hand you now 1443 and ask you 7 if that's the.minutes of the Biohazard committee for October 17 v V^ '1 r I- ; v to 8 .1983, and 1443-A, which is a page thereof? 9 ' 'A Yes. > '' 10 *' n, i MR. CARR: Offer 1443 and 1443-A if it please: the > J. -Court.. * ^ 1 jj ._ f ,,,t j ^ * 12 :THE COURT: bo you have any objection? 13 ' MR. HEINEMAN: Oh, 1 am just.looking at the last 14 paragraph, Your Honor.. I see some from the second page is' "has been put o. n the." bottom of1 : t>he first of 1443-A. I ,/ ie 'have no objection. . . . ,J- . 17 THE COURT: Admitted without objection. Thank you* is , V ..MR. CARR: Yes, and for the record, Your Honor, the l?' last line-and-a-half on 1443-A is the first line-and-a-hali ' 20 that's bn Page 2 of 1443. 21. T H E ,COURT:L. Fine So noted. 22,, Q Doctor, 1443 and. 1443-A are the minutes of a meeting 23 -24 that took place on ' O. .ct.t1o.b' 5-er> 17, 1983, ai 't. which meeting a Dr. Poland, from the;University of Wisconsin, who was from the ^ .'V /V -- *'- - - 15 - tjV- / 'V-. > ' t *J'* PENGAD CO,. BAYONNE, N,J. 07 0 0 2 FORM *IL 2< B 1 McCardle Institute for Cancer Research conducted a seminar for 2' the members of the Biohazards committee, isn't that correct, s: 3 A Yes, sir. 1 4 Q And he discussed at that time work that he had been 5 ` doing with tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, did he not, sir? 6 A Yes, sir* 7 Q And he discussed the effects that he found in 8 cytoplasms of liver and other tissues, didn't he, sir? 9 A He's talking about the cytosol receptor 10 Q Yes 11 A That's what he's talking about. 12 Q And he makes a point that the capacity of that j *3 receptor to bind TCDD was about the same order in all species 14 studied, doesn't he, sir? 1.5. A Yes. 16 Q And he points out that it's closely linked to the 17 activation of AHH, doesn't he, sir? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q 1 And that's a kind of an eyzyme? 20 A Yes. 21 Q And, of course, we've had studies that show how ^\ * 1* t* r- i` . 22 important and testimony that, show,hpv important enzymes and 23 the functioning of enzymes including the aryl hydrocarbon 24 hydroxylases is in, functioning of all animal systems including - 16 - 1 the systems in human beings.. Do you recognize that, don't 2 ' you, sir? a'"4'.,/5.. 1 7'. 7; , 3 A . No, I don't. . ti.. ' k r,, -i;- -4 . Q You don't recognize that? ;; 5 a ;,.-No. ' ` ^ i.:'7 ,r 7 ` - '"'7- 6 Q Was it becausemy question included, some things that 7 you recognise and other, things that you did not recognize? 8. k< A ..,No, the* implication, of the aryimatic hydrocarbon 9 hydroxylases. in man has not been established. 77\7_/,_ 17 10- ' . , Q Well, it1s been established; in all species'that Dr*. 11 V' * ^ . - ' k J ' Y ". . ^ t > 1 Poland has studied, has it not? ,L ^7 , - ` > ' ] - ' '- - L_ . 12 `A'1 Yes ;7but he ,has\-:--this has been done in animals, 13. r-J r * j'*t , , J# - " ", - '^ *' 7 ! 1 'h *r : V * ^ - - '' ` `r and they have looked at aryl hydrocarbon hydroxylases in man 14 ' 77 7 7. ;: 'V :_ " V. ` *- ^'-v- 7. and the only 'placethey.ever talkoabout it having ahy7 . is; .r , / ^ ^ ' h > v '. S * f; ^ S ' v `1 , S ,r * ' , 1 " 7^ implication is /In men who. smoke cigarettes and gets lung* cancer 16 * Q : Well/ for that/man,at least, it Would surely have 17 . importance, wouldn't it*.sir? . ;7 18. A 1 don't they were unable to tell whether there 7 ' 19 was a good relationship between the two. All .they*re saying BAYONNE;' N.JJ. 0 7 0 0 2 20 f' is that *.s thteonly 'place 'i ^ t ^thereis fany inkling of a i . y,v'"7- 7-,7 31V/ *-,.j;L.4 7 - ` ' '' * -7 , . r`. 21 -- '.7^7 * 7"-/ v 7 7 : - \ 1 . relationshipsbetween^ AHH and disease in man. . : 22 23 ^ Q We'i i./s /.-..i^''f/V. ;the' rrels a connection , ' . v and;i-f; TCD' D. : is a . promoter, as some, have .'said* while you1don't agree with that '24 at "Monsanto,apparently,*-to tlie persop that Lsmokes, 1Who is also , 7 ; /? - : ' ' ' 7 ^ ' ; ; - 1 7 '' 1 exposed to TCDD it would certainly have the possibility of 2 affecting his AAH, would it not, sir? 3 A Yes, 4 Q And, Doctor, the -- Dr. Poland there also pointed 5 out something that a particular hind of hairless mouse, 6 apparently along with other animals, do not show a response 7 to the skin that is chloracne, even though it has a receptor 8 and it demonstrates induction of AHH, isn't that correct, sir? 9 A Yes* 10 Q Now, the toxic response is that Dr. Poland pointed 11 out for the TCDD application and crude change -- atrophic 12 changes in the thymus -- that means it got smaller, correct, 13 sir? 14 A Yes,, sir. 15 Q And bone marrow, testicle, hyperplastic responses 16 in the liver, bile ducts, gastrointestinal tracts, skin, and 17 bladder, isn't that correct, sir? 18 A YesS`` -\ it, rt ' j t kk 19 >f i * ; l, ~ I . , ^ " i , * # Q - And he also points out that where, just where human + *. t . i^ j i * L 20 beings stand in this spectrum of sensitivity is not clear, y* , _r- 1 \ \ ' * * 21 because no one has yet measured the affinity of cytosolic 22 receptors for TCDD in man, correct, sir?1 23 A Yes. 24 Q Now, what, that means,/Doctor, and to make it clear, - 18 ' ,4 \ 4' " t^ pr L" ' J 1 1 "\ : `1 \ (J1 u " r _ ` J' the significance of.what you testified to earlier on this f . ' 2/ , 3 point, actually it hasn't been studied in.man?_* A What hasn't? - / - Q We don't know r where, man .stands in the -- in this s ' ' cytosolic receptivity, do,w e , sir? ' 6, 7-\ A- We.don't'know whether there's cytosol receptor in man or not. 8, ' , Q \ Well, so actually whati he's saying is he's found ' 9 : this in ail' other animals, every animal that h has tested 10 he has .found this, / these proliferative responses with TCDD. 11 >We don't know whether man does or does not respond* because . 12 nobody has studied it? isn't that whatJhe's saying? 13 A No, I donft think he's saying that at all. He says , 14 -* ' 15 XSou. L 16 3oe> ` 1 '' r.17 i , i 18 I 19 because of his.work with the hairless mouse he doesn't know. ,, , "*. what the 't cause of the t o ' x f, i " c * effects because they didn't respond, and there's :s o m other gne that's causing the effects rather . than this cytosol receptor and going through the activation of : enzymes. H e is raly decrying* the implication and the importance of enzymes,inactivation in his statement here lOz ; > 20 ' ' 21 ,22 ;23 -, - 24 Q Doctor, ha pointsvbut,'does he not, as he pointed out to you that these -/whether it's from the AH or the cytosolic receptive work that -ttie toxicity in different species may be responsible, arid it may b the result of activation of other genes, doesn't he/ sir? J ` '- 19 ,, 4 i 1 A Yes-, ; / v, _/ ... / -t r \2 Q So whether it's caused by the induction of AAH or 3 activation of`it or whether it's caused by the activation of 4.' other genes, what he does =know, is that1 it-does occur in all S: these animals? J L > .V " 6 A - What occurs?/. . ' 7 ' .0 These atrophic changes in'the thymus, the bone S' 8 marrow, the testicles," hyperplastic responses in the liver, 9 *bile ducts, gastrointestinal tract, skin and bladder* - 10 A W e 've known that from .toxicology studies long before 11 - ' this came along. ; / J , j"`. ::\,j;> :: ^ J 12 ' r `` * S ; Q Doctor, I am not -quara^i'irig -with -that. ; ; * I 13 A But this is unrelated to the cytosol receptor, and .14 ^ i - ' , 1- . > t r , / * v that's what his whole subject was., , p * L> m S 1 . v 15 16 . _ * 17- - 18 . .L , * V . -V rf* ''' Jr ^ " l^ f , \ ^ t ** Q - This whole subjjecti is trying to find out, trying to J >r\Af'% :*v '/?.'.j" 'j'*v. 1 point out to the Biohazards committee that he has done addi-r tional work.in this area and that!,he-has found that the ./ .` . ?v ;. J , . - 1 j.'_ ^ Vv y >+ '\*'r ' -. capacity of .the; receptor to bind -- to bind TCDD is of the - 19 ' - , *}i 't.''V *i;-'! "*'' ^ ' - ' J .same order :in/all ^species>/do"e,sn,.t'ihe,> sir?' 20 A' Yes. ; ' <' _ ' - - ' 'b ,T 21 ' Q . Now, he didn't say excepting man, he said all 22: "species, didn't he, sir?! .. 23' A But it hasn't-been tested in man. 2 4 " - Q Excuse me, Dr.. Roush. .Did he not say'all species? -/* ' . - 20 - 1 A In all species tested, I think. 2 Q All right. He didn't say, he didn't use the word '3 tested, but I'll accept that for now. But the point is, 4 Doctor, is that here is something that has this tremendous 5 effect in all species and nobody knows what it's going to do 6 or does in man. Zt may activate these other genes, it may 7 activate the AAH factor in man, and we simply don't know. 8 A What's this tremendous effect that he's talking about' 9 Q Sir? 10 A What's the tremendous effect that he's talking about? 11 , Q The ability of the liver to bind, it has these 12 receptors fo/r' t his TCD( D. ^ ^ 1,' p ' /. 13 A That's true, but the implication of that he doesn't 14 know. ^ ,.k- ; . -, 15 Q Now/.Doctor, that is my point, and that's the point 16 17 that *he was makS iI n'i g*? ,t o, \< t' h.Jve rMB.i- o^ h*ra*zia<rl dis-,' >committee. It occurs in animals it has -- it has significant toxic responses in 18 animals, and he points out the -- that the studies that have -- 19 that the activation,of genes in animals by TCDD has occurred, in 20 animals*,h@ points that out, and he points out, he makes a 21 conclusion and that's the last sentence that is on this in 22 this paragraph. . This plus the studies of reactions of tissues 23 to TGDD in tissue culture are important research needs. 24 A No, sir. - 21 - 1 Q Ho doesn't say that? 2 A Well, you go back to the very first part of his 3 statement when he saysJ--4. Q Excuse me, Dr, Roush. Doesn't he say that in this 5 document, whether you agree with it or not? 6 A What does he say? 7 Q Doesn't he say, just as X read it to you? The questio 8 of where the human being stands in the spectrum of sensitivity 9 is not clear. No one yet has ^measured the affinity of 10 cytosolic receptor for TCDD in man- This plus the study of 11 reactions oft ' t i1 s s u e s' T -C* D* D Ti^n tissue culture are important 12 research needs. Doesn't he say that? Didn't X read that from 13 this document,. DrV Roush? v 14 A That's -- that'e w h a t he says. IS " - . ? ; Q And he pointed that out to you at the Biohazards 16 committee meeting on October 17, 1983, didn't he, sir? 17 A . Yes, sir. 18 " (At this time Plaintiff's Exhibit 1444 was marked 19 for identifii cation.) . ' *- 20. Q Handing you now, what's been marked Plaintiff's 21 Exhibit 1444, I'd ask you to look at that, if you would. 22 A Yes, sir. 23 (At this time Plaintiff's Exhibit 1444-A and 1444-B : 24 were marked for identification.) -22- 1 Q Doctor, 1444-A and B, if you would look at those, 2 are pages taken from 1444, arc they not? The one that says 3 the first item on the agenda is 1444-A. And, Doctor, the 4 blowup -- well, you won't need that, because it speaks for 5 itself. 6 MR, CARR: Your Honor, I'll offer these into 7 evidence if X haven't already. 8 THE COURT: Any objections? * ,9 MR.,HEINEMAN:" Your Honor, X have no objection to 10 1444. I have no objection to 1444-A. My only objection - r . <( ,, * n to 1444-B.is that i t ,places together paragraphs that are 12 widely separated from one another in the actual document ` .,, 1 < -- t+ . 13 and to that extent it would be misleading. Other than 14 that X have no objection. 15 THE COURT: Okay. The separation between the 16 paragraphs is noted in the record, with that: notation, 17 they are admitted. , 18 Q Doctor, these minutes of this meeting reflect a 19 visit by Dr. Renate.Kimbrough of the CDC, doesn't it, sir? 20 A She came to St. Louis. She didn't come to the 21 Biohazards committee. That was a part of the symposium that 22 was held in St. Louis. 23 Q And you attended that meeting and you discussed 24 with the committee what Dr. Kimbrough discussed at that seminar 23 1 A Yes, sir. 2 Q And you pointed out that Dr. Kimbrough discussed 3 at that meeting the disease known as porphyria cutanea tarda, 4 didn't you, sir? 5 A Yes, sir. 6 0 And she apparently pointed out according to your 7 report that th ratio of coproporphyrins to uroporphyrins i 8 inverted in that disease due to the inhibition of the 9 uroporphyrin decarboxylase that could be associated with 10 dioxin exposure, didn't she, sir? 11 A Yes. '' ; \; # f; . n Q Nov?, are you familiar with the findings of the 13 inverted ratios of copro to uro, not just *-- in the plaintiffs 14 in this case, sir? IS A No, sir. X know the story about inversion and the 16 implications of it, but X haven't been involved I n these 17 specifics in these cases. .18 Q Well, as far back here as nearly two years did -- 19 no, over two years ago, January, of 1983, Dr. Kimbrough 20 pointed out that in a particular form of porphyria at least 21 the ratio of copro to uroporphyrin can be inverted, doesn't sh 22 sir? 23 A Yes. 24 Q And was it -- the next paragraph there where it says 24 1 it was pointed out that dioxin is a potent inducer and so 2 forth, is that a statement -- because the record is not clear 3 or the Biohazards committee is not clear -- is that a statement 4 that Dr* Kimbrough or is that something that you pointed out 5 or -- ,,' *i , 1 6 A I don't recall. 7 Q Somebody apparently pointed -- 8 A It was said. X was reporting what took place, and 9 X am not sure whether^Kimbrough said that. There was a whole 10 afternoon symposium, and X may have neglected to say who was 11 talking on that paragraph. 12 Q Well, at least it was important to you. You noted 13 that th dioxin was considered a potent inducer of cytochrome 14 P450, a liver enzyme, which has the ability to detoxify drugs, 15 is that correct, sir? 16 A Yes, sir. 17 Q And somebody apparently made the point that this 18 may increase drug tolerance in"individuals? 19 A Yes. 20 Q And you also -- it also pointed out that immune 21 suppression by dioxin was discussed at that meeting? 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q Who was it that said -- was this your judgment 24 notwithstanding the fact that they discussed immune suppression - 25 - is caused by dioxin, was it your judgment that there was no 2 evidence of such in effect in human subjects after, dioxin 3 exposure? 4 A No, I was reporting what they said, the statement 5 that was made. - 6 Q Well, NIOSH had a representative that also pointed 7 out that, however, soft tissue sarcomas have been reported in 8 plants in the United States manufacturing chlorinated phenols? 9 A Yes, sir. 10 Q Is that correct, sir? 11 A Yes, sir. 12 Q And of course, Monsanto's Krummrich plant and 13 Monsanto's nitro plant have in the past manufactured chlorinat 14 phenols, haven't they, sir? 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Q Doctor, the next exhibit, 1444-B, discusses the need 17 for work to be done to investigate whether or not the animal 18 studies can be extrapolated to man, do you not, sir? Isn't 19 that pointed out? 20 A Yes. 21 Q And he or someone -- I guess Dr. Wilson -- made the 22 point that this chemical institute could be the ideal laboratoi 23 to engage in this type of research? 24 A Yes, sir. 26 1 Q And as. ,aJmatter ,of fact, it;was kept on the agenda !: / i" . i 2 to b discussed as a priority issue at your next meeting, that 3 is, whether or.not to.get the chemical institute to undertake 4 r -; .. ' '} > . i . t", . this work, isn't that correct, sir? 5 ' j` < - , * - j - A Yes,-sir. j y.1'' 6 Q And in point of fact, as we have seen from other 7 minutes I think that were subsequent to this one that we have 8 already used, they did undertake to do such work, didn't they, 9 sir? 10 A Yes, sir. 11 Q And did Monsanto pay for all o f .the cost of that work 12 sir? 13 A No, sir. 14 Q How much of the cost was paid by Monsanto? 15 A The way the payment is made to CIT is we are 16 assessed an amount based on our sales, a percent of sales, and 17 that just goes to their general budget, and then what they do 18 specifically comes out of that general budget. 19 Q All right. Then if Z understand what you are telling 20 me correctly, the chemical institute at th suggestion of 21 .Monsanto undertook this research, but Monsanto was not assessed 22 anything extra or special for that simply because it was 23 Monsanto's suggestion, isn't that correct? 24 A They did not do it because it was of purpose to us. - 27 - 1 It was of general interest to the whole membership. . k :r 'I 2 Q Doctor/I'm sure that must be the case, but what I 3 am asking you/ they undertook, it :bcuse you at Monsanto 4 suggested that it should be done, isn't that correct, sir? 5 A I can't answer that, but that was the basis for it 6 We put in our recommendation. Whether that was the only thing 7 or what -- how it related -- 8 Q How, I am not even suggesting it was the only thing 9 and X am not implying that there is anything improper about 10 Monsanto doing this. X think it's a very good idea that it's 11 done. X am not suggesting that -- - Monsanto is an important 12 member of that institute it has th right to make suggestions 13 as to its -- as to the people there that the chemical institut 14 should be done, it pays for a significant part of the expense IS of that work and there is no reason why it could not, should 16 not have the right to make suggestions as to it. It's 17 perfectly proper, nothing wrong with, and X am not implying 18 anything wrong. All I am saying is that it was at your 19 suggestion that the work was undertaken, isn't that correct, 20 sir? 21 A I don't know that. 22 Q Well, it was undertaken after you made the recom 23 mendation, wasn't it, sir? 24 A That's right. - 28 - 1 Q All right. And they voted on it at a meeting and ** * ,* J 2 you had a representativo'at that vote -- 3 A Mo. 4 Q You got somebody on the board of directors, haven't 5 you, sir? 6 A Yes, but that isn't the way it takes place. They 7 have a scientific advisory committee there that makes the 8 decision of those suggestions that are worthy of followup, 9 and the science advisory committee hended.?by ^Professor of 10 Pathology from North Carolina, Dr. Grisham, he and his 11 committee decides which one of the suggestions are most 12 appropriate to be followed by CIT. 13 Q Well, and they determined that your suggestion was 14 the one that should be followed? 15 A That makes.sense* 16 Q Sir? 17 A Yes, sir. 18 Q All right. Doctor, on the point of that meeting 19 that discussed the porphyria that Dr. Kimbrough discussed, 20 whether or not dioxin causes porphyria is an important subject 21 for Monsanto, to be engaged in and to have knowledge about 22 because of the fact that it does make and has made these 23 chlorinated phenols in the past,isn't that correct, sir? 24 A Yes. - 29 1 (At this time Plaintiff's Exhibit 1445 was marked 2 for identification.) 3 Q X hand you now what's been marked Plaintiff's 4 Exhibit 1445 and ask you if you recognizeethat as a report in 5 the archives of dermatology that was in your files, a part of 6 your files at least that was produced to the plaintiff in this 7 case. 8 MR, HEINEMAN: Does that have a number? 9 THE COURTS 1445. 10 MR. CARR: You can see at the bottom of the page 11 your CO number, C03765. 12 MR. HEINEMANt I'm talking about the exhibit number* 13 MR. CARR: Your Honor, I'll offer 1445 if it's 14 appropriate. I don't know that the witness responded to 15 my question. 16 THE COURT: I didn't hear a response. Doctor? 17 MR. HEINEMAN: I didn't hear the question. 18 THE COURT: There was one. 19 A I didn't hear the question. 20 Q Oh, the question was do you recognize that as an 21 article that was part of your files, Dr. Roush. 22 THE COURT: It's Monday morning. 23 A I can't say that, but I know I read it. 24 Q Well, and you know it came from Monsanto; it has - - 30 1 your number at the bottom of the page* Do you see that* sir? 2 A Yes, sir. 3 MR. CARR: Offer 1445 into evidence if it please the 4 Court.< 5 MR. HElNEMAMs Your Honor, I would object to this 6 document. It's not a document prepared by or at the 7 request of Monsanto Company, It's something we just 8 happen to have in our files prepared by somebody else. 9 It's hearsay, and X object to it on that basis. Mo 10 foundation's been:laid for its admission. 11 Q Let me ask you this question. The archives of 12 dermatology is an authoritative publication in the field of 13 dermatology, is it not, sir? 14 A Yes, sir. 15 Q Sir? 16 A Yes, sir. 17 .MR. CARR: Now I will offer it again, Your Honor. 18 MR* HEZNEMAN:- Same objection. 19 THE COURT: Overruled. It's admitted over objection. 20 Q Doctor, this publication came out in 1964, did it 21 not, sir, some twenty-one years ago? Do you see at the 22 bottom -- 23 A Yes,, sir. ,Right. 24 Q -- j second page there is-a date there of June, '64? 31. 1 A Right. 2 Q Isn't that correct, sir? 3 A Yes, sir. 4 Q And at this point in time actually this article 5 was probably the first article in the literature that 6 discussed whether or not you could get porphyria by being 7 exposed to certain chemicals, is that correct, sir? 8 A I can't vouch for that, but it's one of the early 9 reports, at least, 10 Q Well, the second column about the eighth line down 11 in the second column it says "Porphyria cutanea tarda has 12 never before been described as related to chloracne nor has it 13 been ascribed to industrial exposure in the United States"? 14 A Right, it sure does. 15 Q So actually in the -- this is a study of apparently 16 twenty-nine patients who worked in the chemical factory that 17 made 2,4-dichlorophenol (2,4-d) and 2,4,5-trichlorophenol, 18 (2,4,5-t), and this apparently is a factory at Newark, New 19 Jersey. Do you know whose factory that would be, Dr, Roush? 20 Is that Diamond Shamrock there? 21 A I think, that's right. 22 Q And these persons, the twenty-nine at least, had 23 features of chloracne, ,and of these twenty-nine they found 24 eleven cases where the-urophorphyrins were elevated according 32 1 to this article, is that correct, sir? 2 A They were positive I think rather than elevated. 3 They were -- 4 Q Well, the very first paragraph, the second, the 5 . second and last sentence in the very first paragraph of the -6 abstract portion it says, does it not, "In eleven cases 7 urinary uroporphyrins were elevated" end of quote? 8 A Yes, sir. 9 Q The very first page. Do you see that, Dr. Roush? 