Document ewqLZJ8a8rr6eqgGEeLjOLRq

r~ V IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON, WEST VIRGINIA JAMES M. ADKINS, Adnlniatntor) of tha Estata of Ralph E. ) Adkins dacaasad, at si. ) ) Plaintiffs, ) 8) s. ) No. 81-2098 ) MONSANTO COMPANY, a Dalavara ) Corporation, ) ) Dafandant. ) Daposition of WILLIAM R. GAPFEY, takan on bahalf of tha Plaintiffs. Raportar: M. Joy Springer r J ames M ay R eporting S ervice C E R T IF IE D S H O R T H A N D R E P O R T E R S B R 2 - BOX 65 ED w a RO SVILLE ILLIN O IS 62025 1 v :. v^i %>*-' z2 v THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT "j ^'"'e Si.'[^S^A p i ",* S O U T H E R N D I S T R I C T OF W E S T V I R G I N I A 3"'f*'ij?:--- T . ^ i p ^ r K ^ - C HA RLE STO N , WEST VIRGINIA rvc4 5 o 7 * I*"' t . . J A M E S M. A D K I N S , ) A d m i n i s t r a t o r of the of Ralph E . Adkins, Deceased, e t si., Estate) ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) S) v s- ) No. 31-2098 9) MONSANTO COMPANY, - - r * . - 10 a D e l a w a r e C o r p o r a t i o n , - U' 11 Defendant. ) - . V :>r!V < ,7- V - iv V ;. 12 A P P E A R A N C E S : 13 M e s s r s . Ca 1w e 11, M c C o r m i c k ~ P e y t o n , by Vi. S t u a r t C a l w e l l , Jr., Esq., 14 On Behalf of the Plaintiff; 15 16 M e s s r s . B o w l e s M c D a v i d , G r a f f & Love, by ?. M i c h a e l P l e s k a , Esq., 17 On Behalf of the Defend an t. 18 IT 1 TIPULATED AND AGREED bv and 22 b e t w e e n c o u n s e l for p l a i n t i f f and c o u n s e l for 23 d e f e n d a n t that the d e p o s i t i o n of W I L L I A M R . 24 G A F F E Y ma y be t a k e n p u r s u a n t to the Ru l e 25(a) of 25 the F e d e r a l R u l e s of C i v i l P r o c e d u r e , on F e b r u a r y r 1 24, 1984, at the the Clayton Inn, 7759 Carondolet 2 >>A*7v e nue .. r. C 1 a y t o n r- r_ , Mi s s o u i r , before M . JOY 3 S P R I N G E R / a Notary Public w i t h i n and for 4 County of Madison, State of Illinois; a- V V-. * 1 i s s u a n c e of n o t i c e and d e d i n u s is w a i v e d , and 5 that this deposition nay be taken with the same 7 f o rce ana e f f e c t as if all F e d e r a l R u l e s and 3 statutory requirements had been complied with. 9 IT IS F U R T H E R S T I P U L A T E D A N D A G R E E D 10 t h a t any and all o b j e c t i o n s to all or any p a r t of 11 t h i s d e p o s i t i o n , e x c e p t o b j e c t i o n s as to the fjprm -f v 12 of the q u e s t i o n s a sked or a n s w e r s g i v e n , are c 13 h e r e b y r e s e r v e d an d ma y be r a i s e d on the tria 1'' o f 14 t h i s c a use. 15 * * * * * * 15 17 W I L L I A M R. G A F F E Y , 13 p r o d u c e d , sw o r n and e x a m i n e d on b e h a l f of the 19 P l a i n ti!f.f s , d e p o s e s and says as f o l l o w s : 20 21 E X A M I N A T I O N 22 BY MR. C A L W E L L : 23 o . S t a t e y o ur name, p l e a s e 24 A . W i l l i a m R . Ga f f e y . 25 Q . W h a t is your a d d r e s s ? f 1 A. 11269 Pineside Drive, St. Louis, 2 _.fjgjg&s sp-uV't*V-;i^ 63 14 6 . 3 What is you business or occupation? .4 A . I am nanacsr of epidemiology for the 5 Hon Santo Company.. 5 0. Are you a epidemiologist? 7 A . Y e s .' 3 O. What degrees do you have? '0 A. I have a Ph.D. in mathematical 10 s . 11 Q . Do you have any course work in V- 1 2 epidemiology as such? %i 13 A. I've taken a course in epidemiology.. I 14 have had extensive course work in physiology and 15 zoology, and I have functioned as an 15 epidemiologist for about 10 years. 17 Q. Is there a field of study called 18 epidemiology? 19 .a ?: Yes 20 > rfigz . And can one be awarded degrees in Tlh'- 21 i<3eiai o 1ogy ? 22 A. Yes 23 Q . Do you k now what these degrees are? 2 4 A . One of them would be a Mas te r of P u b 1 25 Health Degree The other would be Doctor of 1 Philosophy, a Ph.D. 2.. ^ -, 3\ In epidemiology? * // ' - : -V ,-*' rx: n epicewiolocy . 4 Q. Y'ou ao not nave, eitner one of tnose decrees? 5 A . y do not. 7 Q . Is there some boar 3 licensing o r othe^r type ofj- vc^LLiricarion -9 epidemiologists? % 10 A. Mo. ":` 11 0 . Is there some association of ?"