10 A Yes, sir. 11 Q All right. And the investigation then went on to 12 find out the varying degrees of severity of this porphyria, 13 don't they, sir? 14 A Yes. 15 Q And on the third page where they refer to the lab -16 the first two pages refer to physical findings? the third page, 1.7 if you will note, sir, refers to -- it says in the first 18 column, second paragraph on that page, "Laboratory studies 19 reveals increased urinary uroporphyrins, copropprphyrihs/and 20 uroporphyrinogen excretion, doesn't it, sir? 21 A Yes* - J 22 Q And then/there's a table there that -- for the 23 twenty-six persons there they point out the findings relating 24 > ': ,L': ''1' \ i the chloracne to the hyperpigmentation to the hair and to the '-OX- 33 1 uroporphyrins at to whether or not they had or what kind of 2 contact they had with the chemical, isn't that right, sir? 3 A Yes, sir. 4 Q Then on the next page under the -- in the column 5 that's headed screening tests in the middle of the page the 6 authors say that twenty-six additional men working at this 7 chemical factory were studied on an ambulatory basis in 8 addition to routine urinalysis. Each urine specimen was 9 tested for uroporphyrin by the Watson-Schwartz method. Eight 10 of the twenty-six manifested significant increased excretion of 11 urinary uroporphyrins, isn?.t that correct, sir? 12 A Yes, sir. 13 Q And adding the three cases that they were 14 discussing to the -- that they had been discussing to these IS there is eleven cases then of porphyria cutanea tarda of 16 varying degrees or something like thirty-seven percent, isn't 17 that correct, sir? 18 A Yes'V S i r :, ` * 19 Q Now, on the next page the authors make conclusions 20 along with statements'of fact, and one of the statements of 21 fact is that what these men were working with was the basic 22 chemicals and the finished product, 2,4-d and 2,4,5-t. Do 23 you see that, sir, at the top of that first column? 24 A Yes 34 1 Q And the authors point out that porphyria has been 2 previously described in cases from ingestion of hexachloro- 3 benzene and that that lends support to the concept of porphyria 4 cutanea tarda is not necessarily genetically produced unless 5 the genetic defect is an extremely common one. Do you see 6 that, sir? 7 A Ye*. ^' 8 Q Of course, you know that Dr. Ellefson and many others 9 have stated that porphyria can be caused by exposure to various 10 industrial toxins, but this study here, and this is an II accepted fact today, but this study here in 1964 was the first 12 one to point that out for all of us to see, isn't that correct, 13 sir? 14 A Yes, sir. 15 Q Now, the authors go on to say in this very first 16 study that the severity of chloracne does not usually corres 17 pond to the degree of exposure to chemicals, don't they, sir? 18 A I don't -- haven't read that. 19 Q You haven't read that yet? 20 A No. Where is that? 21 Q That's right below the -- it's on the left page of 22 the exhibit in the first column starting in the paragraph in 23 the middle of the page. 24 (Pause) 35 1J 1 2 3. -4 ,5 A Now th question?'. - " i *' * ir Q Do you see,that they make .certain conclusions from this study, one of which is that the severity of chloracne does not usually correspond to the degree <o~f ^exposure tto chemicals* Do you see that,.sir? 6 A' Yes. l' , . 7 Q Now, that, of course, suggests, does it not, that , : 8 you can have a severe case of chloracne and not necessarily : 9 have a porphyrin abnormality\and that you could have less 10 '.M . 12 ,13 . ^ 14 . 1. . IS severe chloracne and have, a more severe case of porphyria? A : Based on the data here that would suggest that.': Q And that* something that was known as far back as 1964, wasn't it,, sir? A \ t ' Yes/ r *', .si. tj -,,*,i i,r I1 -V , rfim* li b . \ '; V i'1 iT / i . ,, >if> "V -:'O * - : . Q And they also'point out that the severity of \ .16 ' 17 ' 18 , 19' . .i porphyria d' oe's,l ;'n. o' t* u"s- uvall. 'yi ,cro`rrei "spofc,nd' ' t.o. the degree of chemical exposure. That's dealing with dose then, isn't it;.saying that some people'have`a tgehetic system or makeup which they, react more to, the chemical in the f o m of porphyrin, they get 20 ; 21 more porphyria or a more, severe case ,of porphyria from the 1r ' J - > `, same exposure that others'might get a less severe case of 22 porphyria,, .don't they, sir? \ - 23 i" \ * . -' '4'" - - : .. A Based on the levels of'-exposures they have' there? 24 Q 1 Yes. Isn',t .that' correct, sir? , . < ''* - - -'36,-, J: 1- >. PEN G*D CO., BAYONNE. N .J ._ 0 7 0 0 2 FORM 1L -2 2 B 1 - A Yes V 2' 3' .4 ' - 5. ' Q Again that points out that different humans react in different ways to the same chemical, isn't that correct# six rA It's -- that's generally correct# but they did not . analyse for dioxin, so it's difficult to put that in context 6 ?7 ` 8. 9 in this case.. Any one of those chemicals could have had more or another one.could have had less and exposure less# but the < * ? " *' - (. * -* concentration could have been higher. Vi; J \ pf ,, - 1, L i , Q. ^Well# it'is;based:oh what they -- 1 - A 1/ , They couldn't interpret that. They weren't doing 11\ analyses at'that time, r: 1 12 13 14 15 16 '17 V- * 18 19 20r 21 . Q . -Doctora l' am not -- ;;all I'am-suggesting to you is f<:. } f, x. i that they haveshownthat'the people working with the same that some get more - degree of chemical. exposure. Isnf.t.that iwhat {they arejpointing out? r ' 'V- '- \r v y * \. '\ - *' V ' .. A* j i Y*ou can,not interpret that based on the data that we ` have available# because that was before they knew about dioxin content and weren't doing it# so a man could* .have very little exposure to something.that was more heavily contaminated than * another one who was exposed to a lot of a chemical without BAYONNE, N J, 2? dioxin content. 23 Q Doctor#; this table' -- -you know, that .2#4#5-t contains 24 dioxin# and we know now that 2,4-dichlorophenol contains dioxin ^` ' .- 37 - ' " "" * 1 don't we, sir? V - r, -t 2 A But they. --* . r * ; 3 Q . And these men. were working with both those products 4. as well as the intermediate products, weren't they, sir? . '"5 > 6 V A ' Yes, but a man can be working with one of these materials and go without, any chloracne and without any porphyrija ' 'iy , L '** \- r and then there could be a contamination of it with more dioxin 8 and at that time he will come up with porphyria, and so it's 9 unrelated to the dose, but it's related to the degree of 10 contamination. .The degree of contamination is what counts 11 12 , 13 14 15 16 ' .17 . 18 19 not their exip; *o* sur- e / #,;... a;s;,\l'r$i.stt*;ed' V1ir';-, ' - ; . M!>* , 8_.c\ , > - -> . Q -A Doctor', the degree of contamination is their exposure A.- - ` .( 1 ' # " ~trr t' ~ " 7t + .i ' t\ ` ,. Ye*sv- 'bu:*t.yfo- u< ca*"n '. itV,-- - , U. ?; ". - }r'-.t ^ v ;` *'V1 ?-.>' ,* .r Q \ .If1two people' are exposed to 2,4,5-t, th same J - ' rV 4, '^ ^ '2,4i5"t, one person cah/get'chioracrie and another prson cannot is that correct, sir?. ,You know that today> don't you,, sir? A Yes, sir. -1' ; Q. And they're exposed to^this same chemical at the same time that has the same contamination. You know, that', 20 today, don't;you, sir? ..' . , . ', / if , * J* ' : ' 'r ' f^. 21 A .Yes, but it's a matter ,of degree we're talking about. 22 ' 23 Q Doctor, yo can have two. people both exposed to the same chemical at the same time; one can get a more severe case `24 of chloracn and. the othr can get ho chlor -- get a mild case - T' ' 1 \ " * *^ . - 38 I '` S 1 of chloracne and th third person can get no chloracne at all , 2 isn't that correct, sir? 3 A I can't say that. 4 Q You don't know that from your studies atNitro and 5 at Krummrich? 6 A No, sir. 7 Q You don't know that from what Suskind has told you., '8 in his morbidity study, tthe ones at Nitro and th one that he 9 did at Krummrich? .. i _ 10 A w@ were unable to talk about the dose of dioxin those 11 people were getting when rthey. got the chloracne 12 Q What you are saying is is that you don't know that 13 _. .' . `V :i t j i* . the workers are working with the same stuff every day, Dr. 14 Roush; is that what you are now saying? 15 A . Not with the same degree of contamination from day 16 to day. 17 -i < ' > , , 0 Doctor, these employees at Nitro and at Krummrich 18 all work on an eight-hour-day basis with the same chemical, 19 don't they, sir? 20 A Yea. 21 Q They're also workers every day? 22 A Yes 23 Q And those workers that work side-by-side every day 24 in the same department, some have no chloracne, some have mild 39 - 1 chlor&cne, and some have severe chloracne So that's right. 2 Q And they're all working with the same material on 3 the same daily basis, aren't they, sir? 4 A And they're all getting -- 5 Q And they have the same exposure, don't they, sir? 6 A No# sir. 7 Q No, sir?' : 8 A They're getting a different dose. 9 \ * *H 1 Q Doctor,, what makes you how on earth can you say 10 that they're getting a different dose when they're working ' V - . -*1 . 11 eight hours in the same department, aren't they, sir? 12 A Yes, but there is many things about work practices 13 that makes for difference in dose. 14 Q Doctor, don't you know that you can have people 15 working together at the same time side by side; one will get 16 chloraone and one won't? 17 A Yes 18 Q They're getting the same dose, aren't they, sir? 19 A No, sir. 20 Q How do you know that, sir? 21 A There have been studies with many chemicals that we 22 can measure the body burdens in which we have tested and shown 23 that that -- 24 Q Doctor, Z am talking about your people -- - 40 1 MR. HEINEMAN: Do you mind letting the man answer 2 the question. I object. He is trying to answer. He 3 asked him a question-* 4 MR. CARR: Go ahead, Doctor, finish your answer. 5 A There are all kinds of examples of people that have 6 been biomonitored for one or another kind of chemical In which 7 there is a gross difference in the' body burden with the same 8 degree of exposure. The best example is with lead. You can 9 have ten people all exposed to lead all doing exactly the same 10 job and the amount of lead that will be present on their 11 monitor can vary by four-fold all doing the same job. And 12 the man who is working with radiation, all doing the same job, 13 exactly the same, the man with the radiation badge would be 14 gross difference'intthe degree of contamination of the badge 15 with radiation. This is another one onlycthis is worse 16 because the degree of contamination can vary so much. 17 Q Now, Doctor, the work that you are talking about is 18 people not working side by side with this radiation. You are 19 talking about a general population that work in one establish 20 ment dealing with radiation. 21 A Yes, sir. 22 You are not talking about people that are working 23 side by side in the same -- 24 A Yes, I am. - 41 - 1 Q -- in the same department? 2 A Yes, I axa. 3 4 Q Doct' or,f.* X , suggest }\ ^ you . sho\_.u\vld,, rci^-te the article for me that says that. ~ r, 5 A X. can't. X.don't have it'with me, but it's true 6 Q Doctor, you forgive me, but the people that you have J working for you at Monsanto -- ; * 8 A .Yes, sir* 9 Q -- on the same shift and doing exactly the same work, 10 they are exposed to the same chemical, aren't they, sir?. 11 A Yes, sir* 12 Q And you know the body reacts differently in different 13 people; you know that, don't you, sir? 14 A Yes, sir. 15 Q And one person can get a dose that will cause him 16 chloracne and that same dose won1t cause chloracne in others; 17 you know that, don't you, sir? 18 A X don't know that* 19 Q You don't know that? 20 A The best example of the dose was the study that was 21 done by the dermatologists who were doing the intentional .22 exposure of prisoners, and he exposed them with up to sixteen . 23 micrograms on the skin, and none of them got chloracne and then 24 with gradually increasing concentrations up till he got to - 42 - 1 seven thousand microg' ra4mi *s, eighty ** ' fcpercent of them all had the 2 same reaction about the same degree. 3 Q Doctor, thank you, because you made the point. 4 Eighty percent of them had the same reaction, but twenty per- 5 cent did not. V ' .i * ^ *. T ;' - 1 6 A When they get up -- 7 Q la that right, sir? They had exactly the same dose 8 at the same time, measured content; twenty percent of those 9 prisoners that had this done to them didn't have a response* 10 Didn't you just say that, sir? Dr. Roush, didn't you just say 11 that? 12 A Yes, sir. Yes, sir. 13 Q And that is the point that X have been trying to 14 point to make here. Doctor. Different people react in differed IS ways. 16 A That *s true. 17 Q As far as those eighty percent, they had different 18 and varying degrees of reaction themselves within the eighty 19 percent, didn't they, sir? 20 A of course, yes* sir. 21 Q How, and that again makes my point* You have 22 different makeup of different people, they react differently 23 to the same dose, don't they, sir? 24 A Yes, sir. - 43 - 1 Q And. that's what ,,they this:-- to get back to that 2 point is what this paper pointed out as far back as 1964, 3 that the severity of;th chloracne does not usually correspond 4 to the degree of exposure to chemicals? the severity of 5 porphyria does not usually correspond to the degree of chemical 6 exposure? the severity of chloracne does not usually correiponc 7 to the presence of porphyria? therefore, it would appear that 8 there is some individual whose susceptibility to these 9 diseases, is that correct? 10 A Yes, sir. 11 Q That is exactly what the prisoner study pointed out 12 as well, isn't it, sir? 13 A Yes, sir. The Only difference is the importance of 14 dose versus susceptibility and susceptibility is relatively 15 small compared to the importance of dose. 16 Q Well, Doctor,;you were saying before you gave the 17 prisoner example that there was no way of knowing that the -- 18 there was any difference because of a dose because the dose 19 varied, but your prisoner studies points it out that there is 20 different reactions to the same dose, didn't it, sir? 21 A Yes, sir. 22 Q Doctor, there is also a point made here by these 23 studies that those people who have had prior liver damage 24 through alcoholism or some other cause are also pre-disposed to - 44 - 1 porphyria -- ;; 2 A Ninety percent of all -- 3 Q Could you answer that question#sir? 4 A Yes, sir. 5 Q All right. That's all that 1want to point out is 6 that these people pointed out here that the extent of the 7 liver damage# that you go in if you've got a damaged liver or 8 you have a -- through alcoholism# that you are likely to got 9 porphyria when you are thereafter exposed to one of these 10 chemicals that cause porphyria# isn't that correct# sir? 11 A Yes# sir. 12 Q And, Doctor# in 1964 this -- these doctors from the 13 Beth Israel Hospital in Newark# New Jersey pointed out that 14 the -- it may be assumed that the basis of the disturbed 15 porphyrin metabolism is the heptotoxic effects of one or more 16 of the chemicals in the factory environment. They say that# 17 don't they# sir? 18 A Yes# sir. 19 Q And they also point out that there is a synergistic , 20 effect of other known liver toxins that can't be overlooked, 21 don't they# sir? *22 A Yes# sir. 23 THE COURTx Mr. Carr# before you get into the second 24 article# another article -- - 45 - 1 MR. CARR: Yes9 Your Honor. 2 THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, we will take a 3 break at this time, .I will remind you, and this will go 4 for any other breaks during the day that you are not to 5 discuss this matter among yourselves or with anyone else 6 outside the jury panel or as of yet form any opinions or 7 conclusions about the matters on trial Court will be in 8 a short recess. 9 (At this time a short recess was taken,) 10 DR. GEORGE ROUSH, II previously sworn and testified further as follows: 12 13 14 BY MR. CARR: CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued) 15 (At this time Plaintiff's Exhibit 1446 was marked 16 for Identification by the reporter,) 17 Q Doctor, I will hand you now what's been marked 18 Plaintiff's Exhibit 1446 and ask you to look at that, and if 19 you would. You recognize 1446 as the document prepared by a 20 William R. Brooks of Monsanto? 21 A Yes, sir. 22 Q And who is William R. Brooks? 23 A I don't know. 24 Q You've never methim? i, . . ; ^ ' r - 46 - ' 1 A I don't recall. 2 Q So where is he? Is he located at Nitre, West 3 Virginia? 4 A I don't know. 5 Q He's prepared a -- the first, oh, ten, twelve pages 6 of this exhibit deals with the Suskind's morbidity study at 7 Nitro, does it not, that was conducted in 1979? 8 A X haven't looked at it, but that's what the title is. 9 Q No, the title is actually porphyria by William R. 10 Brooks, but -- 11 A X am talking about on the first page it says review 12 of health study conducted by University of Cincinnati. 13 Q Well, who is Dr. A. vJbrd to whom it's addressed? 14 A X know him. He works in our section on environmental IS policy. 16 Q That's In the Department of Medicine? 17 A No, we are part of the part of the environmental 18 policy staff. That's above us. 19 Q That Dr. Wilson is the information director of? 20 A Yes. 21 Q Planning and information director? 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q All right. 24 MR;.i CARRs .Your Honor, before I ask any further -.4? - 1 questions, I'd like to ofer 1446 into evidence. 2 THE .COURT: Any objections? 3 MR. HEINEMAN: Yes, Your Honor. I don't think a 4 foundation has been laid for its submission and it's 5 hearsay 6 THE COURT: It's admitted over objection. You may 7 proceed 8 Q Doctor, the first page that's titled -- that has as 9 its subject review of health study conducted by University of 10 Cincinnati in June, of '79, directing your attention to that, 11 actually the second page of the document. 12 A Yes, sir. 13 You see that, sir? 14 A Yes, sir. 15 Q He points out that he has reviewed these plant 16 documents at the request of Dr. Ford concerning this health 17 study that was conducted at that time and that this document 18 is a -- serves to -- is to serve as a summary of how that healtli 19 study was so conducted, is that correct, sir? 20 A Yes, sir. v.- < * ' 1 ' 21 Q And he refers to a Jan Yung'of the St. Louis personne! 22 Who is Jan.Yung? 23 A She's one of our assistants in epidemiology. She 24 doesn't have a degrees. -She's a clerk-type. 48 1 Q All right. And it was pointed out here that to 2 determine the cohort that she is the one that investigated 3 the personal records and Workmen1s Compensation records and 4 plant medical records to determine among the plant employees, 5 retirees, and terminated employees as to who was exposed to 6 2.4.5- t? 7 A Yes,, sir. , 8 Q Wow, Dr. Roush, in performing a study of this sort 9 that was being undertaken in *79 by Suskind for Monsanto you 10 have a so-called control group which theoretically is not 11 exposed to the toxics that you were -- the substance that you 12 are studying, isn't that correct, sir? 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q And now this control group was taken from Monsanto 15 employees, weren't they, sir? 16 A Yes, sir. 17 Q They weren't taken from persons who had not worked 18 in a chemical plant and who were just -- who had no opportunity 19 for exposure to the^chemical/ isn't that correct, sir? 20 A That!s right. < * *t'1 1`-/1 ,, 21 Q And Miss Yung and others working with her sent to 22 Dr. Suskind those persons who.were in their judgment exposed to 23 2.4.5- t as to be the study group and sent to Dr. Suskind a 24 list of those persons who they said were not exposed to 2,4,5-tj - 49 1 isn't that correct, sir? 2 A Yes, sir. 3 Q Now, the ultimate end of the study is to compare 4 the health and the health effects of those who have been 5 exposed, who are listed as exposed to the corollary group to 6 those who are listed as unexposed, isn't that correct, sir? 7 A Yes, sir. 8 Q Now if, in fact, if Yung, said to Dr. Suskind, say, 9 fifty percent of the people that were in the so-called control 10 group or the unexposed group had in fact at one time or another 11 been exposed to 2,4,5-t, that could serve to skew the study 12 and in fact make the study meaningless, isn't that correct, sir 13 A It's possible. 14 Q Well, it's more than possible. If you have as a 15 control group mostly people who have not had any exposure to 16 the TCDD and 2,4,5-t and, if that person has, for instance, 17 in abnormal porphyrin tests, if half the people in the 18 unexposed group have abnormal porphyrins and half the people 19 in the exposed group have abnormal^porphyrins, then you can 20 lead to the conclusion, can you not,jsir, that 2,4,5-t does 21 not affect the porphyrins if they both have the same 22 abnormalities, isn't that correct, sir? 23 A Yes. 24 Q But if, in fact, half of your so-called unexposed 50 1 group had been exposed to the 2,4,5-t, then you -- and if you 2 removed that half from the control group and if they were the 3 ones that had the abnormal porphyrins, you could end up with a 4 study that seventy-five percent of the exposed group have 5 abnormal porphyrins and none of the unexposed group have 6 abnormal porphyrins. Then that could be and would be indeed 7 a significant finding, wouldn't it, sir? 8 A Yes. -9 Q So actually the ability to determine who is going 10 to be in what list of employees is absolutely vital to the 11 integrity of the study, isn't it, sir? V 12 A Not completely. I13 Q If I give you a list of people that are supposed 14 to be unexposed and their health is to be compared to people 15 *, * " _ ' i # ' jl who are exposed and I know that I am giving you a number of 16 people who have been exposed, doesn't that absolutely deal with 17 a very -- deal a death blow to the very foundation of the study, 18 Doctor? 19 * '*: A No, sir. It influences it. 20 Q Well, it influences it. It can influence it 21 significantly, can't it, sir? 22 A It all depends on if we have got adult response 23 level within the exposed group. If we're talking about the 24 people who are in the unexposed group who have got chance 51 1 exposure almost zero and try to compare that with the workers 2 in the exposed group that do not have much in the way of the 3 fact that they didn't have chloracne versus those who had 4 chloracne, there's a gross difference between those. 5 Q Doctor, you are jumping to an entirely different 6 point all together. What 1 am saying iB if you are putting 7 out a study that purports to examine the health effects of 8 those persons who have been^exposed to 2,4,5-t, that study 9 becomes invalid if you put in the exposed'-- in the unexposed 10 group rather, a significant number of people who have in fact 11 beeneexposed, isn't that correct, sir? 12 A Only partially so. 13 Q Well, partially is enough,' If I give you hypotheti 14 cally, Doctor, and without you agreeing to it, that exposure 15 to TCDD can cause1porphyria, and if you have half the people r , - } 16 in your exposed group who have porphyria and half the people 17 who in the unexposed group have porphyria, then my thesis is 18 not proven, is it, sir? You have to say yes or no. 19 A Yes, sir. 20 Q Now, if I get that result.of each group having the 21 same percentage of abnormal porphyrins, if I get that result 22 by putting in the unexposed group people half of whom have in 23 fact been exposed to TCDD and those people also have porphyria, 24 then that -- those people should be put in the exposed group, 52 1 should they not, sir# -if they have in^fact been exposed to 2 TCDD? 3 A Ideally that!a right, 4 Q Yes, Now# if they are put in the exposed group# we 5 then have seventy-five percent of the exposed group that have 6 porphyria and nobody in the unexposed group that has porphyria# 7 so if you are comparing health effects# seventy-five percent '8 of those exposed with porphyria and none who have not been 9 exposed with porphyria# that becomes then a significant finding, 10 doesn't it# sir? .* r fc , * -t > 11 A Yes# sir, j i ,i 12 Q And the ability to define and to give you the names 13 of the people who have been exposed'and the names of the people * r - i", 14 who are supposedly unexpoaed is -- has the ability to control 15 '* s " *. the outcome of tdie .study# doesn't it,' sir? 16 A To influence it, 17 Q Well# more than that. If I gave -- it's a hypo 18 thetical that 1 gave you that was true, it absolutely controls 19 'it, doesn't it, sir? You come up with a study from fifty/fiftyr 20 half v/ith porphyria with exposed, half with porphyria 21 unexposed# a non-significant relationship between porphyria 22 and the toxic substance# but simply by changing# by taking 23 those who are truly exposed out of the unexposed group and 24 putting them in the exposed group, 1 come up with a result 53 1 1 seventy-five percent with porphyria in the' exposed group and 2 - zero percent with porphyria in the unexposed group* I have 3 indeed made significant and absolutely devastating changes, 4 .-haven't 1, rsir?` . .^ r, s .. S' A If the dose that you-- - of those in the unexposed 6 that you moved into the exposed was equal to the dose in. the . 7 exposed* then you would. 8 Q .Not even if it's see)' Dr. Roush, the thing' that 9 'you are. concerned^ about /'ifyou can show* that low doses can 10 cause porphyria, doses can cause porphyria that can't cause '- 1- ` J ' > A. /*V"T^, 1 - 1, rJ>i i i 11 chloracne, thenit becomes doubly-important, doesn't it, sir? / t I,J`*'l-'" Vis'-- A i'. -i"rk * 12 You proved two things by this study, that low dose exposure 13 -- ' *V ?* `i '/'.V . 1^ ,f -`' to TCDD can cause' porphyria-. .That's what you proved by. that, / 14 don't you/ sir? 15 A Also you are. saying is .that a big dose doesn't make * 16 it any worse.,. u 17. Q Well, it may make, it worse. The Israel-, the Newark, 18 New Jersey study shows that it does make it worse. 19 A That's only one of the two studies 2Q Q Doctor, but the point that I ammaking is you make 21 a study invalid, and the person that has the ability has the 22 power to define*', .to. give,you,. the scientists)-- if I come to ,Xj 23 you, Dr.. Roush, and say these hundred people in this list have , 24 had exposure 'and these hundred people in List B have had no -tOOiO .-TM '3NNOAYQ k .' ** - - 54 - , ' " '1 1 exposure, and if I bollixed up those lists, l e a n indeed 2 control the outcome, can'tX, sir? ;/ 3 A If dose doesn't count; 4 . Q if;the amount of the exposure doesn't count? 5 A that's what you are saying, that the dose doesn't 6 count 7. Q >' And- now Doctor,"Monsanto .gaveyto Suskind, he'was * _ '. . ` ( 'r '' i j-,;,C: :: .-< . ' - " f` '' 8 provided a list of current-and'retired' employees that may .be 1 9 J> 1 - - ^ te(b - t suitable for tisje: as/controls /.was/he not, sir? i 10 A Yes, sir* 11- \ Q Ar n' ' d J this", lt isi* tr v/* Td i' _d- '-11 n"o!* >t,' '^ com^ 1*;f1 from _Nitre, did it, sir?- 1 12 It came;from 'St. Louis, Missouri,,,didn *t it? 13 . . A i Jan Yung from St, Louis went to Nitro to.work out 14 . that cohort. . ry. - 15 Q., Doesn't this report that you have in your hand say -< , j , rJ _ _ `- 16 quote "This list was not originated,at the Nitro plant but 17 ;came from St. Louis, probably Jan Yung"; isn't that exactly 18 : what it says?/] ^^ ' -V ` '/-' r 19 A, Yes, but that?s;not 20 t Q , v Isn't that exactly,what it says, Dr. Roush? ] 21 A Yes.'- t *V J; . * ' '. 22 ' 23 . 24 Q . Arid Dr. Suskind, in fact, at the time he did this study, he wanted complete control over who was to be invited, ' ' - v* didn't he, sir? , - 55 - '' 1. l A. Yes * #1*.- ^ '* i , l4 ' *?. Ll"* '/*/yi ` .,,> V~- *. e1e y ^ *y\Jp"r-- > i/1*?j' '*. 2, ` Q But he wasn't rivn that^control, was He/ sir? . 3 4 ,,5-* 6' a _ ; We supplied the names, yes. ; [" ;1 ' 1, - * > ` f'1 it - " . '. '-v ^ ' Q Yes t You controlled those; people who were going to ~ lm * + s 1 < VT, r be invited to ,this..study ;^didn' t. you, sir? *." '>' v". ;; il 'iv/ : , ^ < i/.v,r ' J- '" ;l-* '^'V*`V-* - .`i..11It*'* /A'.vyYesW /. jh.,"A > * t l ^ L v 2 -V.# v 'v . y 'Q ;'/A n d .by having'the; ability, r- aannd what it would boil . . "*.r\'1; i1{'=>* i'.*X.11f frw-V ;jv*'' ^ ^ *'*'.*** 1*** 8 down to,. Pthe;validity'bf^ thestudy.then depends upon the 9 integrity, of those-persons t St.,,,Louis, Missouri,,of those7 > .. '' vt ? . * . , 10 > Monsanto employes who prepared the list, isn't that correct, U sir? ' -* /v-\. `\v; Z'-1' v ' ' - v\ PENGAO CO.. BAYONNE. N .J; n * - e- 13 / '-.A / No, sir, \ ^ ;/ J -VQ Oh, we don't depend bn. that, that's not f-- cannot J 4 > St. Louis,Missouri'Supply to Dr. Suskind and give him in ah 15.. unexposed list of people:'of a hundred, can't they give h i m i n 16 \ ' >` r,.j : t : i j v. fact fifty,of those people.who were indeed exposed? i IT - A ihat could happen. . ... . ' r.. , - . - is ;r`. Q Yes, so then it depends upon the integrity of the' 3 19 persons in St./ Louis.,preparing the list?/ .20 /( A .No/.sir. 3 ,3/'/ '*-/ t -'*;* * X .21 ' ".2`2.,-A Q :,Doesn't it, -sir? J,/ \ A Nb, sir/ ./ ;y;/: f 1 'v` V > ' 23 Q Now, Doctor, -if it, could happen, and I think you've *24', agreed that the validity'of the study can.be bollixed or v '', :- 56^ - t" 1 changed or voided all together/by putting exposed people 2 ` in the unexposed group, then it follows,! does it not, Dr. 3 -r 4 Roush, that the,validity-.of, the studyLis-controlled by those . 1 , fl J- , 1 ^V I r r > - ^ \J1 **" , " . .k * vj , -- X - '* y - * " `" M * ' J, '* ' 'i v"',' '" h i:J ' ! ; 1- it i / ^ ' f" f , *i . people who, m. ade..*'the list; arid: those: pe- ople- happenr to be ' 51 / ,,* , . Monsanto employees'--at St -Louis,, Missouri? , 3... & \ " - , ! : ' v ;> ,, V-\ . 6- . A* .No, s i r v .x / ' *" -i 7 Q You believe,;that does, not follow? , - - `. 8- 9`1 No,A - site .v - r , - .. /- 1' W *J , - 1 .J L 'r , L" X * V 'V *" . * m \ ! ' Q Dr. Roush,' have you agreed that the study can.be i o made invalid or changed significantly by counting people as - ' 11 exposed who in fact were /unexposed?, , 1 12 -A - Yes, sir, r. * 13 Q > And vice-versa? ' !- 14 A X. If you leave but dose. 15' Q If you leave .but dose. .That's what I am talking about. BAVONN.E .WJ. 0077000021 FORMIL,2*B ^ >1 O' A Yesj sir, but that isn1t what, happened. What happened is.this list that Jan Yung put together Was given, .* i\ uat , \a * , 1 i s ;'* -to Suskind.- 1 1 19 Q Yes-. . ... . x' V- - ' ' - -, ' /' O :zu` 20. * , 21 ^ A, / And-then \when he;;idid `his examination he did a careful occupational work exposure for each :one of the 22 ' participants, and he modified those in each group based on his- I - 23 \ own interpretation of their exposure, not ours. 24' Q Didn't you give'him records, to assist him in making* :V , ' r -sr - < - ' ''v - \ 1 '2 3 4 5 '6 7 8: 9 10 vll . 12 13 14 r . is 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ;23 ' 24 that determination? -i~ V 1-r*-- n -;' * I J-t X j ^ ^ A AXlvrthai- was'Upstarting point,- ; 1 > > ' ' -- X ' P,W *' V V * -* *[ Q My question is did you. not give him records that he > i-vJi'-,J' .>1 Ji'i-> ; t ; .1 l\ :. used to interpret.'whether ,they were "exposed or not exposed? A .We1'gave him-the:-list andv-then he -- , r, - i;'t; ,r >;f^*-11 . , , i.' r,;?i.!' l. * r ; -, Q v Doctor, you know in point of fact that many of those fl , / " j .* - L people who were put in the unexposed group of people were' j described.as utility workers or.maintenance workers; you know that, don't you, si*? 1 A i don't know that. / Q Well, we will demonstrate'that when we get to that point. Have you ever made your own study -- before we get to J" t\T * J, * 1j ' that,.Doctor,*you know that a maintenance worker can go to all parts-of the plant to maintain machinery; you know that, don't you,-sir? t v ` ,- / _, A \ ;?es*, sir . .\ " 1 Q. And.the. utility worker, a utility worker is one that can be '.used 'inone department one day and in another department another day; you know that, too, don't you, sir? - A Yers, s. *i" r. ,i 1* 1 , dJ -1 Q And if you put utility workers, if you' put:maintenanc -` f* ,' r,, 'J workers, in the unexposed, group, those people may in fact and have in fact if'-they'worked in ali the departments at Nitro, have in fact.been-exposed to. TCDD, haven't they, sir? B A Y O N N t , N,J, ' ; :. ' ' 58 -- v` ' '* - v.<-`'v\' ,'! ;*-". kj- -f iVv' Vij`i,^; -->*y,`\y''*1 ; *. * S 'Vt ,!V^ , A To some degree, yes, some of them. , . -'* Jz<'} s\ V./Ai .' Q And it'wouldOnot be- appropriate to. put those people in an unexposed group ; would they,'-sir? 'i 0 f V'H fVv: ! A v It?s. a``mattr'of degreed -**-+ Q Indeed it*s a matter of degree. If you have an exposure to. ;TCDD, you aria exposed, aren't you# sir? A / -It's'a matter of degree. . Q . Is the answer, to my question,'yes, you1are exposed, but you.don't know the degree that, you are exposed, that it's not a severe exposure, that it's a low dose or mild exposure, ' % ' r * r sr < ' h t is that your answer to my question? ``^ ' *' A what they did is -- Q - Dr. Roush, could you direct your attention to the question that i am asking, please. ^ A ; .I'm sorry.- , i- 'r' * Q .Are you saying that if you are exposed to anytdose, you are exposed, but'it's just a question of how much your ' exposure, amounts -to? isn't that what you are saying? A ' Yes. r 1 A , Q ,,Yes. So a utility'worker that was assigned to work some -- for a few days or.a few weeks in a 2,4,5-t producing area was in,fact exposed,, wasn't he, sir? , r.' * ' A Yes.' / : ; Q A maintenance1worker that worked in a 2,4,5-t 1 producing area was in fact exposed, wasn't he, sir? 2 A Yes `_ .'. ' 3 Q A janitor's foreman who supervised the janitors 4 v;orking in all parts of the manufacturing plant if he did his 5 job properly and looked to the work of the workers under him, 6 he was exposed, wasn't he, sir? 1 A Possibly. 8 Q Well, how could it be possibly if he went into the 9 department to see the janitors clean up in the 2,4,5-t 10 department, he was exposed, wasn't he, sir? 11 A Yes. 12 Q An hourly employee who works in the office that 13 goes out in the plant from time to time to get data or to get 14 material or to discuss something with people working in the 15 plant, he is exposed, isn't he, sir, if he goes to the 2,4,5-t 16 department? 17 A To some degree. 18 U Anybody that works at the Nitron plant that had 19 occasion to pass through the 2,4,5-t producing department, 20 whether he was assigned therecor not, had some degree of 21 exposure, didn't he, sir? 22 A Yes. 23 Q And, Doctor, if those people were put, were told, 24 if Jan Yung put those people into the unexposed group, that - 60 - 1 was not the fact, was it, sir, that they were unexposed? 2 A That's right, not totally unexposed. 3 Q Yes. And the ability then to control who was on the 4 list and to define who is on the list is an important ability, 5 isn't it, air? 6 A Yes, sir. 7 Q Now, Doctor, X 'd like to ask you some questions 8 about the attached study by Brooks as attached to this analysis 9 of the Suskind Health Study. Well, maybe before X get to that 10 I 'd like to ask you a -- there is a -- on about the 7th page -- 11 well, it has at the bottom of it, it has the Number C09859. 12 You see that, sir? 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q There is a discussion there of intermittent exposed 15 retired salaried people. Do you see that, sir? 16 A Yes, sir. 17 Q Of those that participated with complaints of -- 18 there were six employees and five had chloracne, isn't that 19 correct, sir, eighty-three percent? 20 A X can't tell that. 21 Q Sir? 22 A X don't know what those numbers mean. X haven't 23 read this. 24 Q You haven't seen this before? - 61- 1 A No, sir. 2 Q Before I gave it to you? 3 A No, sir* .. 4 Q Well, Doctor, this is dated August 8, 1984* You see 5 don *t you, sir? 6 A Yes, sir* - 7 Q And this is a review of a house study that was 8 conducted by Suskind that ~~ that you had said earlier the 9 health study is an important piece of evidence upon which 10 Monsanto and you have made your judgments as to the effect of 11 TODD on human health, isn't that correct, sir? 12 A Yes, sir. 13 Q And this analysis has a relationship to that study 14 and to the credence to be given, to that study, doesn't it, sir? 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Q Es>pecially when' it points out who controls the 17 exposed and unexposed group and especially when it points r 18 out who had chloracne and who didn't .have chloracne, isn't 19 that correct, sir? 20 A Yes, sir. 21 Q And you haven't studied it, sir, you haven't read it? 22 A This report? 23 Q Yes * 24 A This doesn't influence the report to me* \ ' r1 ^ '- - 62 - 1 Q Doctor, I'm-sorry? 2 A This doesn't influence the report to me* 3 Q Doctor, it cannot influence the report to you if you 4 haven't read it, if you haven't studied it 5 A Z read the report. . 6 Q Sir? 7 A Z have read the report. 8 Q And this is an analysis that tells you how the 9 control list was made. 10 A No, it doesn't. 11 Q Doctor, we just got through -- we just got ^through 12 going into that. 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q It points out who made up the list, doesn't it, sir? 15 t i A That is not who made up the list. This is a 16 preliminary list. 17 Q Doctor, the only thing that Dr. Suekind did was to 18 take that list and analyze it along with the questionnaire that 19 was given and answered by the workers, isn't that right? 20 A Yes, sir. Yes, sir, and he modified this. 21 Q Doctorjxit^is entirelyipooflible, is it not, that 22 you at Monsanto!went through the list and knew fifty people '23 w- * , 1 * * -* that had exposure but did not send those fifty names to Dr. 24 Suekind; isn't that possible,, air? 63 1 A Yes, sir, 2 Q It is possible that' you had two hundred workers at 3 Nitro who had exposure to significant amounts of TCDD and 4 you didn't send those names to Dr, Suskind, isn't that correct, 5 , sir? 6 A It*8 possible* 7 Q And, Doctor, if you know of people who have been 8 exposed and you didn't send those people to Dr. Suskind, he 9 could never look at their health effect, could he, sir? 10 A Ho. 11 Q If you haven't sent the list to him and they are 12 not invited to the study -- 13 A That's right* 14 Q ' And you sent out invitations to employees that you 15 selected to participate, didn't you, sir? 16 A Yes, sir* 17 Q And some of those people participated and some did 18 ;not participate, isn't that correct? 19 A Yes, sir. 20 Q And by sending; out those invitations you controlled 21 those -- the people who would ultimately be a part of this 22 study, didn't you, sir?" ' . ' , i 23 A To a degree* ' 24 Q Yes. If you didn't invite them, they would have 64 1 never com in. If you did invite them, they may well have 2 come in, isn't that correct, sir? 3 A Yes, sir. 4 Q And that is an important way to control the outcome 5 of a study, isn't it, sir? 6 A To influence it. 7 Q To influence it. And if you influenced the outcome, 8 then you've influenced th significance and importance of 9 that study, haven't you, sir? 10 A It all depends on what Suskind does with what we 11 give him. 12 Q Oh, but it depends on more than that. It depends 13 on whether or not you send him the exposed people to start 14 with. It depends on whether or not you have him enough IS information that he could,,determine whether they wore exposed 16 or unexposed. It depends on a lot of things that you have 17 complete control over, doesn't it, sir? 18 A To a-degree, yes.*, 19 I- 1' * - 1 Q And, Doctor, those things being important why didn't 20 you look at this report by Dr. Brooks? 21 A This took place after the study was completed. 22 Q Yes, Z understand tkat> Doctor. 23 A I was a part of it and X went to talk to Suskind 24 about his groups and how he defined his cohort before he did - 65 - 1 his study and after he did his study, 2 Q Doctor, I understand that, but now the study is done, 3 it was published in May, of 1934, it was published for the 4 entire world to see what Dr. Suskind says aretthe health' 5 effects from long-term exposure to TCDD, isn't that right, sir? *i i 6 A Yes, sir. 7 Q It's been published in the Journal of the American 8 Medical Association? 9 A Yes, sir. 10 Q And that influences a lot of people, doesn't it, sir? 11 A Yes, sir. 12 Q Mow, this document here by William K. Brooks points 13 . to and discusses that study, doesn't it, sir? 14 A Yes," .sir. ` 15 Q And you haven't read this study, this report by 16 Dr; Brooks I think he's ;a doctor -- to:determine whether -- 17 what validity {should be, given",to. the rSuskind report? Zs that 18 what you are saying?' . \ 19 , 'i - ,,*rvt.f ,\ / , %" F J i, > ^ ^ ' 1 * . *r ^ , A I don't think'this had anything to do with validity 20 of the study.-'- -'S; V 21 0 Doctor, for instance, I have done some analysis of 22 the Zach Suskind Mortality Study, of the Zach Gaffey Mortality 23 Study -- 24 A Yes, sir. 66 1 Q Of the Suskind Herzberger Morbidity Study* How, 2 how that data is interpreted by roe, and many times 2 go back 3 into the actual employment records, and I have done that, you 4 have supplied those to me -- rather the -- not the employment 5 records, but the questionnaires that have been answered, and 6 I have made determinations that some people were exposed and 7 were put in an unexposed group, and you know from past 8 testimony in this case that others that were analyzed, the 9 2ach Gaffey Mortality report, and you know that exposed 10 people, exposed cancer deaths were put in the unexposed table; 11 you know that, too, don't you, sir? 12 A No, sir* 13 Q You don't know that, sir? Has no one told you the 14 evidence that has been related -- involved in this case with *% 15 relation to the Zach Gaffey Mortality Study? 16 A Yes, sir* . r" ^ v (i ' 17 Q Then you do. know what has been testified to and 18 shown? 19 A Yes* . f ' * ; ' 1. 20 Q And you do know that four cancer deaths were put in 21 the unexposed group when in fact they were exposed in the 22 Nitro accident? 23 A They were not put in the 2,4,5-t group* 24 Q Doctor, you know they were put in the unexposed 67 1 group as cancer deaths of people who were not exposed to 2 2,4,5-t, you Know that, don't you, sir? 3 A Yes, because they worked in the 2,4,5-t group* 4 That was a study of 2,4,5-t. 5 Q Doctor, I will get to that report in a moment, but 6 what you do know is that the results -- if I could analyze 7 the results and you can analyze the results if you dig into 8 the background? you do know that, but you did not dig into 9 the background, did you, sir? 10 A Of what? 11 Q Of these studies that we're talking about, more 12 specifically the Zach -- I'm sorry, the Suskind Herzberger 13 Morbidity Study. 14 A I participated in it. I didn't go -- this is 15 historical. 16 Q Then I take it /that your Vanswer is that you needn't 17 have gone into the background of it because you knew the 18 background of it? 19 A That's right. 20 Q Did you yourself. Dr. Roush, study the list and 21 compare it to the employment records to determine whether or 22 not the unexposed people had had exposure to 2,4,5-t or TCDD? 23 Did you do that yourself? 24 A I knew that was considered. I didn't go into that. 68 1 Q All right* Then you did not dig into it, did you, 2 sir? 3 A Not that aspect. 4 Q Now, Doctor, if you direct your attention to that 5 part then that*s called the porphyria section of this report 6 by Mr. Brooks, and specifically I'd like to direct your 7 attention to Page C09864, the first page of the porphyria 8 attachment. The third paragraph there gives the purpose of 9 the report, doesn't it, sir, is to highlight the porphyria 10 classifications associated with exposure to chlorinated ' * h '* 1. " , 11 hydrocarbons, TODD in particular;. Do you see that, sir? 12 A Yes, sir. 13 Q Now, this Mons' an.toFj document says rightJ out front 14 that there is porphyria that's associated with exposure to 15 chlorinated hydrocarbons, TCDD, doesn't it, sir? 16 MR. HEINEMANx Let me object to the premise, Your 17 Honor. First of all, there's been no establishment that 18 it's a Monsanto document. That was my point of my 19 objection to it on the basis it was hearsay and no 20 foundation had been laid for its admission. There has 21 been no evidence that it's a Monsanto document. This 22 witness had never even heard of Mr. Brooks, and there Is 23 no evidence that the page which Mr. Carr is referring to 24 now is included in the portion of the document which he - 69 - I has already had reference to. Frankly, I see an 2 enormous difference In the type of the two documents. 3 One looks like to be some sort of computet:: generated rough 4 draft and the other is dark type copy. 5 MR. CARR: Yes. 6 MR. HEXNEMAN: I think there is no evidence that 7 they're the same document. There is no evidence that 8 it's a Monsanto document# and X object to the form of the 9 '1 - question,, and.I object to any .further inquiry with respect i Jr^ - " 10 to it on that basis# Your Honor. 11 MR. CARR: Your Honor, this is a document -- it was 12 in this form when it was given to us by Monsanto recently. 13 Xt has on each page the Monsanto" numbers. These numbers 14 are in numerical order, the computer print has on Rage 15 C09863 the name W. Brooks, 1979. The porphyria print 16 has on the signature page C09875, the name Bill Brooks 17 and it's all in one part of the document called porphyria 18 by william R. Brooks. Xf it's not a Monsanto document 19 then, counsel, X suggest you have been producing things 20 that are not from Monsanto files, but you represented to 21 us that this is a Monsanto document. 22 MR* HEINEMAN: Your Honor, Mr. Carr is making -- 23 MR. CARR: Xt either is or it isn't. 24 MR. HEINEMAN: -- a disingenuous argument He knows - 70 - 1 that we may have documents in our file that we have not 2 generated, that we've had nothing to do with For 3 example, the document -- I use for example the document 4 that was produced by the plaintiff, William Kemner, with 5 respect to how his livestock died and we were -- Mr. 6 Carr objected to that because it was hearsay and because 7 Mr. Kemner /did not produce "it, but it was found in Mr 8 Kemner's file. He produced the document to us, but he 9 didn1t .create the document, and that's the difference in ; -\ ,, , " ,- % -,1 *"* * 10 my opinion, Your Honor, between establishes foundation 11 for admissibility land what' doesn't. I admit that these 12 things have been numbered by people who were out numbering 13 documents"to be produced with a stamper, but if you look 14 at the two different documents, they are intrinsically 15 numbered separately. The document that has typewriting 16 on it rather than this rough draft stuff has -- this is 17 Page 1, this is numbered Page 2. Here it is in the middle 18 of the document numbered Page 2, Page 3, Page 4 and on 19 and on, and I think they're possibly two different 20 documents and 1 object to any questioning about them. 21 MR* CARR: Well, Your Honor, I think the exhibit 22 speaks for itself. The title page was put there by 23 Monsanto, not by me. It says porphyria by William R. 24 Brooks, and it has C098555 -- I'm sorry, C09855. It has 71 - P E N G A D C O .. 'B A T O N N E. N .J. 0 7 0 0 1 .. F O R M IL ' K B 2 3 .4 5 '6 1 8 9 10" 11. 12 13 14 15 16 17 ` ;i8l 1? 20 ' 21 22 - 23 24 *r '* -\ j . . their stamp on ,it that it's confidential, subject to k / protective order. I don't .think Monsanto is in the habit of stamping as confidential those things that are not Monsanto documents.Now, they either are Monsanto documents,and-confidential^and,subject to the protective , V* v, * 'U /-Vv 1 . * J -X?* i +-r* t fh < ^ ij-i J j , i- t -* order or they're noti ^Thls is'part of their -- the fact ' / ., * r -^ ^r 1" < *" ' that they choose to make a document' that includes how the v "" .-s V'.'-'V , Suskind.morbidity woirk was donealong with1porphyria is their decision, not mine. ; It's clearly a Monsanto document* MR. HEINEMAN: Your Honor, one of our people could >* i* # , *1 ^ s * _* ^ n` J *. have a f i l e in which he stapled together five different' articles produced by five different people, staple them - together in the document, and if we were producing documents from his file, we would reproduce them to Mr. Carr exactly as they came from the file. _Therefore, they may not be Monsanto-generated documents, they may not be ., it t ^i iL F* the same documents .`"They may -- this may be the way whoever*s file this1is. klopped these two things together. I don't know where they came from., The people that are producing them don't know that.. It's up to Mr. Carr .to ' establish f o u n d a t i o n . MR; CARR: Counsel, are you saying that this work that Dr. Ford is not a Monsanto employee and that he did not have Brooks review, these documents at the request of 1 Monsanto 2 MR EEINEMAMs. Yes, I don't have any -- I know who 3 Dr Ford is, and I know he is a Monsanto employee. I 4 don't know william K. Brooks from M a m ' s off~ox. I have 5 no idea who he is/ ^ . ' 6 MR. CARR: Yes', why don't you look at the second page 7 It says to Dr.- A. 1 'Fo' 'r' d, su. b.jejct,; j review of health study 8 conducted by University of Cincinnati, June, of '79. 9 Introduction, at your request I have reviewed plant io documents concerning the University of Cincinnati Health 11 Study This short summary with the attached documents 12 should serve to give you an idea of how the study was 13 conducted. This is certainly not a comprehensive report 14 inasmuch as the work was done by St. Louis personnel, 15 particularly Jan Yung. I am sure that she can supply a 16 important information that will fill in the gaps. Doesn't 17 it say that, counsel? Doesn't it say at the request of 18 Dr. Ford, who you do know is a Monsanto person? 19 MR. HEINEMAN: You have read it correctly. 20 MR. CARR: Thank you. 21 MR. HEINEMAN: I have no idea who Mr, Brooks is. 22 THE COURT: Okay. I think, first of all, my 23 decision on whether it's admissible is correct. The 24 foundation has properly been laid, and I don't think it's - 73 - 1- ' 1 ~ , t* i . ^- 1 a i-^T- i-^j F J fc - , r ' ^^ ( - * *`* ** *' -* ' ^ 1 * -r ) i \ analogous to the;,document you referred to from Kemner.. ' .'; ' 2 3 :/ 4 5' 6 I think it13 '-distiriguishable "as /to "the questions of notice and knowledge. Your ^.objection,is overruled. Mr. Carr, '/ x. ,, 'r< ^ v; rS` ;J\ O ." ">' r: - you may well; why 'don !t you proceed after lunch MR. CARR: ,.Yes,, YourHonor. -> A-''- i.AJ "` i,- ./*'i i'-i.' .1 , ., THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, we will break for '- - 7 lunch at this time*. We,will resume again at 1:30. The f" 8 admonishments that 1 have given'you earlier about the . - 9 ; , breaks will apply during this,,break, also. Court is in 10 recess for.lunch -- - -11 ; (At this time a lunch recess was .taken.)1 .12 - ' DR. GEORGE ROUSH, ' , r 13 previously sworn and testifies further as follows: 14 .v CROteS-EXAMINATlOH (Continued) . * *15 BY MR. CARR: " ... :/Y ' j '1 l 16 WO V Q Doctorf there actually are three separate documents , so '` ,17 o in Plaintiff1s Exhibit 1446 j isnt there, sir? First, thereJis i ;18' - one dated August*8/ 1984 that consists of one, two, three. u 1 CD oWzu* 4 1 'L1f9 j - 20 -21 2223 24 ' four pages. It's addressed Vto Dr. Ford, and Dr. Ford is on the environmental policy, staff ,, did you say. Doctor? A ' lYes,^ sir.; 0 V ' "- - 1 1` ' . Q ;And there is that report and then there1s something called a Brooks memo, 1979, on Page -- .it starts at Page CO9860. Do you see that,^ sir? . SAVON NE, N.J. 07002 '*, ''' -V ' - 74 1' 1 A Yes, sir.. v . l\ ' ' r-' P* /, F' " -i 2 Q And. this was `requested by 'Owen' Dolin. Who is Owen 3 Dolin? 4 A He is one of the staff at Nitro. 5 Q All right. And this is a one, two, three, four page 6 memo that has W. Brooks' name to it and then a date, 1979, 7 does it not, sir, this second document? 8 A Yes, sir. 9 Q And it discusses the health study itself, tells 10 the reader of the objectives of the health study and the 11 participation, does it not, sir? 12 A Yes, sir. 13 Q And it goes into -- it describes the physical exam 14 inations that took place and the transportation that was given, 15 the scheduling required, the personnel required and so on, 16 does it not, sir? 17 A Yes, sir. 18 Q There is a statement on Page 9861 that I'd like to 19 ask you just a little bit about. Numbered Paragraph 3 at the 20 top of the page. Do you see that, sir? 21 A The very first paragraph? 22 Q Yes. 23 A Right. 24 Q It talks about the importance that was placed on - 75 - * using the University of Cincinnati group, that is, Suskind's * r`i f A- / v-" A . C .*'r\\ .-,f`.\ 1 *,, < group rather than Monsanto,' does it not, sir? A Yes, sir. ( , Q It states that many people, and. these people, of - course, are the'employees and ex-employees of Monsanto, many people expressed a willingness to participate if they were confident that the study was independent and not,influenced by Monsanto. ,, j r1 * _ A - A w 'Yes,' sir.'' ''.V Q See that, sir? . r K[ ^ ^ '> t_-- v- _ \ _ *` ^ , * A \YS, sir1.. *1 ' V ' m, * rj ' . w" 'X ` Q ` <It goes .. . 1 bn to * se%a yt that even the ,, fracv*t that Monsanto ' . .was covering the cost of the.facility, living expenses of Monsanto -- Cincinnati -- I'm sorry, living expenses of the.; University of.Cincinnati people, transportation, and so forth led some people to believe that Monsanto had. a strong influence! on the study results. ;Do you see that, sir? _ . - A ' Y s 'sir. ;'V' . *' Q Mow, that doesn't include the fact that you know and that we know that Monsanto paid the University of Cincinnati for conducting; these examinations in addition to paying the cost of, the facility, their living expenses and their trans*: portation; it doesn't mention that fact, does it>sir? A Mo, it does'not. ** . - 76--'. - / -J I, >*'*r`i *1 ^1 / Q Were the partici"pa nts in thi-s study of Nitro, were 2 .they not told/ sir; that Monsanto was< actually Suekind for 3 /'. these examinations or were they told simply as this suggests 4 that they were only paying-these the1cost of the facility . 5. * and the living .expenses? * . '6 . '' ' 7 A ;I can't answer that* { Q /m sorry? ,r ;' 8 A I .can't answer that.. L 9 , . Q Have you seen any document-that you can recall in .: io which it is pointed out to the workers,at Nitro that this . 11 12 ' , ` ' 13* . ' ' ' '14 . 15 study is a study that'Monsanto was patying for# that is, was paying, the University of Cincinnati to conduct, and not an independent'study at all?. A As X told you, it was a -- the University of *" 1 -v ' ,' ,^ ' Cincinnati,were told by NIEHS that they-were sponsoring this ; 16 study. :*r* " ' * 17 Q Weil \ ; . ^ \ - - 11 * 18 A The University of Cincinnati said that they covered 19 parts of theexpenses from their own funds because we didn't * 20 have to pay the overhead of_what was required to do the study. - . 21 ' Q You mean you didn't pay the direct salary of the -- ...22 23 I 24 . employees of the University of Monsanto nor did you pay for the cost of the buildings oh the campus of the University of Cincinnati or a part of it where the actual analysis took placer FORM, IL 2 4 B PEN G A D CO,. B A Y O N N E. N.J. 0 70 02 *-;1jj ",,. d 1 that's overhead, isn't thatrright, Dr. Roush?! , 2 A That's .part of it.. ; j 3 Q Dr. Roush, my question was direct to that. Did you 4 .. V ' . ' I. read a document or do-you know whether'or not the workers at 5 Monsanto1s Nitro plant, both retired and currently working, 6 whether or not they were. told, that Monsanto was paying the 7 University of Cincinnati more than just these living expenses, 8 that is, were, paying them a ,ee for >ach person,examined? z1 9 . A ` 1 don't know.1 r, . 10 .11 . Q ` Well, you know whether.or .not -- : let me ask it a i ' ' ^ '" I L different, way.. Is it that; you don't recall ever seeing such 12 a document in which that information was given out or you don't 13 know whether it was all given out,, whether or ;not it was given 14 , * ( j. * out* which.;is it, sir? r* , '11 J v;-` ... \\ 15 A I don't know either way. ; 6 Q Then is it fair to say then that you have noknow 17 ledge that th people were'ever told that Monsanto was paying 18 for this morbidity study,conducted by Suskind^ is that correct, 19 Sir? , ' '*; 1 *' ` ^ ;V;` / '- !' V ' '' 20 ` **' A -X,*don't recall.'. ; .r `' ' \ " 21* Q / All right. Did you-- ifthat.information was not v 22 ' given to the people, do you know whether or nt you would have 23 had the participation ^ a t Lyou had achieved in this case? 24 ' , ` Vr , ' *i l \' , `%r J ` ,* `i ' t r j.,'V - V` ] ,^*^ I J A I can't -- Iidoh'/t know h o w to\answer that. ; f } i j.' _ * _ % j.i t . i\ ''. - 78 - in i 1 .. bavonne, n .j 1 Q W ell, d id you have, any p e o p le th a t - - th is in d ic a te s 2, th a t p eo p le s a id th e y .w o u ld -p a rtic ip a te -if th ey w ere c o n fid e n t .i . 'J' 3 ' th a t th e stu d y w as in d e p e n d e n t. Now, th a t - - and n o t in flu e n c e d 4 ' by M o n san to , an d th e s e p eo p le- a p p a re n tly knew th a t th e s e -- - S som e e x p e n se s \?ere b e in g p a id .; D id you e v e r f in d o u t, d id y o u - 6 over t a l k ^A vt o"r' *Ja n y r b o d y t h r,,af t \ sai 1 * r," d"^ . I am _ h o t; g o i n g t tl\ o pa `r rtic ip a te t 7 i n t h a t s tu d y b e c a u s e i t ' s u n d e r M o n s a n to 's c o n tr o l a n d X d o n 't 8 have co n fid en ce in th e re s u lts ? 9 /- A '* H o y s i r . ' " . 7'' . ' 7 j V- 10 Q " B u t w h a t y o u a r e s a y i n g i s a c t u a l l y y o u h a v e n o - - 11 k n o w l e d g e t h a t a n y b o d y w a s e v e r t o l d , f t h e e x t e n t o f - M o n s a n t o 'n 12 c o n t r o l a n d p a y m e n t f o r t h i s s t u d y , i s t h a t c o r r e c t , s i r ? 13 . A , . I d o n ' t t h i n k w e h a d a n y c o n t r o l o v e r t h i s s t u d y . 14 Q , f D o c t o r , -w e s t a b l i s h e d b e f o r e l u n c h t\ h a t ' y o u h a d a 15 s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r o l i n . t h a t 1y o u s u p p l i e d t h e n a m e s a n d - l i d e n t i t y o f th o s e p e r s o n s t h a t w a re e x p o s e d a n d th o s e p e r s o n s 17 ' w h o w e r e t h e c o n t r o l s , t h a t , i s , w h o w e r e n o t j c p o s e d I t h i n k PENGAO CO... BATONN." N.J. '0 7 0 0 18 , t h a t w e e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t `t h a t i s J a n i m p o r t a n t w a y t h a t t h e 19 o u t c o m e c a n , b e i n f l u e n c e d . D i d n ' t w e e s t a b l i s h t h a t b e f o r e 20 ?1 ' l u n c h* ? - , A, ' ' ,// 7* 7 ` 7 N A n Jd* -'I " P al s t o - '> sa id t . h1 a < t / r ' . ' -j ^ ' J< 22 23 * Q ' E x-_c'v' uVs^ m, 1 1 .,7*; f . ir s p t > o'7f a r i. ' ~\rr.S- l -l ,-,, %. d\ i-v-d-.-v y e >-Jn>; , o t'' e! J s t a b l i s h t h a-%t. ? v A Ho, s ir ; : ''' 24 Q W e d i- d7n ' t -t ,er7s t a< vb l vi s-7h'-: 7t h a' t *? v ` ;V; /' ` 7 - : 7 - 79.- '* V : :s.'- ; ^ 7 V 1 A No, sir. 2 Q You did not agree, Dr. Roush, that the ability to 3 call somebody unexposed when in fact they did have an exposure 4 to influence the outcome, the results of the study? 5 A I don't believe that influenced the outcome. 6 Q The question is didn't you agree, sir, that it T could influence the outcome? 8 A ' Yes, sir. 9 Q And we did establish that, didn't we, sir? 10 A That it could, yes, air. 11 Q You are simply saying that in your judgment the 12 fact that you had that Hind of control in your opinion did not 13 influence the outcome of the study; isn't that correct, sir? 14 A That's part of it. 15 Q Dr. Roush, on that part of it you do know that there 16 were people,, that had exposure to some degree of 2,4,5-t that 17 were counted as unexposed; you know that, Dr. Roush, do you 18 not, sir? 19 A N0 , 1 don11. 20 Q You don't' know that? j vi ' " 1 * < - / i k 21 A NO. | j n( ,, 1 22 Q I thought we established that you did know that. 23 A No, I didn't. 24 * 4 ' ^ t i( r Q Well, don't you know'that maintenance and utility 80 1 workers were put into the unexposed groupV and the foreman 2 of the janitors, or do you know it? 3 A No, I don't. 4 Q All right. What.you^did, you took it upon my -- 5 ray statement to you that if those people were in fact in the 6 unexposed group, that they had exposure is what you agreed to? 7 A They may have. . 8 Q , You.are not saying that you have any knowledge that 9 that was done in fact? 10 A No. If they included those, that would mean that 11 they were exposed.r 12 Q I'm sorry? 13 A Even if they include the maintenance workers, that 14 doesn't mean that they were exposed, because some of the 15 maintenance workers didn't work in that unit. 16 Q X understand that, Doctor, but what my suggestion to 17 you is is that if they included, for instance, the foreman of 18 the janitors in,an'unexposed'group, for him to appropriately 19 or properly perform his duties he of necessity has to go check 20 on janitors that are working'in the 2,4,5-t department, does 21 he not, sir? * * *- , i 22 A I don't know. 1 23 Q Dr. Roush, what you are saying, at least what I 24 believe you are saying is you don't know whether he went into - 81 - 1 that department or'.not., 2. . " A That's "right.,.; " 1r 3. . Q My question doesn't ask you for that knowledge. My,, . ff , vj 1 - - . 'u 4 question suggests to you-that a janitor'-- a janitor's foreman 5 who properly did his job. would go, into, such a department, 6 isn't that correct, sir?,; v,, \ 7 ; *.&R. HEINEMAN: -,Excuse m e ,.Your Honor.. 1 111 object . 8'. The *. premise " h e b i obviously ' askir ng for spe, culiation on the 9 , witness's part. He says, okay, if you don't know,,then 10 * would lit, could it:./ , r^ > n THE-COURT: Objection is.'overruled, i .don't thinklit calls 1*2 for speculation. /Answer the. question, .please. Dr. Roush.' 13 A It could, it could., 14 ' Q . And-you say that, Doctor, because a foreman is 15 supposed to check.up on the workers, and?see whether or hot 16 ,, they do a good job,of c 1eahing up 'and' to tell them, where to * '. * i-j 'vii\ ,,/'}* ?i' "r 1": ` ". ; 17 . ... - ,f . - <;, v * \ A s M ; ... . -clean and how 'to/ciea^|:,tha^ls^'a /foreman's-job, and his job-, 18 is to go see" if.*1t.'hej'iy', *'ref,Vi*wo!lr1 ki_nf.|g` il'ns>t,e>a*d-. 'of slee.p,ing, isn't' / - 19 . that a foreman's job? : * ;; 20 " . A ' Not necessarily;'; /vV. ,">-> '-v(v r, f .v v' - ^ 21 Q , Well,, it's not necessarily his job, but you know 22 those are among the duties of a foreman, that is,, to assign 23 the work to the workers, to see that they'do the work and1then 24 to check to;see if the work has been done properly. That's - 82 - 1 what a foreman is, isn't it, sir? 2 A Each foreman has his own kind of an assignment* 3 It's hard for us to predict of speculate what they do* 4 Q Doctor, I am not asking you to speculate what they 5 did. All Z am asking you is to agree that you know that the 6 duties of a foreman include those things that X have stated. 7 Now, whether or not he performs his duties X am not asking you, S because you obviously have no such knowledge. All I am asking 9 you to agree is that you know that that's what a foreman is 10 supposed to do* X am not asking you does he do it. 11 A X don't know that X believe what you have just said 12 is correct, that the foreman has the responsibility to do that. 13 Q You don't think a foreman has that -- what do you 14 think a foreman does, Dr* Roush? . 15 A Which foreman? V 16 Q The foreman of the janitors* 17 ' ;V A The foreman of the plant and operations is the one 18 who decides what maintenance is required for that unit, what 19 cleaning is required and how it's done and who does...it. 20 Q What does the foreman of the janitors do? 21 A He probably has responsibility for the offices, not 22 the plant. 23 Q No, this is the foreman of the janitors in the plant, 24 Dr* Roush. You misunderstood me. X meant the foreman over all 83 I the plant, the foreman of the janitors over the plant, sir. 2 A That X don't know. 3 Q Don't you know that if he does his job properly, he 4 would check to see if they cleaned up where they're supposed to* 5 A The responsibility of that is the foreman of the 6 plant 7 Q And the foreman of the janitors has no responsibility 8 to check? 9 A Not in the plant. 10 Q He's got workers in the plant, sir, he's foreman II over the janitors in the plant. What does he do then if he 12 doesn't check and see that they do their work? 13 A X don't think th^ janitor's staff has anything to 14 do out in the plant. 15 Q Doctor, I have given you the suggestion that the 16 janitors -- the foreman is the janitor over the janitors in 17 the plant, and you are not accepting that. 18 A And X don't, that's right. 19 Q Well, but, Doctor, the documents that X am referring 20 to describe the gentleman in question as a foreman of the 21 janitors in the manufacturing plant. Now would you please 22 accept that, sir? 23 A If that's a correct statement, then I accept it. 24 Q Now that foreman, for him to do his job, he's got to 84 1 go out into the plant where the workers are supposed to clean 2 up, doesn't he, sir? 3 A 1 don't know. 4 Q Vou don't know that, either? 5 A No. '6 Q How could he do his job if he didn't check up on the 7 A Because the plant foreman is the one who checks up. 8 The maintenance and the cleanliness of each one of the plants 9 is the responsibility of that foreman from the plant, not the 10 janitor. 11 Q . You know that's the situation at Nitro? 12 A At every plant I've been in. 13 Q And that's the situation at Nitro, that the foreman 14 of the janitors there has no'responsibility over the janitors IS that work for him in the entire plant? 16 A It's my impression, yes, sir. 17 Q Doctor, why would they call him a foreman of the 18 janitors in the entire plant? 19 A Because there is a lot of things about cleaning up 20 a plant besides inside th plant. ; 21 Q Well, I understand that, sir, but it would include 22 that, would it not, sir? 23 A No. 24 0 The foreman of the janitors would not include the 85 1 person that --- the people , the janitors that go into the plant 2 itself? 3 A No. 4-, Q Even though the document described that as what he 5 ` does, is that correct, sir? 6 A Yes 7 ' Q And you are saying the document doesn't properly 8 describe his duties? .' . 9 A That *s:right. \ . > . \ : ; "i* 1 * \ ' ' ' \ ' ' 10 Q And you are saying you know morer,about the man -- 11 , well, X haven't got the document here, so that's hot fair, but 12 if he describes his duties as X have suggested, who'd have 13 the greater knowledge, he or you', Doctor? 14 A He does. X am giving you my impression of .what X 15 think takes place. . ' 16 Q Well, Doctor, I don't want to get - beau: on this 17 1' " ' / because we've got documents that will describe his duties IS rather than your impression, and I've spent too much time on 19 this point already, but the point that we're taking is that 20 people can have some exposure, and if they're in the unexposed 21 group, they're inappropriately;:clas'sike.4aren't they, sir? 22 A Yes, sir 23 Q And that is the control that Monsanto had over this 24 study as we have established before, that is, the classificati< 86 I o these workers, isn't that correct, sir? 2 A That's the initial control. 3 Q Yes. Now, Doctor, referring now to the document 4 dealing with the porphyria, if you would, sir, that's No. 9864. 5 Brooks among other things reported at that time as to what 6 porphyria is, did he not, sir? 7 A Yes! sir.' 'y >; . J -v 1 -v 8 Q . And he said in his report that the purpose of this 9 report is to highlight the porphyria classifications associated 10 with the exposure to chlorinated hydrocarbons, TCDD in parti 11 cular,. doesn't he/ `sir?-- '' : 12 A -Yes. 13 Q Now this recognizes then t&at Monsanto knows ofcyn 14 somebody at Monsanto knows that porphyria is associated with 15 exposures to TCDD, is that correct, sir? 16 A Yes, sir. This is a medical student. 17' Q Sir? * 18 A This is medical student who wrote this. 19 Q All right You know who he is now? 20 A Yes, sir. - , 21 Q Is that right? 22 A Yes, sir. X checked oyer t h e ,lunch hour 23 Q And he ws working in *79 for Monsanto? 24 A Yes, sir. - 87 1 Q And was he still a medical student in 1984? 2 A No, he was an industrial hygiehist-atNitrowhennhe 3 was reporting -- in the early work he was an industrial 4 hygienist. The first part, as you have noted, in '84 was 5 written while he was a medical student,in summer school, and 6 this last part on porphyria was also written while he was a 7 medical student. 8 Q Well, he worked in 1979 at the Nitro -- for Nitro? 9 A Right. - 10 Q What was he at that time? II A Industrial hygienist. 12 Q Be was an industrial hygienist? 3 A Yes, sir. 14 Q What was his background to become an industrial 15 hygienist? What was he, sir? 16 A I don't know whether he had any background for 17 industrial hygiene. No. Or hot. He could have been a 18 technician, industrial hygiene technician. 19 0 Well, he was a Monsanto employee -- 20 A Yes. 21 Q Buttwas:called an industrial hygienist? 22 A .Yes, sir. 23 Q At that time? 24 A Yes, sir. 88 1 Q And you don't know what his background was at that 2 time? 3 A No, sir. ** t' '\ \ 4 Q Did he continue working for Monsanto and go to Med 5 School then at night or day? ^ 6 A No, sir. No, no, this was a summer job. 7 Q I 'm sorry?. ,. i 8 A . It was a summer * he worked for us during the 9 summer between semesters. 10 Q All right. How long was he a full time employee of 11 Monsanto before he started to Med School? 12 A I don't know. 13 0 He was a full time employee in 1979? 14 A I am sure he was. IS Q When he made the report, and then he was a med 16 student in 1984 when he reviewed the health study that had 17 been conducted in June, of a79, is that right? 18 A I think so. 19 0 All right. And he was paid by Monsanto for doing 20 the work as an industrial hygienist in 1979 and for the work 21 that he did in 1984? . 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q Was he still called an industrial hygienist in 1984, 24 was that his job classification? 89 1 A No, sir. . 2 Q What was his job classification at that time, sir? 3 A Summer student. 4 G Well, he's not a student at Monsanto. He's a student 5 at a medical sch,ol ol. ?Wrhat* was. his rjob classification at 6 Monsanto? 7 A X don't know. S Q He was doing the same work in '84 that he had done 9 in '79, was he not, sir? 10 A Ho, sir. 11 Q Doctor, he gave you a report in 1979 that is the 12 second document attached hereto dealing with the health study, 13 did he not, sir? 14 A Yes, sir. 15 Q And then in 1984 he reviewed that health study, did 16 he not, sir, the same health study that he reviewed and 17 discussed in 1979? 18 A Yes, sir 19 Q All right. Now, this porphyria component of this 20 report, sir, shows that he at Monsanto recognized that porphyri 21 had an association from exposure to chlorinated phenols and 22 TCDD in particular, isn't that correct, sir? 23 4 * A Yes, sir. 24 0 And he reviewed the literature concerning porphyria - 90 - 1 and TCDD for you, did he not, sir? 2 A Not for me. , 3 Q By y o u ! mean Monsanto, Dr.. Roush. '. r t`` ' 4 A 'Tes, sir. 5 Q Sir? 6` A Yes, sir. 7 Q And he reported to Monsanto on th results of his 8 review, did he not, sir? 9 A Yes, sir. 10 According to this report. 11 A Yes, sir. 12 Q And if you'll turn to Pag 9873, after he got through 13 discussing the various genetic forms of porphyria he discusses 14 a -- in a paragraph called TCDD in porphyria, doesn't he, sir? 15 A Yes, air. 16 Q And in there he says that in the last ten years 17 there have been a lot of discussions in the literature on the 18 effects of YCDD on the liver of the individuals exposed, doesn1 19 he, sir? 20 A Yes, sir. 21 Q. And he says that the information generated by the 22 study in animals as well as in human epidemiological- studies. is 23 at times contradictory and has created confusion concerning 24 the actual role TCDD plays, if any, in hepatic injury and in - 91 - i` > 1 porphyria, doesn't he^ sir? , .. * , . _ .; i/ .; - ;t-r 2 MR. HEINEMANi Excuse me. Your Honor, There is a 3 very substantial phrase that was left out of what Mr, 4 Carr read there, After confusion comes the :(&t<least for 5 mo) ^-concerning..the actual role that TCDD plays, if any. 6 MR* CARR; Thank you, counsel. X am glad you 7 created that -- pointed that out. 8 Q He does point out that at least for him there is 9 some confusion concerning the actual role TCDD plays, if any, 10 in hepatic injury and in porphyria, doesn't he, sir? 11 A Yes, sir, 12 Q Now, Doctor, he then went on to dividerthe13 available information into two separate what he called 14 theoretical camps, correct, sir? 15 A Yes, he does. 16 Q He points out that in one theory supported by Dr* 17 Poland and by Goldstein, that it comes about through aryl 18 hydrocarbon hydroxylase, mixed function oxidases and cyto 19 chrome P-450 effects by the TCDD in the liver, correct, sir? 20 A Yes. 21 Q He also points out that it's not clear how 22 inducement of those named enzyme systems leads to porphyria, 23 doesn't he, sir? 24 A Yes, sir. 92 1 Q But he also points out that the -- a report on the 2 health effects of Agent Orange makes the statement that ALA 3 synthetase is induced by TCDD, but no reference is given to 4 support that particular conclusion, isn't that right, sir? 5 A Yes * 6 Q Then he goes on to discuss the theory posed;'by Dose, V 7 Strik, Centen and Colimbi as to the -- how TCDD affects the 8 porphyrins, doesn't he, sir? 9 A Yes, but X am not sure they are the prime components, 10 but they are part of it* 11 Q And he points out that Doss and Strik -- well, 12 Doss' premise as used by Strik and Colivmbi have the premise 13 that secondary coproporphyrinuria is described as a progression 14 of impairment with the normal pattern of copro greater than 15 uro to finally it comes down to progressing to a uro greater 16 them copro, doesn't it, sir? 17 A Yes. 18 Q Now what he is saying again deals with the same r 19 inverted ratio of copro and uro. that was mentioned by you and 20 discussed by Dr. Kenate Kimbrough in the Biohazards committee 21 meeting that we discussed this morning, isn't that correct, sis 22 A Isn't what correct? 23 ' Q The inverted ratio pointed out by Strik here or 24 Doss here is the same inverted ratio that you saw Renate . % ^ ; ' ::r' ^ 93/- ' ; ! . 11' \ \ . 1 Kimbrough pointed out 2 A I'm not sure what it means by inverted ratio* 3 Q Well, inverted ratio means that ordinarily copro 4 is there greater than uro, but after exposure to TCDD it. 5 progresses to a point where the uro then is greater than the 6 copro* That*s what that means, doesn't it. Dr* Roush? 7 A It could be also -- it just means that the 8 uroporphyrin is increased and the other one Is not increased* 9 Q Well, you have the symbol there that the uro there 10 is greater than the copro* You see that, don't you, sir? 11 A Yes, sir* 12 Q And when the uro is greater than the copro, that's 13 extraordinary, that is, it's different than ordinary, where 14 the ordinary thing is that copro is greater than uro? 15 A. Yes, sir* 16 Q And that's exactly what Renate Kimbrough told you 17 at the meeting of January -- well, that told you that you 18 reported in January, of 1983, that is, that's inverted, and 19 you know what inverted means, it means turned upside down. 20 A Yes, but you see my problem is I am not sure that's 21 right. The uroporphyrins can -- 22 Q Doctor, I am not; asking you to accept the validity 23 'p r; ''*`i or the truth of any of these things, because X understand 24 J1 " ** * v Monsanto's position* Monsanto's position, is that only - 94 - 1 chloracne is the only thing that can be caused by exposure to 2 TCDD. I am not asking you to agree that this is correct. All 3 1 am simply asking you is that these documents make these 4 statements, sir, do they not# sir? 5 A Yes# they do. 6 Q And your Dr. Brooks -- well, he's not a doctor -- 7 your industrial hygienist Brooks makes the statement that he 8 thinks that ,TCDD's effect upon the liver is probably a 9 combination of both theories# doesn't he# sir# that is# the 10 enzyme induction and an Inhibition of the uroporphyrin -- 11 uroporphyrinogen decarboxylase# doesn't he# sir? 12 A That's what he says. 13 Q And he attaches references to the work that he gave 14 you# one of which includes Strik's Chemical Porphyria in Man# 15 doesn't he# sir? 16 A Yes# sir. 17 Q Now# Doctor# you at Monsanto undertook an analysis 18 of some workers# of their porphyrins at the Nitro plant at 19 Nitro# West .Virginia, did you not# sir, in 1984? 20 A 'Yes,'sir. '' |i f} ' ^ 21 G And as a matter of fact# you went to Minnesota to 22 the Mayo's Clinic for that purpose, didn't you# sir# in 23 January, of '84? 24 A For what purpose? 95 1 Q To discuss with Dr. Ellefson the porphyrins in the 2 urinary porphyrin levis of one hundred and one Nitro 3 litigants, didn't you, sir? 4 A X didn't go there for that'purpose. 5 Q Doctor, did you go1:to Mayo Clinic in January, of 6 1984? 7 A Ves, sir. 8 Q And did you not visit with Dr. Ellefson on January 9 1984? 10 A Yes, sir. 11 Q And did you not discuss with him porphyrin analyses 12 of twenty-six of the one hundred and one Nitro litigants 13 wwere twenty-six at least urinary porphyrins? 14 A No, sir. 15 Q Doctor, perhaps you have forgotten it, or perhaps 16 my question isn't framed in a way that you might technically 17 respond to it. 18 MR. CARRjr Would you m a r k `that, please. ' * < #f J> 19 (At this time Plaintiff's Exhibit 1447 was marked 20 for identification.) ' 21 Q I hand you now what's been marked Plaintiff's 22 Exhibit 1447 and ask you if you recognize that as a letter 23 dated January 11, 1984 that you wrote to Dr. Ralph Ellefson? 24 A Yes, sir. 96 1 Q Now, does it refresh your memory about your 2 meeting with him, Doctor? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q Yes, And you sent to Dr, Ellefson copis of the 5 porphyrin determinations in question, didn't you, sir? 6 A Yes, sir, 7 Q Now, were you aware, : r.ot at the time you were 8 talking to him, sir, that we had been involved in taking his 9 evidence deposition, that is, Monsanto was taking his 10 evidence deposition for use in this case and we, that is, the 11 plaintiffs/, oh, r,o, in this case were involved in cross 12 examining Dr, Ellefson with regard to those findings? 13 A No, sir. 14 Q You had no knowledge that we were there and were 15 doing that? 16 A I went to see a hopatologist. t 17 Q When did you first make contact with Dr. Ellefson, 18 sir, prior to January 11, 1984? > fc I-1' - - 19 A I didn't. 20 Q Well then, was January 11, 1984 your first contact -- 21 A Yes, sir. 22 Q -- with Dr. Ellefson either by telephone or any other 23 way? 24 A I had no contact with him. - 97 - 1 Q Doctor, you had a contact with him by virtue -- you 2 acknowledged this letter of January 11, 1984 Was that your 3 first -- you had a contact with Dr. Ellefson, did you not, sir? 4 A I have trouble with timing on dates. My first time 5 going to Mayo Clinic was to talk to a liver man and I was 6 going to talk about porphyrin metabolism. 7 Q Doctor, all X am asking you is your contact with Dr. 8 Ellefson was that you had a contact with him, did you not, sir?1 9 A Yes 10 Q Was the first contact that you had with.him that 11 contact of January 11, 1984 that's described in this exhibit? 12 A X can't say, X don't know. 13 Q All right. Are;,youv.saying that you may have had an 14 earlier contact with him? 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Q But you do knew that.you had a contact with him -- 17 - . * ., * * r t't* A Yes, sir. 18 Q On this date?l '; 19 A Yes, sir. 20 MR. CARR: Wow, would you mark this 1447-A. 21 (At this time Plaintiff's Exhibit 1447-A was marked 22 for identification.) 23 Q I hand you now what's been.marked Plaintiff's 24 Exhibit 1447-A and ask you if you recognize that as a paper 93 1 porphyrin -- * entitled Porphyrin Abnormalities that yon 2 prepared and sent to Dr. Ellefson, or that you had prepared, 3 whether you did it personally or not, I don't know. 4 A Yes, sir. 5 ' MR. CARR: Might .1/have another .one marked 1447-A. - r' , ; i6 ,,(At this time Plaintiff's Exhibit 1447-A was marked 7 for identificati.oLln;L')r\ Vj - 8 Q Doctor, you recognize 1447-A as a blowup of that *. * \ J w ur *r' 9 document 14477 ' 10 A Yes. II MR. CARR: Oh, I have already got it marked. I'm 12 sorry. Cancel that marking if it please the Court. 13 We.have already used this. This document ;-- it's 14 Plaintiff's Exhibit: 1433 is a blowup of 1447-A, is it not? 15 A Yes, sir. .16 MR. CARR: Offer these exhibits, Your Honor. 17 THE COURTr 33 hasn't been admitted before? 18 MR. CARR: I'm sure it has, so I'll offer 1447 and * 19 1447-A. 20 THE COURT: Do you have any objections? 21 MR, CARR: Just to be on the safe side, I'll offer 22 1433 also. Your Honor, just in case X haven't offered it. 23 THE COURT: Fine, okay. 24 MR.. HEINEMAN: Your Honor, we would only make the - 99, - 1 objection I think that we previously made with respect 2 to the relevancy of the Nitro v/orkers, none of whom were '' ,i r ' ,, tr h ' , - .r 3 exposed to any orthochlorophenol crude. 4 THE COURT:' Fine. That's for all three, is that >" % ? 5 correct? -j / ./H ; i- . _. ; ' 6 MR. HEXNEMAN: Yes, yes, sir. Oh, that's right-- i . J 7 t , - k ! '- 1433 Is being -- 8 THE COURT: Yes, it is. 9 MR. HEIHEMAN: And that's identical with 1447-A? 10 THE COURT: Yes, right, just a blowup of it. 11 MR. HEINEMAN: My objection to' all three is based 12 on the relevancy which this Court has previously ruled 13 upon -- 14 THE COURT: Yes, 1 have. 15 MR. HEINEMANs And X wish it to be made a continuing 16 objection with the Court's permission. 17 THE COURT: Yes, that objection is incorporated. 18 The three exhibits are admitted over objection. You may 19 proceed, Mr. Carr./ 20 Q Doctor, directing your attention to this board 21 entitled porphyrin abnormalities, at what laboratory were 22 these tests conducted, ch, ;*io. the results of which are shown 23 on this board? 24 A At the Mayo Clinic. 100 1 Q And when where .these urine,samples tested, sir? \ *l * *1s t * 1 2 A I don't remember* I don't recall. 3 Q Well, could you give us your best memory, air? 4 Obviously sometime prior to January, of '84, 5 A A sheer guess;wduld be at,least eight or ten months 6 before that* 7 Q All right. Then it would be sometime in mid-83, is 8 that correct, sir? 9 A I would think that's right. 10 Q And how many urine samples did you send to Mayo II Clinic for analysis? 12 A We didn't send any of these. 13 Q Well, let me ask it a different way. How many urine 14 samples were sent to Mayo Clinic for analysis? 15 A Of these? 16 Q These are part of atotal group that had been sent 17 to Mayo's for analysis,risn't that correct? 18 A Yes 19 Q Now, I want to know how many were sent of which this 20 is a partial group at that time, at sometime prior to January, 21 of f84 when you sent them, sir? 22 A I didn't send any of these. 23 Q When -- all right. When the samples, when the urine 24 samples were sent, sir. - 101 ; ; `7 f7 ' \., * * * *ji''.-,,;l--;\1-J-/.rV>i-*.f*'"7.*.`li-.i-1,j*.ir*>f1i'-ivV->-VU#'iy.1-.rJ:*(f:t V,j*'*:-.j-f?"."--'V`!ifi.;t7l^'.T7fa.`tV'r4-T-.,'1"i_1j,.`* ' . . .r , . .. ..*;k,..`.' i~, .^'-r,* . ! v 7 . 7 A ' -j-11,,- ', t j,,r' ^ _/J'\ s'.''' ^ 't Those Were' aliC Nitro/data ;that were given to mo to 'Lr1 vJ:ilVt '.t..- "ik1-'j tV--V^"'A'/r. .jT,lh *- ' , *'I ' see what I thought ;of them. Jk-^ ' . , 3 -'' ^' .'-rir '? (' 'V Q Doctor,.rayvguestlon is when^were the urine samples \ * ' , `T 4 s e n t t o M a y p ? > ' ','.- : ' ( \ ' ^ . '' /" '.. 5 A . T hese? I h a d n o p a r t in sen d in g any o f th e s e in 11 , - { 6 , t h e N i t r p . l a w s u i t t o M a y o c l i n i c . { T h e s e w e r e d o n e b y t h e ' X" . j; 7 p e o p l e a t N i t r o , i rv/V-:V. ';; : J - *'"J . ;8 : ' Q .-yA l ^l rig h t , r A -nV d. :*,m y 'q u eL s t. i ;o n is , s'i r , *w .hie n ' H''*it>f ' . 'i.i 1,.. , v >' -Vi * - ', ii ', ...9 ' d o n e ? \ r`;v'.V '"-7 v' /"./"`''i- ^ {'*',,/ ; w ere ,.J t^h e y'.t ,t V 7- : * ' < 10 . A ` r I d o n 11 k n o w *1^ ' 7 i`; ' ii ; Q 'A n d h o w m a n y w e r e s e n t ? - ' ; ,. - y .7 A ;, I . c a n ' t g e t i t frofa t h i s . u. : o r d e r o f a h u n d r e d *a v : th in k so m eth in g o n th e ; `. ' 14 i . Q. A l l ,r i g h t . ^ t o d V ^ D o o t o r - , t h e s e a r e - . ^ p o r p h y r i n - .' '1''<5? - a b n o r m a l i t i e s t h a t w e r e r e p o r t e d -- b a c k u p a m o m e n t . T h e *J iSt L .jr1 6 j ?.N i t 'r o l i ti gva^>n vtPs ,J-,^t h e sr'er;`ov\n"e.ih',,u n d ^ re d N'1i t r Jo"l lit ig . a n t s^ we r e v e ith e r V.S . , - t, ' ' * '^ " , V1 ' / - <v'-. , * i O*o" ' ,-*,.;,`.17I*,-rJ\ -.a ll r ; -- .t h e y ' a re -\ a l l e it h e r p r e s e n t o r p a s t M o nsan to e m p lo y e e s, jjsf1r`- - - * '*>J - f* > '^ ' 2' 18 - 7 ^. * * U 1- r1 { t* ' 7 7 ' 1 7'" . O rji t L'1 y. w ere "" t h e y n" 1 o t , -p s i r ?, r i, - ' ^* " ..1 ,, - 7 { L % ^ A V e s / s i r . ' ' . ,- 'w " *,, ^4 *- : - 7 'i ' t. ,. 1< . ' V. ' ' , , " '/ r. tfV ; 5 V " 20'. '; * L. ' ^ ' v U' . X * Uf > \ \ '*r 21-7 7 Qr\ p e rso n s fc A n d s o m e o f -\ t hr' e s e" i J ', wL e r e , if h of t a lj ` l of t h e s e -L w e r e ' e x p o se d in 'th e s is,49 a c c id e n t a t H itro , W est V irg in ia ,^ 7 ' ?2* ' . . i s n ' t t h a t c o r r e c t , s i r ? 7 7 'l r'. 1 . . 23' [ .L 24,' " J t-- 7,- ' > A I .d o n 't know . , -7 : ^ rr Q . W e l l / y o u . r e c o g n i s e m a n y :o f r th e m n a m e s , d o n ' t y o u , 1 sir, as being those persons, that were'in the Nitro accident, 2 McCoy, for instance, Painter. Many of these names are persons 3 that were in the Nitro accident; you do know that, don't you, 4 sir? 5 A No. 6 Q You don't recognize these names, sir? 7 A No, I wasn't a part of this. 8 Q I don't think I 've got that list of one hundred 9 and twenty-two litigants with me, but'I may have. Doctor, 10 these -- if these -- well, you do know that many of the 11 litigants were, involved in th 1949 accident? 12 A Yes. 13 Q You do know that, don't you, sir? All right. Now, 14 these were people that were exposed, many of them on a -- on 15 a -- just to the 2,4,5-t and its contaminants in that accident 16 in 1949, some thirty-five years before these porphyrins were 17 tested, isn't that correct, sir? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q Now, Doctor, a porphyrin abnormality that lasts for 20 thirty-five years is not a short range reversible abnormality, 21 is it, sir? 22 A NO. 23 Q Doctor, these are twenty-six people out of a hundred 24 that have one or more porphyrin abnormalities, isn't that - 103 - Vv ' 1;/ c o r r e c t .2 i k ti l ^ J- './ f4 ***?- ' 1 r -*--V () * v -Vj ,, - ' J -1 , J| "^ `` ^ * . ^ , #J ( g ^ * 'v _ ,> ` ' ' ,,',, <1*i 1. ., i4 *.'*t r V J 1,- i1Jx(41 - **f->*._ ?'\^ni^l'.'V?.LA1-*,,T, ,!v*f ,, , 's-J J ' ^ ii ` , mf-* ? ' 'S * " * *- N;\ l.,** *, ' ' J'k Jfc ,'1 r *. % v- ' _\ \ 'V,J * l^ ^ L 1 sir? .T i ; ^ ` \ " , -, v. ' ,1- .' , ' J "< ^ ` Borderline abnormal. ,; / .V ,,/ '*-/., ^ '* J# " * v i. r \r 3 Q, E K c u s e m e , Doc t o r , a r e _they, r e p o r t e d as porphyrin.. ,,4 a b n o r m a l i t i e s b r tn6t?. . y ^ y ^ Y . '^,r _.v- * .. : J' V- 5 ; y A 'v Ji;es. , .*V' (1. ' r; ',Ju _`: ^ f 6 9 , A n d it is- t he - i t is, y o u r h a n d w r i t i n g a t the top 7 o f t he page/ t h a t calls' t h e m p o r p h y r i n a b n o r m a l i t i e s ? , 8k ' 9f* y; .''Yvevs'/,- *.s,ir; * T Q ' rSir?;. ^ - -S, "t. -- ,. ;^` 10/ ' V,."1-*V' /' Av; '.`es'i/sir.; / `^ 1, j *' i'1 . . -' ' ' . ^ j 11 ; .'q ,* ?r*r ; ;Y o u d i d n 't Ls a y they are borderline porphyrin . 12 abnormalities,, d i d you, s i r ? y ` 13 . A - K o , ' `sir.' _ i;v , , . J .V 14 Q 'You,said p o r p h y r i n a b n o r m a l i t i e s , 1 d i d n 't you, s i r ? ; 15' ' A Yes,.'`sir-. - 7 ' /' . ''J,_ 'j . ^ t 1 . *' 16 , Y ' Q yIl' right.- A n d t h e s e ' t w e n t y - s i x p e o p l e h a v e w h a t 17 y o u h e r e c h a r a c t e r i z e d :as' p o r p h y r i n .abnormalities, d i d n 11 they, 18' !.,.sir? ' 1 f 1 ^ *'*' ^ y y"',, 1 r ^. t* ' H l ," , 1t * ,, 1J ^ 19 1 ' A .r Yes;, sir. .y y -u f " jN _ " , .T t, `u 'v.y : Y v . 'L- J_ ,, t J -, ' . ' "' y ,2 0 Q That's twent-six;percent 6f th One hundred litigant 21 r . is that correct,; sir?; -/ 'r v 1 22:" ' . A /Yes>,sir. Y Y.. ' * "'Y. 23 / ' Q*. ' And, Doctor-,, if t h e s e , p o r p h y r i n a b n o r m a l i t i e s h a v e 24 L. e x i s t e d f o r .t h i r t y - f i v ^ y a r s , w i l l - y o u riot n ow agree, sir,- *y/ . "v H_- , * ;> , y ,'^y y. *-j. r. . r-. t.? v^4;V;-ilQ4/-i* :L y ; : .. v-., Ly j;v yv-" * y ^ y ; '' 'i''.-if''' ' 1' ,.'2 \ ,3 ; -'".4 `5 having this information in hand that chloracne is not the only possible.result fromexposure to'TCDD? . A If these are indeed related.to that exposure. u\ 1 j. 7l / j ',,. . f, , ,, , Q And do youhhave any knowledge that these abnormalities, arc not related to that exposure? '6 A Jam not sure that .these aren't just variations on, / 'j,;'- \ /' \ . v- . "I '. _- 1 ,7 'range of normal. / y 8 ;Q * Doctor, that isn't"what I've asked you. You are now 9-, ; discussing.whether they ate or re not abnormalities. You 10 have characterized them yourself in your own handwriting as ;11 porphyrin abnormalities, and I am not now discussing that with 1 12 ;j; ri '*- 1 > ;.v: ` ^ 1' / " `` ` you. Khajb^X have asked you -- could you read that question to ift ' 3 him so that he .can understand the question that I have asked him, 14 - IS . 16 `17 " ' COURT ,f REP'OR- T1ER*: "And *' do; youhave ^L any ,kno-wVledge, that ,` ^ J* r , -J *' ' 1 these -abnormalities are. n o t ,related to that exposure?B *.7 , ` 'v `7 J; " /V/.. ' _./* 'r\>. , A, VYes,', V. ./V J ,, r ` "> ' p * 1 'k^ k * 'l _* ' J^ V` * - ' " 7 ", '* V `L ' T( ,, ,Q And' what is .that knowledge, Doctor? - - / 18, A jPThat. this ir--v.that they uar just extensions of the , 19; - normal range." .. " " , 7 - ; 20 21 ; 22 23 . 24 Q Doctor,,, that'isn't wht I've asked you. These what :you have characterised as porphyrin abnormalities, do you have any knowledge that this that have characterised as porphyrin abnorma.lit*i',;e.Ls -'a',i'r!~!e-\\,n\o~tV.'7t`.hj.7e''-rdBn^" l. t7r'`ofyj '' t he^l^^. exposure? R , This harigs oh'rthVtprd bhprmiity.... , '\-y-V <y JV-.t !V : .. . >, , j 1: ` i"- ' ' BAYONE. 'N.-J. ' 7001 1 MR. CARR: I think my question is clear, and I don't 2 want to get,-into an argument with the witness. I have 3 asked him precisely these porphyrin abnormalities that 4 he has described as porphyrin abnormalities, this that 5 you have described here as porphyrin abnormalities, Dr. 6 Roush, do you have any knowledge that these results which 7 you have characterised, which you have characterized as 8 porphyrin abnormalities are not the results of a 1949 9 exposure? 10 A Yes* 11 Q What is that knowledge, sir? 12 A The range of normals of Ellefson on which this is 13 based. 14 MR. CARR: Your Honor, the witness is not answering 15 my question. I posed it three times. 16 JTHE COURT: Dr. Roush, you have to answer the questi 17 as it is directly posed to you* How, I'll have the Court 18 Reporter read it back one more time. Please listen to it 19 carefully and answer what is asked of you. It has been 20 asked a couple times and explained. Would you please 21 .read back the. question. 22 M R . H E IN E M A N : . ' M a y I m a k e a n o b j e c t i o n f o r t h e 23 record. Your Honor, I would object to counsel's .* , . ' 24 r e q u e s t a n d 't h e p r o c e d u r e ' i n i t i a t e d b y t h e C o u r t o n t h e - 106 - ] grounds that I believe the witness is having trouble 2 with the word -- with the implication by Mr. Carr that 3 the designation of abnormality is his and that's what is 4 concerning him, I believe, based upon what he began to say 5 and therefore, 1 object to his being required to answer 6 that question without having an opportunity to explain 7 that1problem that he has. 8 THE COURT: Well, your objection is overruled. 9 Humber One, the question doesn't hinge on that. Humber 10 Two, the question also included when rephrased the word 11 results, which is a-more neutral term which takes into 12 its scope this data that's reported on 1447-A at Number 3, 13 The difference between the two has been explained by Mr. 14 Carr when he re-asked the question. Your objection is . 15 overruled. I think the question is clear. I 'll have the 16 Court Reporter read it back one more time and then, Dr. 17 Roush, you are to answer the question. Could you read the 18 initial question back, please. 1? COURT REPORTER: "And do you have, any knowledge that 20 these abnormalities are'not related to that exposure?" 21 A No.' 22 THE COURT: I 'm-sorry, I didn't hear your answer. 23 A No. ,` 24 THE COURT: Thank you. 107 1 Q Now, Dr Roush, in addition to the -- * strike that. 2 This exposure that thirty-five -- that occurred thirty-five 3 years ago, many of these men had only that one single time 4. exposure, did they not, sir# to 2,4,5-t and its contaminant? 5 A It went over -- it could have gone over a period of 6 days to months in cleaning up, so:it wasn't just one day 7 It was over days to months in the cleanup involved* It was 8 just related to that one incident, however. 9 Q r After that -- Well, some of them were present just 10 in the one -- ;on the one occasion. Weren't they, sir? t 11 A X -- it's hard for me to answer the question, but I 12 think you are probably right. 13 Q Now, this porphyria some thirty-five yeurs later, 14 if it Is porphyria, and I ,recognize that you challenge the 15 definition of intoxication porphyria given by Dr* Ellefson, 16 but if it is intoxication porphyria, it is a significant 17 finding, isn't it, sir? 18 i:i: a' >', .'>J' f'i ; i 'f ,i1*" Yes. jf ,, .t . 't v>:,*f ;-,T.*:i1 j \ - ; - l _ '11 -. xr (W - 19 Q Doctor, with respect now to the. Biohasards committee > '- :/* -h-,. % . 20 meeting on October .27, 1981',Jletime give;you an exhibit first. 21 (Atr-.this,V ti,m'e*: P -la;int-i' f, f?'si ,- yExV.hib' it 1448 was marked j 1 - v> - - ' j '^ >i 22 for identification.): 1 L , Q I hand you what's been marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 1448 and ask if you recognize that as a Biohazards committee .T ' L\ - 108 - 1 minutes meeting for October 27, 1981? A Yes, sir* 3 ,(At.this time Plaintiff's Exhibit 1448-A was marked 4 for identification.) I5 Q Doctor, you recognize 1448-A as a paragraph taken 6 from 1448? 7 A Yes, sir* 8 MR. CARR: Offer 1448 and?;448-A into evidence if it 9 please the Court. 10 THE COURT: Any objection? II MR. HEIWEMAN: Mo objection. Your Honor. FORM ]L K B .PENGAD CO,, B A Y O N N E. N.J, 0 70 02 12 THE COURT: Admitted without objection; Thank you. 13 Q Doctor, with regard to the soft tissue sarcoma 14 .problem that Monsanto has worked on that may be associated 15 with chlorinated phenolsDr. Gaffay reports in 1448-A on 16 soft tissue sarcbmas in-Monsanto employees,, did he not? 17 , A Yes * t '/ .j v\ . I.. ! ' 18 G And he .polnts but that thera wera two cases, two 19 tumors at Nitro -- r l B1mJ so`rr'ryi, th\ree. eases j>- '' all together, two ' o ' J. i-; . i ; - 20 in East St. Louis and one from Nitro. I'm sorry, there is 21 three at Nitro and two in East St. Louis that he reports on. 22 A J Yes,.sir.. 4 23 0 These five cases reported here are soft tissue 24 sarcomas, are they not, according to Dr. Gaffey? 109 - 1 A Yes, sir* 2 Q And these five cases were coupled with cases that 3 had been reported at another Monsanto establishment in Europe, 4 isn't that right, sir?, 5 A-. /Yes, sir* 6 Q Mow, and I'll get -- I have the documents referring 7 to those*. The Biohasards committee of which you were a member 8 made, the conclusion no, first of all, they asked the 9 question whether or not the four cases of multiple myeloma JO could be related to these five soft tissue sarcomas and 11 lipomas, don ft they, sir?,. 12 A , Yes,, sir. . 13 Q The multiple.myeloma, what is a myeloma, sir? . 14 A A myeloma is a special kind of tumor that is found 15 in the bone marrow primarily of men in the ag of fifty and 16 above*. .v , ,, v .. 17 Q . .And the ..four people that had it, when did they have 18 that at the Krutmorich.plant, sir, or were these current 1? cancers of the bone marrow that are being described here? 20 A .. I don't recall. 21 Q W h y .did the committee believe that the cases of the 22 bone cancer myeloma, if that's what it is as you have describee 23 it, why did they think that that might be related to the five 24 soft tissue sarcomas? - 110 I\ I Q Doctor, you are jumping ahead of time, and I'm 2 balking about this particular meeting of this particular time 3 ie'll get to NIOSH shortly, but I am asking you at this time 4 they are talking about the possibility of soft tissue sarcomas 5 connected with Monsanto, aren't they, sir? 6 A Yes* 7 (At this time Plaintiff's Exhibit 1449>and 1449-A 8 v/ere marked for identification.) 9 Q I hand you now what's been marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 10 and 1449-A. . 11 MR. CARR: Could I have another one marked 1449-A also* 12 (At this time Plaintiff !b ,Exhibit 1449-A was marked 13 for identification.) 14 Q Doctor, 1449-A, both the blowup and the large one is 15 of 1449, is it not, 9 ir? 16 A Yes, sir. 17 MR. CARR: Yes, offer 1449 and 1449-A. I'll give a 18 copy to counselor and the Court in just a moment. 19 THE COURT: Do you have any objections? 20 MR. HEINEMAN: Oh,'fI'm sorry, Your Honor. 21 THE COURT: They have been offered. 22 MR. HEINEMAN: No, I have no objections. 23 THE COURT: They are both admitted without objection. 24 Before v/e go into it, we'll take a short break. - 112 1 MR. CARR: Your Honor, may I approach the bench 2 before we take a break? 3 THE COURT: Sure. 4 (At this time a short conference was had at the 5 bench off the record.) 6 Q This report of September 30, of '81, of which the 7 jury has the excerpts labeled 1449-A, this is a meeting that 8 preceded the meeting that we just got through discussing, isn't 9 it, sir? p* i, * 10 A Yes, sir. . ' v* 11 Q And Dr. Munn was brought over from the Britishplant 12 in Newport, South Y7ales, wasn't he; sir? He was at that meeting 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q And he discussed in some detail the B Cell lymphomas 15 or the development of the malignant lymphoma of the scalp of 16 these workers with the pentachlorophenol? 17 A Yes. 18 Q Now, the presentation that follows in that paragraph 19 after that, is that also a presentation by Dr. Munn from Great 20 Britian? 21 A Yes 22 Q Then he discusses with you the findings of B Cell 23 lymphomas in addition to those that he found at Newport, South 24 Wales, does he not, sir? - 113 1 A Those were B Cell lymphomas. 2 Q That's what I said, In addition to the B Cell 3 lymphomas. 4 A Yes, sir. 5 And he reports to you about the one hundred and 6 twenty-three cases non-Hodgkins lymphoma that were obtained in 7 occupational history by idle University of Lund, Sweden, and 8 reported in Lancet? 9 A Yes, sir. ^ F" - L- 1(T Q Be goes on topoint out. that of five that had these 11 cancers, four of -- five of the hundred and twenty-three that 12 had skin lesions -- now, is that skin lesions, is that 13 described as chloracne, Doctor? 14 A Ho, sir. IS Q What kind of skin lesions are they talking about, 16 the lymphoma itself? 17 A The lymphoma itself. 18 Q All right. Then five of the hundred and twenty-three 19 that had the lesions of the skin, four of those five had been 20 exposed to herbicides, correct, sir? 21 A Yes, sir. 22 Q And those would be the same kind of herbicides that 23 2,4,5-t is a member of that family? 24 A Yes, sir. 114 ] Q Now, who makes 'the point that of seven hundred 2 workers exposed to pent&chlorophenol at the Krummrich plant 3 fifty percent had chloracne; that's not Dr. Munn's report, is 4 it, sir? 5 A No. 'l\ 1 6 Q That's somebody else said that? 7 A Yes. * * ; * ' 8 G Who said that? 9 1* t A It's hard to say. It could have been me. 10 Q All right. And you point out that four of those 11 people had lymphomas? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Don't you, sir? 14 A Yes. 15 Q And that's the soft tissue -- 16 A No, sir. 17 Q No? That's a malignant cancer of the skin? 18 A Yes, lymphomas are relatively common. 19 Q My guestion is this is a malignant cancer of the skin 20 A Yes. 21 Q Is it not, sir? And those on the committee, 22 including yourself, agree that it was something that was worthy 23 of study? 24 A Yes, sir. 115 1 Q Doctor, I know it may appear to you as if we are 2 going backwards, and we are, from Dr. Munn's report# but now 3 I'd like to hand you a Telex that, you sent to Dr. Munn. 4 MR. CARR: Would you mark that# please. 5 (At this time Plaintiff's Exhibit 1450 was marked 6 for identification.) 7 Q Doctor# handing you now Exhibit 1450# and ask if you 8 recognize that as a Telex that you sent to Dr. Munn when you -- 9 shortly after you had been advised by him of the existence of 10 the sarcoma at the plant in England. 11 (At this time Plaintiff's Exhibit 1450-A was marked 12 for identification.) 13 Q And do you recognize 1450-A also as a blowup on one 14 board of that two-page Telex that you sent to Dr. Munn? 15 A Yes # sir 16 MR. CARR: Offer 1450 and 1450-A if it please the 17 Court. 18 THE COURT: Okay. Any objections? 19 MR. HEINEMAH: Can we see 1450-A? 20 MR. CARR: Yes. It's those two pages on one board. 21 MR. HEINEMAN: Oh, okay. We have no objection# Judge. 22 THE COURT: Fine. They are both, admitted without 23 objection. Thank you. 24 (At this time the exhibit was passed to the jury.) 116 1 Q Doctor, to again put this exhibit in the proper 2 time context, Dr- Munn had sent you a Telex asking you about 3 r, , 1 i the results of various studies and, investigations that Monsanto 4 had conducted so he could make a determination of whether or 5 not the sarcomas that he had discussed might be associated 6 with exposure to the chlorinated phenols, isnit that correct, 7 sir? 8 A Yes, sir. 9 Q And as a matter of fact, he had, and we'll get to the 10 shortly, he had sent you a letter in March, of '81, referring 11 to these same cases, didn't he, sir? 12 A I am not sure about the time. 13 Q Well, I have it here, and I have you at a disadvantag 14 I've got a letter that he wrote you dated March 16, 1981, in 15 which he says Dear George, and he discusses these -- 16 A Two tumors. 17 Q Yes. Wow, Doctor, referring to this Telex itself, 18 you mentioned here at the outset two studies that Monsanto did. 19 One was the Zack-Suskind Mortality Study, and the study that 20 you described there: in .the next sentence as a subsequent study 21 of a larger group, is that the study that's known as the Zack- 22 Gaffey Study? 23 A Yes, sir. 24 Q All right. So the Zack-Suskind Study produced one - 117 1 soft tissue sarcoma death1,according to your Telex, and the ', i j. " _* 2 second study produced another soft tissue sarcoma death, is 3 that correct, sir?- . - i_, : ' 4 A . Yes. 5 Q And there was a letter in January, of '81, and I have 6 a copy of it here. I'll have it marked in a moment, but you 7 referred to a letter to the editor of Lancet in January, of 8 '81, don't you, sir, in which they refer to and in fact combine 9 two Monsanto studies along with two Dow studies, don't they, 10 sir? 11 A Yes* 12 Q See that, sir? 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q Now, actually that Lancet report did more than or 15 said more than just what you pointed out in this Telex to Dr, 16 .Munn, didn't they, sir? Didn't they point out that the -- 17 that the -- there were 2.9 percent of sarcoma, soft tissue 18 sarcoma deaths in this group where there should be only .07 19 percent? 20 A I don't recall that. 21 Q All right. Let-vine*;give that to you at the same time. 22 Well, I'll get to that in a moment. In any event, you do 23 point out this fact that these studies were combined, don't 24 you, sir? - 118- 1 A Yes, sir. \ 'v > \: ';> 2 Q And that they suggest that there is a cause or 3 relationship to the soft tissue sarcomas and the herbicide 4 exposure, isn't that correct, sir? 5 A Yes, sir. 6 Q How, Doctor, are you by this Telex to Dr. Munn 7 suggesting to him that there may be such a connection? 8 A Ho, sir 9 Q You are simply giving him information so that he can 10 draw his own conclusions? 11 A Ho, sir. He wanted this information so he could 12 talk to the health and safety executive, which is the 13 equivalent of our OSHA for the United Kingdom, and I wanted 14 him to have this information when he talked to them so he could 15 describe this. 16 Q You are neither -- .you are not passing on the -- 17 you are not giving him your belief or disbelief either way, 18 you are simply -- 19 A Just stating facts.* 20 Q -- passing on to him information that you have? 21 A Yes, sir. 22 Q And, Doctor, your Telex goes on to describe in 23 detail the malignant lymphoma that were reported in the letter 24 to the editor from Hardell, don't you, sir? .- 119 - 1 A Yes, sir. 2 Q And you point out-that there were eleven tumors in 3 the sinus, the side of the neck, the bladder, the carotid area, r 4 the ilium, the retroperitoneal, two submandibular, the groin 5 in two and the femur of these -- how many -- what is that, 6 fourteen cancers then reported or eleven reported? 7 A What*s that? 8 Q It would be eleven reported. ? A X think so. 10 Q Yes. And then you point out that NXOSH is going to 11 conduct a soft tissue sarcoma study in the United States and 12 that they are going to subpoena the medical records at 13 Krummrich, Mitro, and Queeny, correct? 14 A Yes, sir. 15 Q Did you ever receive such a subpoena? 16 A We are already participating in that study. It 17 wasn't a subpoena. 18 Q Well then, is the answer to my question that you 19 never did receive a subpoena? 20 A I don't think we received a subpoena. 21 Q Did you ever send these medical records to NIOSH? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Understanding the fact that they weren't subpoenaed? 24 A Yes. : -. - 120 - 1 Q Now Dr* Gaffey apparently pointed out to you that 2 there Is enough of a question raised to justify the systematic 3 study of as large a population as possible, correct, sir? 4 A Yes, sir* 5 Q And do you agree that there is by this data that you 6 had at that time, did you agree with Dr* Gaffey that there was 7 enough of a question raised as to justify systematic study? 8 A Yes, sir. 9 MR. CARR: All right. Your Honor, I have used the 10 time that you said I might have at this point. M THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we will 12 take a break at this1 time* The admonishments that I have 13 given you earlier will apply during this break also. 14 Recess * 15 (At this time a short recess was taken.) 16 DR. GEORGE ROUSH, 17 CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued) 18 BY MR. CARR: 19 (At this time Plaintiff*s Exhibit 1451 was marked 20 for identification.) 21 Q Doctor, I will now hand you Exhibit 1451 and ask 22 you if that isn*t the letter that I referred to earlier that 23 was written to you by pr. Munh dated March 16, 1981? 24 . ` ' ' A - Yes, sir. ' ' , J| 1 , 4y 1 Q I'm s o r r y , I c o u l d n 't h e a r y o u . D id y o u a n sw e r? 2 A Yes, sir, 3 Q All right. 4 MR. CARR: Offer that exhibit into evidence along 5 with 1451-A, B and C, Your Honor, when I get the labels. 6 THE COURT: Any objections? 7 (At this time Plaintiff's Exhibits 1451-A, B and C 8 were marked for identification.) 9 MR.' HEINEMANt 1 am not clear as to what the markings 10 are, Your Honor. The entire document is 1451, correct? 11 THE COURT: Yes, that's correct, Plaintiff's 1451. 12 M R . H E IN E M A N : A n d t h e n t h e r e i s a n A , B a n d C ? 13 THE COURT: That's correct. That's what I understanc 14 MR. CARR: A, B, and C will be the blowup of each- 15 page. 16 MR. HEINEMAN: Your Honor, I would like to institute 17 an objection on the basis of lack of relevancy with 18 respect to the -- the United Kingdom Health and Safety 19 Studies because as is apparent from the documents them 20 selves, these people are exposed to pentachlorophenol, 21 and not to-any of the materials that are the subject of * *( 1 * > 22 this lawsuit. Therefore, I would object on basis of lack 23 of relevance. 24 THE COURT: 'I*will admit' them over objections, so J ; ' - 1 2 2 - '; I they are all admitted. 2 Q Doctor, 1451-A, B and C are blowups of the three * 3 page document 1451, are they not, sir? 4 A Yes, sir* S MB, CARRs Yes, offer those three exhibits as well, 6 Your Honor* 7 THE COURT: Fine. They are admitted. They were part 8 of the other group. 9 . MR. CARR: Yes. 10 MR, HEINEMAN: Yes, I believe we've already stated 11 our objection with respect to that, Your Honor. 12 THE COURT: Right, They are noted on the record as 13 to what your objections are. 14 Q Doctor, the first page of 1451 is that letter that 15 I previously mentioned, and Dr. Munn makes a point with you 16 that these two cases have occurred in a relatively small 17 pentachlorophenol population, does he not, sir? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q And.insofar as pentachlorophenol is concerned, you \J ,\ , * * t1 20 know that it does contain'dioxins, don't1 you, sir? 21 A Yes, sir. ' A lr 1 ,* V / T}f 22 ***, J ` Q And he apparently,' Dr. Munh apparently committed 23 himself to ascertaining; what was Monsanto's experience in 24 the pentachlorophenol population both at Krummrich and at Nitro, - 123 1 did he not, sir? 2 A Yes, sir. 3 Q And the second page bears out that commitment. 4 These people that are described at the top of the page there, 5 ere those all Monsanto employees? 6 A Are you referring to this Bishop, Jones, and Jones? 7 Q Yes. 8 A No, those are -- those are safety executive management 9 from -- they're OSHA. 10 Q Then the only Monsanto employee that was at that 11 meeting was Dr. Munn, is that correct, sir? 12 A Yes, sir.. 13 Q And they asked, first of all,-- not first of all, 14 but in the fourth paragraph there Dr. Munn comments to the 15 meeting on the immunorsuppressive?actioncof the^dioxin, `doeshft 16 he, sir? 17 A Yes, sir. .. a 18 Q And he is talking .about, the dioxins that are in the 19 pentachlorophenol, doesn't he, sir? 20 A Yes, sir. - . ' 21 Q And those, dioxins that are in pentachlorophenol are 22 also in other chlorinated phenols, aren't they, sir? 23 A The difference in ratio is in things like that. 24 Q Yes, but they're there, aren't they, sir? 124 1 A I think s o V j;V' . -V ' v , ' ' ,2 Q Yea* And Dr* .Munn comments that these dioxins has 3 an immuno suppressive action, doesn't he, sir? 4 A Yes, sir. \ 5 Q How; Doctor, he is, Dr. -Munn is a paid employee of 6 . the Monsanto Corporation, isn't he, sir? ` 7 A J Yes, sir.' '.n ' ' J 8 Q And he says in effect that there are suppressive 9 actions, immuno suppressive actions of the dioxins, doesn't he, 10 sir? 11 1 1 ' A ,i * ' - - Yes, sir * - . FORM L '2 4 0 ,PEN G *D CO,, BAYO N N E* NJ._ 07002 12 ; Q . Sir? ' 13 A Yes,. sir. ' ( 14 .Q ' How, Dr. Roush, you, -15- J16 vi 17 18 19 ,20 have the view yet that ;jthe only thing .dioxins cn do is cause , O V . V i ; ' ' ' chloracne,i. ifsl that McorrMrecctt.,1fsliir??, ^ ^ . `r A. Based on/information today;;,, yes; -' '. * * 1 -,, * * l +v' % ^ ' J5.V ' V ^ J .." -I V - r , .Y ; t ' A-* - -I i t s Q And, Doctor, "did you ever tell Dr * Munn, did you ever write him? You had this document In* your possession since , v- V:/ March, of 1981 in which'he says his apparent belief at that 21 . tim -that dioxins can have an immuno suppressive action* Did 22 you ever write Dr. Munn, Telex D r . Munn,. that dioxins don't 23t have an immuno, suppressive action in your judgment? 24 . A No, sir, I.did not. -* '-~ '' -.125 - ., 1 Q So far as you know does Dr. Munn still hold the 2 view, have the view in his capacity as the chief medical 3 officer for Monsanto in England at least that dioxins do have 4 an immune suppressive action? 5 A X don't know* Vie haven't discussed it. 6 Q If you don't know, is it fair to say that so far as 7 you know this is his view, that you know of nothing to suggest S that his view has changed since 1981, do you, sir? 9 A No. 10 Q Doctor, do you agree that if dioxins do have an 11 immuno suppressive action, that that can be a factor in the 12 causation of lymphomas, cancers, soft tissue sarcomas? 13 MR. HEINEMAN: In the causation,did you say? 14 ,MR. CARR: .Yes/" . V 15 A No. ` . IV 16 Q Do you agree,that theiimmuno suppressive action of 17 dioxins may allow carcinogens to do things to the human system, 18 that is, cause cancers where the immuno systems of the human 19 beings might otherwise prevent these cancers from occurring? 20 A No. 21 Q Have you ever written Dr. Munn that he should, 22 because he is speaking for Monsanto just as you are speaking 23 for Monsanto*, have you ever written him to tell him that his 24 view is not Monsanto's view as you see it? - 126 1 A No, sir. 2 Q And, Doctor, on the last page of this document 1451 3 there are -- there is a top paragraph there that has stars on 4 it, some kind o stars on it. Do you know who put those stars 5 there, sir? Did you do it? 6 A. X am not certain, but I could have done it. 7 Q All right. And you may have done it at that time 8 to point out what your responsibility or what you are being 9 asked to do, that is -- 10 A Yes 11 Q -- to find out what, how many cases, if any cases 12 of lymphoma had occurred at the -- he says here Monsanto plants 13 but actually it's Monsanto plant in the United States, isn't 14 that correct, sir? 15 A. He's talking about the pentachlorophenol plant. ** 1. *i i , 46 Vi ./ Q ro:He;!s .talkingc---/well, at this time, Doctor, 17 pentachlorophenol was not being manufactured by Monsanto. 18 A Nor was the one in U.K. when they were talking about 19 this 20 Q All right. These cases then of cancer that they've 21 discovered in U.K. after they also stopped manufacturing 22 pentachlorophenol? 23 A I think that's right* 24 Q And they wanted to find out whether or not cancers - 127 - 1 * had occurred at the Krummrich -- no, he's asking for more than 2 that. The Krummrich plant refers to the pentachlorophenol,' 3 but the Nitre;* group refers .to 2,4,5-trichlorophenol, does it 4 not, Bir? His,first --.the first page of his letter he is 5 ., asking you not just for-the pentachlorophenol population, but v " r. '- ' *! 'r'-*L 6 he's asking you for the-cancers that have occurred in -- 7 2,4 ,5-trichlorbphenol marked quote "Two other dioxin-containing 8 Monsanto products",-isn^t he, sir? 9 , A yes.. .JO Q And as3``Tar1matt'e"r,y;-b"f "fact/v'when y*o,u-, sient him the Telex, 11 that is 1450, you ^responded to more'than justithe Krummrich 12 j' Vplant 1 -1 data, v, didn't /you; J. i J r j' 1s.ir^?^ *;m>:, i r ,` fkc"; X?, k' 13 A Yes,, sir. H Q Yes. Now,*,Doctor in addition -to responding to Dr; 15 Munn'.s request you also reviewed for Monsanto where you had ( * E N G * D C O ,, B 4 Y O N N E . N , i. ' 0 7 0 0 1 F O R M ll,L 1 4 B J 16 ,reviewed or somebody reviewed for you the results of various 17 ^ 18 19 meetings and testimony.that was taking place relating to dioxin - J; L* ' and soft.tissue cancer, and you so reported or at leastthe 4 r - 4' * _ ,, '* . policy staff reportsliri'July, of 1983,-is that correct, sir?; 20 A I don't know. ' 21 Q You don't know?- .f 22 ' \ 23 r, J 24 ' (At this time Plaintiff's Exhibit 1452 was marked for identification.) (L * V , Q I hand ypp now what's been marked as Plaintiff's- : - - 128 - : 1 Exhibit 1452 and ask you if; you recognise that as a corporate,, i document made b y .the 'environmental policy -- a special report 3 by the'environmental, policy staff dated July 25, 1983 dealing 4 with dioxin rahd soft tissue cancer? <J Do you >recognize that as 5 such a report^ v, 6 A. Yes,, sir, j/l,`. 7 MR, CARR: Offer that exhibit, Your Honor* 8' THE COURT.5'- Any Objctioh? \; ,v '-I cj , .. . / . ,/ 9' .: t- .\' -,'. V" s '\ i `' (At this 'time*Plaintiff 1e Exhibit.1452-A was marked 10 r foridentificatiory*) I ij - -*"* J' V 'y t't` 1 ^ -* 1H ' rr ' H MR, HEINEMAN:. Your Honor, i'll object to it only 12 on the basis of >foundation**.. I don't-know that, anybody 13 knows or at least it hasn't been established as to who 14 the author of this document is,,and I don't think that 15 this; witness has said that he knows* 4 6 MR,.. CARR: Your Honor, I don't think it makes any 17 diffrence who the author is. This is a document of B A Y O N N E , ,N.J, O YO 0I. FO R M IL 2 4 0 18. Monsanto's prepared by their environmental policy staff, 19 and I don't need to identify the, author nor do we need it 2 for a foundation.in this case* - 21 THE .COURT:^ it?a admitted over objection* . 22 Q Doctor,.1452-A is a paragraph taken from that report, 23 if yo. look to .the-third page of the exhibit, last paragraph on 24 that page, is it hot, sir, tthird page of the exhibit, last 1 ' - - '129 - \ r 1 paragraph beginning with'the word NIOSH? -^v 2 . A Yes, sir, `\ 3 ^MR. CARR: 1 Offer 1452-A' if it please the Court, 4 _ -5 THE COURT;.Same,objections? ' f 4\j j , ' -' J MR. BEINEMAN:, Same objection, Your Honor, 6 7. 8' r: 10 ` THE C O U R T r . ; - S a m e , r u l i n g \ v.y ~ .v.'i j::-; '.`t? '' ./. - MR.' HEINEMAN; Canvwe--, there "hasn't been an identification of what's befng.passedto the jury. Is .' .1. ' i. -r* K V' - ;V \>,;; r `ti'-f k,`i *- , if ' , , L ;- it the entire -- MR* CARR;' Yes,; the 'entire 'document. -r r,' 11 ' MR. BEINEMAN: .1452? -, -K ,t ' * <' L' 12 MR. .CARR.; kThat's correct * ' ... L^ ,L S ^h 13 Q Nov/, Doctor, directing your attention to the report 14 itself, it went to therentire corporate administrative 15 committee according to the front page, did it notr 'sir? 16 A Y e s V ' s i r . L . ''V- . -- '/*' % 17 Q And t h e second page discusses a.-- apparently it's 18 the knowledge of Monsanto had as to. what several federal 1? scientists were going to testify to in Congress before an 2Q 21 ' environmental subcommittee*. Do.you see that, sir, that there ' is going to be .forty -- testimony will show that there is a .22 forty-foid `that means forty times -- increase in soft tissue 23 cancer among workers exposed to dioxin in the manufacture of 24 2,4,5-t, pentachlorophenol, and other chemicals. Do you see -'130 ` " B A T O N N E , N .J -L . 1 vthat, sir? . -/ `v / .- ' 7 1- J ; ^ 7 \ ;` * ; - "V. : '.-v ^. 2 A Yes.- * 7 *3 1 Q Now, these -- these scientists, Lardrigan from NIOSH 4. and Houk of-CDC, did.they testify that there was a forty-fold, 5 - ` increase in soft.tissue dancer: among .these workers described. 6 "'7 ' .there, sir?' ' 7 ,..' ..1 , r`'7. ...... r ;-"J-k vr , }: fy; .V. ^ .jy , ,y .i . ' i/-do,,n*t!kii; . ] r`1- ' ,* " 1' 'i. .8 - Q Is*..it -- /!-is*-.:vii:t-'.i.thra,t y..ou'\kdio.InU''-t,ir.--. that you knew at , .V , i.; t-.' ;;*.'t * , 9 . -one time and you have now forgotten? r t -, 10 A .;:Noy \ r ;/ , - ; ' U ' Q 'Or you never did know?': ' . 12 ' ` . A`` I never did'know.' 13 - ' Q: Well, Dr. .Roush, .there is a -statement here that 14 among these workers, thesejwere Monsanto, employees. Did you BAYONNE,. N.J; > 15v 4 not attempt to get a copy of the testimony or make other efforts 16 ' to find out whether"or not there were Monsanto employees in 17 ' this group of*workers that had a.forty-fold increase in.soft 18 ` . tissue cancer?- , `^ 19 A Yes,.did that. 20 Q ;sir?i, .' \T -i* ''v- ..L,r'.^..>. '. . *,, J* ' 'J J .'21 A V -I did'that, a - ` - ' 22 . Q . All right. .And what Monsanto employee did they - 23 identify as.being among those that had a forty-fold increase in 24 > soft tissue cancer? v 'i ', '\;'y 7 '\7 v 13:'-^ ' 1 A Our wasn't forty-fold increase. It was the total 2 study that was forty"fold. 3 Q Well# ;I understand that's what they said that the 4 total shows that soft tissue cancer, that it's a forty-fold 5 increaeer but my question is which were the workers, which 6 were the Monsanto workers that were included in that 7 description of employees of workers that would get this -- or 8 had this soft tissue cancer? 9 A As stated, there were two from Nitro and three from 10 Krummrich. 11 Q Well, aren't these -- what they're referring to in 12 your -- you are talking about the third page now of this 13 document, but that's talking about death from soft tissue 14 sarcoma. 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Q The study itself doesn't say or at least the second 17 page of the testimony doesn't say that it's a forty-fold 18 increase in deaths in soft tissue cancer. It talks about a 19 forty-fold increase in soft tissue cancer and you're talking 20 about the death resulting from it. 21 A Yes 22 Q I am asking you whether or not you made an effort 23 to discovery which Monsanto employees still living have the 24 soft tissue cancer that was the subject of this testimony? - 132 - 1 A That soft tissue cancer is related to mortality 2 Q The forty-fold increase in soft tissue cancer -- 3 A Yes. . -r 'V- 4 Q -- it talks about soft cancer -- death from soft 5 tissue cancer? 6 A Yes. 7 Q And that's United States workers? 8 A Yes, sir. 9 Q And that would include the workers making 2,4,5-t 10 at Nitro, pentachlorophenol at Krtmmurich;-- well, it says 11 other dioxin in other chemicals as well. X suppose it could 12 cover other chlorinated phenols, could if not, sir? 13 A It's hard to tell. 14 Q Sir? 15 A X don't know. 16 Q You don't know and you haven't -- and you didn't -- 17 A X knew about these cases. 18 Q How, Doctor, X am wanting to go beyond the cases 19 and X am wanting to find out whether or not you at Monsanto 20 made an effort to find put about this forty-fold increase. 21 How, if it's forty-fold increase in soft tissue cancer deaths, 22 it becomes more dramatic and more important than the way X 23 interpreted it. I interpreted it just to mean that soft tissue 24 cancers had increased forty-fold, not that deaths had resulted 133 i I from that increase, but you are telling me that this means 2 a forty-fold increase in soft tissue cancer deaths? 3 A Yes. J ; - *r 1 4 Q My question is why didn't you, if this included 5 Monsanto employees -- or do you believe that the only soft 6 tissue deaths from cancer in the Monsanto employees were the 7 nine that we talked about here in these earlier documents? 8 A The nine-what? 9 Q The nine soft tissue cancers that we discussed 10 earlier today. 11 A We didn't call those soft tissues, those nine. 12 Q I'm sorry? 13 A We didn't call those nine soft tissue. 14 Q The October 27, 1981 meeting. Exhibit 1448-A IS leaves -- do you have that exhibit in front of you? 16 A What is that? 17 Q It's the Biohazards committee meeting of October 27, 18 1981. Do you have that, sir? 19 A October 27? 20 Q Yes. 21 A Yes, sir. 22 Q And this is the exhibit from it. This discussed 23 cases, and I thought we had added those up to nine cases. 24 A You don't put multiple myeloma with sarcomas and you - 134 /it >i 1 don't put lymphomas.with sarcomas ' 2 Q Well, didn't you tell us that this myeloma was 3 considered by your Biohazards committee right there as it 4 could be related to soft tissue sarcomas? Isn't this something 5 that your coromittGQ^snid, jvnQt-:something'that71 said, but 6 something that your committee said? 7 A Yes, but in another place -- all they're raising 8 is the question of multiple myeloma They didn't say that 9 they should be added to the soft tissue sarcomas 10 Q They said that there might be a relationship, didn't 11 they? 12 A That doesn't mean that they are all the same kind 13 of disease, 14 Q Well, these nine cases that are referred to in the 15 minutes of October 27, 1981, are they all deaths, sir? 16 A Yes, sir 17 0 And how many of those nine deaths would have been 18 referred to in your judgment, Dr Roush, by exhibit or in 19 Exhibit 1452, this special report of your environmental policy 20 staff? 21 A jFour, 22 Q How, Doctor, then on the next page there is the -- 23 a paragraph taken from that report that I've blown up, and 24 it discusses the two deaths at .Dov; Chemical Company and two at - 135 1 Monsanto# but it doesn't discuss the two others# and you said 2 there were four deaths# and this just talks about two of 3 Monsanto's* Oh# I'm sorry, it does talk about -- I. take that 4 back -- it talks about two at Nitre and two at the Sauget 5 plant# so that is four indeed, 6 A But it's actually five* 7 Q Actually five# all right* And NIOSH says that this 8 is a very rare form of cancer that occurs in only *07 percent 9 of the general population? 10 A Yes# sir* 11 Q And that would be a very small number# wouldn't it# 12 sir? 13 A Yes# sir* 14 Q Less than one-tenth of one percent? 15 A Yes # sir 16 Q And the article in Lancet that I asked you about 17 earlier also discusses these very rare forms of cancer# doesn't: 18 it# sir? 19 A i don't know* 20 Q You don't remember? You knew at one time? 21 A Bight* 22 Q All right* 23 MR. CARR: Could you mark that as an exhibit. 24 (At this time Plaintiff's Exhibit 1453 was marked for * -i * .. , - 136 - 1 identification) 2 Q Handing you now what's been marked Plaintiff's 3 Exhibit 1453, I'll ask you if you recognize that as the 4 Lancet article that was referred to dated January 31, 1981 5 Do you recognize that, sir? 6 A Yes, sir. 7 MR* CARRi Offer 1453 into evidence if it pleas the 8 Court * 9 MR. HEINEMAN: Your Honor, X object to it for lack 10 of foundation. It's hearsay. It's not prepared by any 11 Monsanto employee. It's something that just happens to 12 be in their files. Ho foundation laid^ 13 MR. CARR: Well, let me lay a foundation if counsel 14 is concerned about itv 15 Q Doctor, Lancet is a, recognized medical journal of 16 quite prestigious standing published in Great Britian, is it 17 not, sir? 18 A Yes, air. 19 Q It's recognized and accepted as authoritative in the 20 field as an authoritative publication, is it not, sir? 21 A Peer reviewed. 22 MR. CARR: How I'll offer 1453. 23 MR. HEIHEMAH: Same objection, Your Honor. 24 j * | , p1 ' Authoritative only lets him question about it. It s,, * ,, * *' , ;/ ; ' - 1 3 7 - 1 doesn't get it into evidence* 2 % TH,COURT; Objection is overruled. It's admitted 3 over objection. 4 . Q And, Doctor, this -- we need to pass it, I'm sorry .5 (At this time the exhibit,was passed to the jury.) 6 Q . Doctor, this article in the first paragraph makes 7 a percentage calculation of the hundred and five deaths S referred to in the two Monsanto studies, that is, the Zack- 9 Suskind Study and the Zack-Gaffey Study, doesn't it, sir? id A Yes, sir. li Q And it points out that three, that is, nearly three 12 percent were due to soft'tisse sarcomas, doesn't it, sir? 13 A ` That includes: Dow?s data, too* 14 Q Yes,'of the four, it talks about four cohorts, 15 that is, the two Dow studies and the two Monsanto studies, - 16 correct, sir? . 17. A , Yes, sir. - ' ,- * '* r' * *. p 18 Q And those three deaths reported there.,-" in fact, 19 there are more than that -- that represents three percent, 20 doesn't it, sir, as opposed to less than one-tenth of one 21 percent forall deaths in the United States from soft tissue 22 sarcomas? T '' 23 . A Yes, sir; .v.:; 1 . \ - - / / ; * >}. !* 24 Q Do you see that, sir? Sir, ,that is a factor that is '' L*` ^ -'.ii1' r: r : * >`v X .1 accounts for the -- or. does.it account for the forty-fold 2 increase that the scientists testified to in front of the 3 subcommittee for Congress? 4 4 A That would be about forty-fold. 5` Q Yes. And so then the conclusion that was reached 6 by the scientists for CDC and the NXOSH is based then upon the 7 soft tissue cancer deaths found at Dow and at Monsanto, correct, 8 sir? 9 A Yes, but this is a letter. This is not an article. 10 Q Well, but the. point is is that they are talking 11 about three deaths and you had five deaths at -- of Monsanto 12 employees, two at Sauget and three at Nitro, and this is 13 talking only about three deaths, two at Monsanto and one from 14 Dow, isn't that correct, sir? 15 A Yes; 16 i > ]j * i. * ' -> ' tj ,. , Q Sir, if Monsanto then from its own deaths can account 17 for five soft tissue cancer deaths, which is -- would be then 18 not a forty-fold but close to one-hundred fold increase in 19 soft tissue cancer deaths, isn't it, sir? ' 20 - U ? 1 '' ` / ' *':* \ ; ` '. i ' ` A If they were iii fact as reported. 21 Q Well, what ^ :if youlook: at your* Exhibit 1452, 22 you yourself say on the page Number 2, which actually is the 23 fourth page of the exhibit,' the top of the page, you say your 24 self the fact is that five former Monsanto employees were ` 139 - ^ I found to have soft tissue cancer, two at the Sauget plant and 2 three at Nitro. 3 A Yes, sir* 4 Q So that five -- you are saying yourself that they've 5 had it, aren't you, sir, that they died from soft tissue cancer ? 6 You've not made any mistake about that, have you, sir? 7 A Yes, I made a mistake* 8 Q You made a mistake? 9 A This whole -- 10 Q This document of July, 1983 in describing these as 11 soft tissue.cancer deaths? 12 A Yes 13 Q Did you ever -- is there any document where that's 14 pointed out, sir? Is there any memo that I've missed or 15 something? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Where is that; sir? 18 A There is a subsequent one when NXOSK says that one 19 of their Nitro soft tissue*sarcomas was found to be a malignant 20 cancer that could be confused with it histologically and was 21 not a soft tissue sarcoma*That's one. And the other two of 22 these here in which wo talk about that he was never exposed 23 Q Now, Doctor, you are not -- you are not challenging 24 the statement at the top of the page? - 140 - 1 A Which statement? 2 Q Page 2, the fact is where it says "The fact is that 3 five former Monsanto employees were found to have soft tissue 4 cancer, two at the Sauget plant and three at Nitre"? 5 A Yes, sir. I am not quarreling with that. 6 0 All right. 7 A No, I am quarreling with one of them. One of them 8 is not a soft tissue sarcoma, one of those five. 9 Q Well, you say that there is a document that NIOSH -- 10 A Yes 11 Q -- so states. I don't have it in front of me at 12 the present time, but I'll take your word for it now that it 13 exists, but the four then is significantly greater by one-third 14 than the three referred to in this Lancet letter, isn't it, sir' 15 A . Yes, but -- . '. 't , 16 Q So that's a forty-fold increase,,four would be at 17 least a sixty or seventy-fold increase, would it not, sir? 18 A But NIOSH says'1two out of those four -- 19 Q Could you answer that question first? 20 A No. 21 Q You won't answer -- oh, you are answering that 22 question? 23 A I'm answering that. 24 Q Sir? - 141 1 A I am -- no. 2 Q Four -- if three is a forty-fold increase over what's 3 expected -- 4 A Yes 5 Q -- at .07 percent -- 6 A Yes, sir. 7 Q -- isn't four then a sixty-fold increase? 8 A No, sir 9 Q Well, what is it? 10 A It depends on the denominator. 11 0 Well, our denominator is .07 percent. 12 A No, sir. 13 Q Let me back up, Dr. Roush. Did you not agree a 14 moment ago that the three soft tissue deaths was a forty-fold 15 increase over the ..07 percent that's expected? 16 A If they were related to this. 17 Q And that's what I'm giving you, that hypothesis. 18 MR. HEINEMAN: Excuse me, what's the hypothesis? 19 Q That three soft tissue cancer deaths is forty times 20 greater than the .07 percent that would be expected in this 21 population. Seven-hundredths of one percent, sir*-- three, 22 I think you agreed earlier was forty times that? 23 A Yes, sir. 24 Q All right. Four then would be sixty times that, - 142 - 1 wouldn't it, sir, or seventy tiroes that? 2 A Yes. 3 Q All right. Now, Doctor, getting to the -- back to 4 this EPS special report, the author of this document says that 5 of the five Monsanto cases it's virtually certain that two had 6 no exposure to dioxin, but in the very next paragraph when he 7 discusses one of those cases, he states that he held a clerical 8 job for all but a few months during the time that 2,4,5-t 9 herbicide was made at the plant. His few non-clerical months 10 were spent as a maintenance worker. You see that, sir? 11 A Yes, sir. > - 'I 12 Q You know from other studies t-- 13 MR. HEINEMAN: Excuse roe. Do you want to read him 14 the rest of that sentence? 1 15 MR. CARR: Not yet, counsel. 16 Q You know from other studies, don't you. Dr. Roush, jt 17 that maintenance workers because of the nature of their work 18 happen to get in and work with the pipes that the chlorinated 19 phenols go through and work to repair damaged machinery, that 20 they have a very great likelihood of exposure, and you have had 21 studies yourself, reports yourself that so indicate, isn't that 22 correct, air? 23 A Not necessarily. 24 0 Well, not necessarily. Indeed if a maintenance - 143 1 worker isn't working with machinery that makes 2,4,5-t, then 2 he's not exposed, but if a maintenance worker is going in to 3 repair machinery that makes 2,4,5-t, he does have exposure, 4 doesn't he, sir? 5 A Yes, sir, yes, sir. 6 Q Now this worker worked as a maintenance worker in 1 7 the 2,4,5-t department, didn't he, sir? 8 A It doesn't say he worked in 2,4,5-t. 9 Q Well, do you know where he worked, sir? 10 A No, sir. - . 1 11 Q Then how can you say or whoever wrote this document - 12 he could have been .a' fcu1ll*time, wor'*'ker for those months in 13 2,4,5-t so far as you know at this time, isn't that right, sir? 14 Isn't that correct, sit1? 15 MR. HEINEMAN: Let me object to that. Your Honor, as ! 16 calling for speculation on the part of the witness. He 17 could have worked in the lab, too. 18 THE COURT: Objection is overruled. 19 MR. HEINEMAN: It's pure speculation. 20 THE COURT; Objection is overruled. 21 Q Doctor, do you have any information suggesting that 22 this man that worked as a maintenance worker was not working 23 in those departments where 2,4,5-t was manufactured? 24 A We only have what they stated, and they tried to - 144 1 state it as objectively as they-could. 2 Q Well, all they do is speculate, don't they# sir? 3 It is highly unlikely that he was ever exposed to dioxin 4 simply because his few non-clerical months were spent as a 5 maintenance worker? 6 A I don't know how good those statements are. 7 Q Doctor, it's indeed possible, is it not, that this lf * '1 r 8 man was a maintenance worker and was exposed to dioxin? 9 A It's possible, but that isn't what the sentence says. 10 Q Z know that', and that's, the reason I'm bringing the 11 point up, to point out that this sentence isn't necessarily J 12 true, is it, sir? * ** i 13 A Not if he had exposure. 14 Q That's correct. And there is no evidence that you 15 have that you are aware of that ever came forward to show that 16 he did not have any exposure, is there, sir? 17 A Yes, the sentence here that says it is highly 18 unlikely he was exposed to dioxin. 19 Q Doctor, is this statement that it's highly unlikely -* 20 and they say simply because he spent a few months as a 21 maintenance worker, they say it's highly unlikely. Where do 22 they get that information? 23 A I don't know.. 24 Q No, and it's not pointed out where they got that - 145 - 1 information, is it, sir? 2 A Not there it isn't. 3 Do you know anywhere where it's pointed out, sir? 4 Have you seen any documents at all where it's pointed out that 5 this man did not have exposure to dioxin working in the plant? 6 A NIOSE in their statement agrees that he didn't have 7 exposure. ' '' ' ^ ; y. 8 Is NXOSH talking about this worker their statemer 9 A . Yes, Not in this statement, but subsequently it is. 10 No, my question is-is this worker the one that NXOSH H says that he had no exposure? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Doctor, where did NIOSH get the information, from 14 whom did NIOSH get that information? 15 A From Monsanto. 16 Q And do you know what:information it was that was sent 17 to him, sir? 18 A No, sir, I don't have it. 19 Q Wasn't it information that he was a clerical worker, 20 sir? 21 A X don't know. 22 Q Doctor, the records were never subpoenaed, were they, 23 sir? These were records that you supplied to NIOSH 24 werehlt they, sir? - 146 I Al Yes, sir. 2 Q Doctor, the next paragraph discusses the cancers 3 developed at the Sauget plant, don't they, air? 4 A Yes, sir. : ,, 5 Q And it-suggested there that he worked in the area of 6 possible dioxin exposure for quote "Only one year", isn't that 7 correct, sir? 8 A Yes, sir. 9 Q Nov certainly if he had worked in a dioxin exposure 10 for one year he could have come in contact with TCDD and other 11 dioxins, could he not, sir? 12 A I don't know when they were working, whether they 13 were making 2,4,5-t at that time or not, 14 Q Well, Doctor, they weren1tvmaking 2,4,5-t at the 15 plant, and I didn't say 2,4,5-t at the Monsanto plant. I said 16 TCDD dioxins. You've got them in your 2,4-dichlorophenol and 17 your Santophen and orthochlorophenol, you have them in 18 parachlorophenol, you have them in all of the chlorinated 19 phenols manufactuoredat Monsanto Krummrich plant, and isn't it 20 possible, sir, that he was exposed to dioxin working for those 21 two years in that plant in that-;aDea of possible dioxin exposure 22 for one year? 23 MR. HEIHEMAN s We object to the form of the question, 24 Your Honor, as misstating the evidence. Mr. Carr states - 147 1 that they presently have ' 2 THE COURT: Objection is overruled. 3 A I don't, have fchi3 \inspiration to answer the question 4 about their exposure of dioxin at that time* 5 Q Doctor, if i give you as fact, I 'd like you to 6 assume that in. this case it's been proven that dioxins have 7 been found in all of the chlorinated phenols manufactured at 8 . the Sauget, the Illinois plant. Would you assume that please, 9 sir? 10 A Yes. 11 Q And this man worked in that department In the plant 12 for two years and in the area of possible dioxin exposure for 13 one year, did he not, sir? 14 A Yes.' 15 Q If h e 's exposed to dioxin, if h e 's in that area, 16' he can get dioxin in his system, can't he not, sir? 17 A Yes* 18 Q Wow, Doctor, it's also stated there that because 19 cancer generally develops over twenty to thirty years there is- 20 no reason to believe that this young man's cancer was 21 work-associated; isn't that what itrsays, sir? 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q But you do know that cancer can develop in some 24 given susceptible individuals at a much faster rate than - 148 - 'J . J . f, L ,J>,-* ',j-.' "r, -- -I . , 1 tw en ty t o ,,t -h i rr jt y y.ite `ta,r'rvs, ; ' y o u .know it,fii.t,<', ':< -t'VhVa- t , . vd'Vo n;i' t . you rj'* ,.'/.s,i r ? - ' 2 3V Is . h M"R.; E :.^ lH E i I3'E<M,;*Ar Ni.2,/, g :^ b c ^ , t 'o^b j e c ti ,./v ^ y ;c o /n*>' ,',Yy-o ur ` x w ^ ^ r-s H o n o r., or fkt'---,, t i,s , su i r e. t s 's w c vag o zii u a e ? . j 45 6 \ / A .' THE r`^ T h,Je -Cr -eOaU sR:oTvnS>3.J' OOVAb"!'j. t /h- >i *s e'w<ScXHat visioiv, .ns.v<t ai-'iHsti ,;e o vVd v.Vtehr-r;ir'VisuV-^j.l'3Vwer d .a . y .* - `, - , 1"j`;' ' * Q \ :` ;D r. /R oush ,/;-J '' " - ` ' '` 7 \ V . . V A '^ . Y e s f 1- M r * , \ .1 r r ;' -,8'r , Q , I 'd ld n Vt ask; you fo r! th e re a s o n i t w a s ;s ta te d . I , 9 a sk ed you, w h eth er o r n o t you k n o w th a t c a n c e r c a n d e v e lo p in . 10 - s o m e u n f o r t u%n a t e i n^d i v i d u a'tl s ..lw. h o a r rd i' s pr o s e d , th a t ^w*a y--1 i n m u ci-h,. n i s h o rte r p e rio d s o f tim e th a n tw e n ty to th ir ty , y e a rs? 1 12, ^ L. .AT .'.Ves; .' \)**y ,, " "''.V 'r' - '' ,-'L' 13 `. T H E 'C O U R T : M r' C a r r , , i s ; t h i s a ' g o o d p o i n t f o r 14 '/ ' / 'V e r y s h o r t b r e a k ? 1 V - ^ 15 ^ .M R . C A R R s Y e s , T o u r H o n o r . / 1 16 ' * TH E C O U R T : ' L a d i e s a n d g e n t l e m e n , w e w i l l t a k e a 17 f i v e - m i n u t e b r e a k , a n d t h e n w e 11 1 r e s u m e t e s t i m o n y v . T h e ; 78. -\ . a d m o n i s h m e n t s h a v e . g i v e n y o u P e a r l i e r w i l l a p p l y d u r i n g BA YO N N E* 'OK) 19 / th is break , 1 dj jr a ls C o . 'C 'at ou - rt * is in r l:\^ h^ e c e s s . -1 v ; 1r^ 1 r. '4 ' .('A t t h i s`T, t i m` e `a'1s h o 'r(t rfe c e sfis1 w a s t a .k e"^n . ) ^ .*21, , ''V -DR. GEORGE ROUSE. ../ ' 2 2 /" resu m in g th e w itn e ss- s ta n d , h a v in g p re v io u s ly b een sw o rn 23 24 : " i1, t e s tif ie d Ha ( As*(-7t_f,"b^t hl**iibs w . ,r' s ti : m j;`'v ' \P l a i^n' "'r\'y t i 1f-*f. 1b. 1 rEe vx -h*:i-P*b ' it; r. 1454 w as m a r k e d / . .i,, r 1, ' ?/ ,. ,. H - *^ r ** * - ' ,r<r ' ^ ^ * j. '" r i rv ' " * '14? . v.','"-'/. .' ,,j . 'y /,r ' ~ ,~ij ` " ' -" * v - ^ ^' ;j r; ^ ^ i ' t' v 1 for identification'.)'; ' 2 MR. CARR: I only have one copy of this, counsel. v ^ ru + *- ' 3 I 'll let you see it before i show it to the witness* 4 Q Doctor, I 'll hand you what's been marked Plaintiff's 5 Exhibit 1454 and ask you if in the third paragraph it doesn't 6 discuss maintenance-type employees and their need for the same 7 kind of protection in the double locker system from a medical 8 viewpoint as production x-forkmen? 9 MR. CARR: Well, that's premature, Your Honor. 10 Q Do you recognize that as the document generated by 11 the medical department, the department that you're the head of, 12 don't you, Doctor? 13 A Yes, sir. 14 MR. CARR: Offer that exhibit, Your Honor. 15 THE COURT: Any objections? 16 MR. HEINEMAN: No objection, Judge. 17 TEE COURT: Admitted without objection. Thank you. 18 Q The paragraph that I referred to talks about the 19 need for a double locker system for maintenance workers as 20 well as for production workers, doesn't it, sir? 21 A Yes, sir. 22 0 And it says from a medical viewpoint they need it 23 just as much as the production workers, doesn't it, sir? 24 A Yes, sir. 150 ::> h $ y- y i> < <"^ > '3 ' ' *(."lir"1^ _! v' k 1 Q And that;indicates 1the `medical 'department believes 2 . that the maintenance workers had just as much exposure to the 3 dioxin potential as, the production workers, doesn't it, sir? 4 A Yes, sir. ; ' * \l J .1 _r ' * - .*1 >. *1 . ' L -L 5 Q Yes. Actually this exhibit that you or whoever -- -6 who is Dr. Donald Coleman? 7. A He's one of pur physicians in the medical`section. P 8 -` Q It says here he has a title of director, occupational 9; medicine and epidemiology,in .1982 at least./ - 1 10 A-- Yes. , : '/ * 11 Q Is that' correct, sir? ' `1 12 A Ho-longer. ' \ 13 Q . What is his title now? U' A . Staff physician. \- ^ 'i 15 Q At that time at least he says the maintenance. 16 employees present a different type of problem with potential 17 for high exposure, don't they, sir? 18 y A' Yes, sir. ^ r' , \ . v 19 (At this time Plaintiff's Exhibit 1455 was marked , 20 . for identification.); 21 Q ; Doctor, no^ handing you what's been marked Plaintiff la 22. Exhibit 1455, .I'll ask,you to see if you recognize that as a ^ 23 Monsanto document called WGK Today and it refers to some 24 soft tissue cancer cases., . B A YO N N E. N.J; 1 (At this time Plaintiff's Exhibit 1455-A was marked 2 for identification.) 3 Q 1455-A is a blowup of 1455, is it not. Doctor? 4 A Yes, sir. 5 HE. CARR: Offer 1455 and 1455-A if it please the 6 Court 7 TEE COURT: Any objections? 8 MR. HEINEMAN: I didn't hear him answer the first 9 question. I don't know that a foundation has been laid 10 for admission. 11 THE COURT; I think he said yes. I thought I heard 12 him say yes. 13 MR. CARR: X don't know that he answered that quest 14 either, Your Honor. He answered yes to 1455-A was a IS blowup of 1455. 16 THE COURT; Oh/ okay. 17 MR. CARR; But X don't really think he answered the 18 question on 1455. 19 A x was still reading that. X'm sorry. 20 Q You recognise that as a Monsanto document called 21 WGK Today dated December 30, 1982, don't you, sir? 22 A Yes, sir. 23 MR. CARRv;' I'll offer it1 noLw, You,r Honor. 24 THE COURT: All right. Any objections now? ' - 152"- J 1* 1 ^ r, .4 ^1 .[K, , J 'L ~ '' ^ * ` . " r . ^* r 'r ; 1 : ;2^ MH* HEINEMANY- fNo .objection. 3-\ THE COURT; Pine. They?re both'admitted without \ 3. objection. - 1 ; -r. :, (, : Q Doctor, this V7GK Today ^actually is an inhouse Kind ' (. of news bulletin-that's distributed to the workers at;th 1 ' s' : 1 6' Kruramrich plant', isn't;that correct, sir? ; `7 ' f,J'v J 1` ^ A - Yes, sir.' .-/'-v r^ , -,J ; / . . ; _,, !*/5- 9 7 Q A n d .this particular document that was- distributed -. to the w%orkers discuss.e..s these soft tissue sarcomas that`we \ ( .10 :i have just been discussing here, doesn't it, sir?,' 11 A '..Yes, sir*. ''. ' " . 12 \. fQ . You point out that -- or it says by Monsanto in 13\ this document that the one employee worked at the plant for 14 J approximately ;two years, and therefore, any relationship ` ..15 between his illness and his workplace is -almost non-existent*. 16 , That statement is contained there, i s R t not, sir?; t\ /17 A . Yes/ sir*.., 7 .7 ' .r r ^ *18' Q Doctor, and of course you know from,your answers ' / \, '> ,'1t 19' * jhere today>that working.at the plant for two years.could expos - 1*' -*> you to significant amounts.of dioxin, couldn't it, sir? , ly`'21 -' ]' 22 i' ..A 11 Q If he was/working where he could get exposure. J r i'`\]J'j'i!"J'"r*1 Vi.J`-i/-rJC,1 *1-'i4**,-PJ*! fF''1'r),-*'.j j 1 -- '.r. ' Yes. And ;the statement that ^relationship between' 1 '1 i .23 : his illness and th workplace-simply'because,, he works there, " r 24 *, \ \ ^ Y J k J\ k ' . 1 just two years / the1statement- that *that Relationship is almost & * .i\l1 41 -r *_ : 1 r**,w J :v'-b,,'c''1i5f3 * ;> ;' '. C E NG AD CO,,. B A Y O N N E . N.J. O O I f O S M IL 2 4 8 1 , non-existent simply isn't true, is it, sir? 2 a , No. - -4 1v ; / > ;v . x " .* ; . I , n , > \' . .3 Q , Are you -- perhaps my question wasn't aptly phrased. '4 Are you saying'that the statement is true? ` -- s A - ^it is not'true. r- 1 - ' 6 Q J You are saying it's not-true, all right. Doctor, 7 there is also another untrue statement in this document. . 8 . A, I'm.sorry, I have -misspoken when *X say -- I don't 9 think that a man who worked there and -gets atsarcoma two years 1 after h e 's started'to work can possibly be related to working 11 with a,.chemical. ' /' 1 -V V*;'- . *'v ; . ' 12 ' Q You agreed earlier,' I thought, that some unfortunate ' k. * 'JV r* ' ^ ** r i* r 13 individuals have a genetic makeup that would allow them to have 14 cancers come oh rather rapidly. FO R M tL 21 B B A Y O N N E, N.J. ,070 01 15 A Yes, sir, relatively so. , 16 ` Q " - Sir? " ' `V rj 'L - 17 ' A Relatively so. ' !v` 18 j t* - ^ * * ,, f * Q And you could/have a cancer develop two years after 19 : exposure to a carcinogen,, could you: not, sir?. - -,-vx.?\ * - ; ;' \*v'Vr 'v J' y^,j- 20 7 A Not, that-I knowlofi. - '-vV^/v ,, ,.- - 4-T: y.-J '{J1 " ,-:/ > ^ 21 Q You have"never heard.of that experience? . - 22 A . No, sir. <1 4\; ^i ,. 23 Q Not -- I am not m o w talking about dioxin per se, I am t `t'j *, **;?';*' i ;:\1_ ^ :f 24 talking about any carcinogen. ' - '.J - .- 154 - ' ; * y` J* 1- 4 ' ' J"* > ( -r . l \- , '- r 1 , Vj 1 ,2 >; s A Any c a rc in o g e n ., , VH . " ^ Q You d o n 't know o f a c a s e w h ere a c a n c e r d e v e lo p e d 3 . tw o y e a rs a f t e r e x p o s u re .to , th e to x ic s u b s ta n c e ? ..4-. , . 5> A N o,.. s i r . . ,. Q A re you sa y in g th a t i t 's n o t p o s s ib le , s ir ? 6 "'' 7 , a Y e s : , ; 1 . .. * ' - :- Q / T h i s s ta te m e n t t h a t *s c o n ta in e d i n t h e l a s t s e n te n c e 1 : ` 8> J o f th a t sam e p a ra g ra p h , g e n e ra lly sp a k in g sarco m as h av e n e v e r ' ' 9 , b e e n d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d 't o ,or- c a u s e d ,b y th e e f f e c t s o f c h e m ic a l , r j 1* . j- _ L- . 10 e x p o s u r e -- D o c t o r , y o u k n o w t h a t t h a t i s n ' t s o , d o n ' t y o u . r 11 . t s i r ? - * " J H; , v \- . J J- - J -1 ^ . Y - t' 1 - -v\ 1 J 12 a / .N o.^ 'V - ' - . 13 Q ` D o c t o r , t h e H a r d e l l s t u d y w a s i n e x i s t e n c e i n 1 9 8 2 , _ 14. w a s n 't i t , s i r ? . `,, . 45 , A / Y es, s i r .' ` Y V"1 ^ . x 16 a* "1O ' w Q And d id n 't he stu d y and d id n 't h e m ake a r e la tio n s h ip . BA YO N M E, W ,Jtl 0 7 0 0 2 3 O 17 `- s ta te th a t in h is ' ju d g m e n t,^ h is o p in io n b a se d upon h is s tu d ie s r. o 18 . t h a t t h e r e ;wa 3. aY r eHl art*i o n s h i p ' t o Yt.h re s a r c o^m a s t h a t h e f o uYn d yj J2 \ >19 a n d t h e e x p o s u r e o f t h e s e , f o r e s t r y w o r k e r s ? O O : - 2o * y -y y . y A . .Y e s , sitfV .y ,;`v Y o 2 U * 21 Q Then> D o c to r/ h e d id , m ake a d ir e c t r e la tio n s h ip /to t a '. '-jr(i' i ' 22J * . . . -. '* A m_ v v . V K'r ;' .S K *:, . - . th e sa rc o m a s th a t h e m e n tio n e d th em in t h i s s tu d y an d th e ' 23\ c h e m ic a l e x p o s u r e , d i d n 't h e ,, s i r ? - > - 24 . A Y es, s ir - /y y ' ' 155 - . Y : .> \ * . - r ,' ,J i " l- 5 -> j : ^ ! K1 2 .3 4` . *.Q So t h i s s ta t e m e n t t h e n - i s n o t tr u e * i s i t ? A W o ,. s i r , i' ; . ' ' \ t Q S ir?,; :;j- ^ A ' Wo, s i r . : , ' * " J '' .* - 1` ' / 5 , Q - D i d 1 hT"e m a k e ; ar] s *t u d y F1d i rr"e c \rt l y r e l a t i n g ^t h e k e x p *o s u r e 6 to th e sarcom a? 7, A Y es, .s ir , ' : ; 8," Q T h i s s t a t e m e n t s a y s t h e y h a v e , n e v e r b e e n d i r e c t l y ^ - ' J ?, r e la te d , -d o je sn lt,. s ir ? ; , , - \ ' IQ. ' A:, ' . T h a t ' s r i g h t s -- \ 1 v r 1 .. r` , 11 * Q .. . A n d t h e y h a v e b e e n , h a v e n ' t t h e y , s i r , b y H a r d e l l ? J 12 13 ; A . JB u t n o t c o n f i r m e d b y a n y o n e e l s e . , JQ \ Wow, D o c to r, t h i s is , n o t s a y in g c o n firm e d , i s i t , s i r ? 14 T h e r e h a s n ' t b e e n a c o n f i r m a t i o n o f n i n e t y - n i n e p e r c e n t o f t h e n* i ' 15. s tu d ie s th a t a re p u b lish e d ; r e la tin g in th is a re a ,, b u t w h at you IaOIe sOh-r O ' - 16 17 I-. ,,i . have J' to ld - us ; t- . h-{*b/r t ^ yVo u. , ; b u t ,> w . th- o e v e r: .rl p?r ' e p.' aV`r e d* t. h i s. d o c u m e. n t,, you s a id th a t sarcom as have n ev er been d ire c tly re la te d to ,, ', r ' - *r i i* L,>, , , " ^--s \ ^ *' BAYONNE, NJ. 2 .1 8 : o r c a u s e d b y th e e f f e c t s ^of c h e ih ic a i:;e x p o s u re , a n d y o u know z2;d c4wzu, 19 i -i . 20i _ 21 *>- r <1 J ,,* i * K ` th a t th a t sta te m e n t is ,s im p ly n o t tru e ., b eca u se H a rd e ll and' o th e rs have ; :*d i r e c t l y_ - :Vrv e'Vfli"a~'1t-,ei d ;\ irs>a' r c o m 'a s'< t-o- c h e m i c- a-, l ex p o su re, ' hav e th e y n o t? ' - ; r .v 22 .. ' 23 ; i .. MR, EEINEM ANs .O b j e c t i o n , Y o u r H o n o r .. T h e q u e s t i o n M r. C arr a sk e d d o es n o t re a d th e e n tir e s e n te n c e . THE COURT; O b je c tio n i s o v e r r u l e d . : ; - 156 - A Our responsibility is to talk about the total medical evidence, >not>one article. It has to be -- the weight of the evidence establishes whether there is any relationship or not. ', .y - Q Well;' Doctor / you could have said in this bulletin ' that the weight of the evidence or you could have said it's clear by our 7analysis of ..the;available medical literature .that ' in our opinion t h e 'weight of the evidence says that sarcomas have never been directly related to or caused, by the effects v of chemical .exposure* You could have said that, could you hot, sir?.. -J ... --.-v` ` /' '' n ` -= v '. A ^ That might have been'better,' Q And it would have, been'true/ wouldn't it, sir, in your judgment? That'there/are reputable' scientists, a ... ' .- .?* ;. / -4- Jpi* -, ,'*. . - - ` significant number. of['reputable" 'scintists, that .believe ' ;^ .. V>1J Hardellsstudy iS_yt'.Atrue,and correct / i s n ' t 'that correct, sir? ' -- ,v ' ' '*, 4 t> . . .k - .i . , t* * i . ' , / ; -* *( 1l A I don't know that.- ` ^r iV Vr Q You don11 -knoW thatj? . 1 *1 J* No/ Q - Isn't Harwell's study cited in any number and numbers >* ' and'numbers of"articles dealing with cancer caused by chlorine '- r v , * ; phenols? . : ' ;jr * ,, A Every ,tim they do- that'they are now - 7 Q Excuse m e . .-,Isn't it cited and relied upon, in any B ATO N N E. V .J . 07 0 0 2 FO RM IL 24 0 1 , number of articles published in this field? 2 . A It;!s "cited. " V V - ' - . ^ . 3 Q And don't reputable scientists believe-that it's so? 4 ' A No, sir. ^ - ` 5 .. Q The scientists that believe that it's so are not - " < 6 reputable, Doctor? . /; m'\ . ' 1 ^ 1 ; ' 7 A That isn't/ho i ''r-- > . . 0 \, " 8 Q Well, you Know that they are reputable and you know .. 9 l ,L V - r ' * . \ - ,. r` ' 1 ^ i L* '7 that there are reputable- scientists that believe the truth of id . Hardell's study,-isn't that correct/ sir? 4 * ' r. - - ' f 1r j L 11 A \ I dori*t believe so anymore. .- 12 Q All right. \ You'think nowvt6 day .that .no reputable ., 13 / V Jf./.i;-:'., V-. *', scientist believes Hardell's study is correct? 14. ` A That's right.' V, s "f- 15 Q,` -All, right. - Is there any literature, sir,-that.has 16 * . '/ ' . i' v (i V: * 'f f'r - 'y been accepted by the scientific/?community .that so states that? 17 - 18 , A Many literature, citations will say that. "r ' ' 4 " * *' 1 1 ' ' Q ' I 'm sorry? v-;., - ; .,i- , *p- .19 A Many literature citations will say the total * ` ,, 20 information on sarcoma is much more questionable than 'it was 21 two or three or four years ago. - \ ' , 22 . 23 : 24 - Q Doctor,. I won11 even quarrel with that, but that's- r*",- i1( ' - * ^ '' " not the equivalent to saying that just simply because it's questionable isn't the equivalent to saying that no reputable ' -, ,is,->, -' .. . - . ' - 158 - -J 1 scientist believes that soft tissue sarcoma can be caused by 2 exposure to chemicals They are not equivalent statements, 3 are they, Dr Roush? 4 A I think they are 5 Q You think they are? 6 A Yes, sir. 7 Q If that's your definition then, that simply because 8 it's questionable that that's the equivalent to saying that 9 no one believes it, then X can pass on, and that apparently is 10 what you are saying. L 1V I " , 11 A Yes, sir 12 Q All right. Now, Doctor, the last paragraph there is 13 defining sarcoma. It says skeletal sarcoma, malignant tumors 14 as well, doesn't it, sir? \ 15 A Pardon, sir? 16 Q It includes skeletal sarcomas as a soft tissue -- 17 no, I'm sorry, it does not say soft tissue sarcoma, does it, 18 sir? It's talking about sarcomas in general. 19 A That's right. 20 Q Ail right. 21 MR. CARR Continue, Your Honor? 22 THE COURT If this is a convenient point -- 23 MR. CARR it is, but I'll go ahead if you like. 24 THE COURT Ladies and gentlemen, we will break at - 159 - 1 this point since this is a,convenient point at which to 2 stop* Tomorrow morning we will start again at 9:30. 3 I would remind you, as I do for any overnight break, that '4 you are not to read, listen to, or watch anything about 5 this case in particular or the subject matter in general, 6 in any of the media, print or electronic. X would also 7 remind you that as of Thursday morning we will switch 8 over to different hours starting at 9:00 and ending 9 approximately 4:00.,!,This. is what we talked about earlier. 10 We will start-that Thursday morning. Have a good evening. 11 MR. CARR: Your Honor,- We didn't hear what you said. 12 MR. BINEMAN: I can't hear you,, Judge. 13 THE COURT: Oh, I'jn sorry. I was reminding them that 14 on Thursday we will switch over to the 9:00 to approxi 15 mately 4:00. 16 MR. CARR: Thursday, all right 17 THE COURT: Thursday morning. Court is adjourned. 18 Have a good evening; 19 (Court adjourned for the day.) 20 21 22 23 24 - 160 - < '> i STATE OP ILLINOIS ) \ BS 2 COUNTY OP ST. CLAIR ) 3 4 I, MARSHA SCBNIPPER, one of the Official Court 5 Reporters in and for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit of the 6 State of Illinois, and the official Court Reporter who 7 reported the proceedings'had; at the hearing of Frances E. 8 Keener, et al., vs. Monsanto Company, et al., No. 80-L-970, 9 on the 3rd day of June, 1985, do hereby certify that the 10 above and foregoing is a true and correct transcript of the * i > 1 _ . 11 proceedings had at said hearing, which proceedings were 12 reported by me in shorthand and by me correctly transcribed. 13 Dated this ___ day of ___ , 1985. 14 15 16 Official Court Reporter 17 18 19 20 21 22 - 161 - 1 STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) 2 TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT ) SS 3 COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR ) ) 4 5 I, RICHARD P. GQLDENHERSH, Circuit Judge in and for 6 the Twentieth Judicial Circuit of the State of Illinois, 7 and the sole presiding Judge in the.aforesaid cause on the 8 3rd day of June, 1985, do hereby certify that I have examined 9 the aforesaid transcript of the proceedings and further 10 certify that the same is a true and correct transcript of 11 said proceedings had in said cause. 12 Dated this day of _____ , 1985. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 - 162