-r- 12 epidemiologists? 13 A. Yes., 14 Q. Do* you know what the name is? 15 A. The,Society for Epidemiological 15 Research. 17 Q- Is that the only 18 A. To the best of my 19- -v -, . Q> \- Are you a member f;ifei v 20 _* *" A. Yes. 21* Q. H 0w long have you 22 A . For approx imat ely 23 Q. :.hat are the requirements for 24 member ship? 25 V A. Interest in and oractice in >; 2 V$ eoidemioloav. gr -Q ;' C o u l d I join 7 3 r* - ~*7 ; . * 4 Q. Yes . So there are , a s f 5 a c a d e m i c r e c u i r e n e n V- o or exp .mow, no a"ia n ~ 5 to be a m ember of the associ 7 A . No t that iT. ^\n o w o f 3 Q . How long h av e you 5 A . Since July o f 1979 1C Q . An d have you been 11 p o s i t i o n s i n c e that t ime? 12 A . Yes. 13 0 . An d p r i o r to y o u r 14 Monsanto I believe you testi 15 h e a r i n g that you w e r e e m p l o y e d by S t a n f o r d 16 R e s e a r c h ? 17 A. S t a n f o r d R e s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e , yes. 13 Q. And t h a t ' s in P a l o Alto, C a l i f o r n i a ? 19 In M e n l o Park, C a l i f o r n i a . .. 1-i V C . r ;*yr hP 2 OC' st'i Q^r" And at the tine you were employed ' V;- ~U ' 2 1 -tvr''**f: s Rly-w ere you a l s o t e a c h i n g s o m e p l a c e ? by 22 A. Yes. I had t e a c h i n g a p p o i n t m e n t s at 23 the S c h o o l of P u b l i c H e a l t h , one U n i v e r s i t y of 24 C a l i f o r n i a in B e r k l e y and at U n i v e r s i t y of the 25 P a c i f i c at t h e i r San F r a n c i s c o c a m p u s . Oh, and I 1 also ;had; an appointment at the University of 2" . hia Medical Center. 3.' At the U n i v e r s i t y of California at 4 ' Berkley? , 5 A. Yes. 5 0 . How long did you have a teaching 7 appointment there? 3 For approximately 20 years. 9 Q . was that a continuous appointment? 10 A . Part of the time as full-time faculty' 11 and oart of the time as part-time ao d o intment W t 12 0 . I would assume that over that 2 0. yea^& 13 period you taught a variety of courses? ^ w 14 A . Y e's . 15 0. Did they fall within a general field? lo ' A. In the field of biostatistics. 17 0 . Were those undergraduate courses? 18 A. Most of them were graduate courses. 19 j . 5*^ j .** ^ *' In '-r*t a Masters * program? -> .*>* v^. ..i: * <` dm{ 20 y * V**" A Masters and Ph .D . program. y 21 := ' v- ' ^ Q.v" " And the people that.would be taking 22 those courses, what kinds of degrees would they 23 be working on? Is there some generalization,you 24 could make? 25 A. Master of Public Health and Ph.D.'s. r - . -j. Q Ph.D. in epidemiology? - f f In epidemiology or in biostatistics. :yp^T^' ^ ** - 'And that was your general teaching 4 experience at the University of California a c 5 Berkley for the 20 year time period that you were 5 there? 7 A. That is correct. o Q. Vihe re did you receive your Ph.D. 9 A . From the Universit y of California a t 10 Be rk l e y . V- r 11 Q. And upon receiving the Ph.D. from ttei/t- 12 University of California at Berkley did you % L:r ^ v-r; 13 continue to teach? if-- Vulv 14 A. I then joined the f a c u l t y , 15 Q. No break in time, then? 16 A. No . 17 Q. All right. You also had teaching 13 19 appointments at the' University of the Pacific, . ^a *.A.rr.fe'ritOL, 2 O-f r* S S & ^ C :.Af-f That's right. 2 f V Q And that's located in San Francisco? 2 2 A. There is -a San Francisco- campus. rr 23 Q. Is that where you had your appointmen 24 A. Yes. ' 25 Q. And how long did you have your teaching appointment there? .if- L-;i. - - - .- - .2\l Fo r approximately two years. >*. 3''' 4 Ji^~' QiTr* Prior to the time that you came to worn v*--"'**; -f-,- f-ip- for Monsanto ? 5 A. Yes. Q . And were v.ou teaching the 'same kinds of 7 courses that you taught for 20 years at Berkley? 8 a . :io. 9 O . What v/e re you teaching? 10 E l e m e n t a r y s t a t i s t i c s to n u r s e s 0 an.d. t ... -- 11 ocner groups ... Q.- > - ** y . . 12 Q . Those wera undergraduate courses?. -*i--c- 13 A. Yes . 1*:--" 14'V i. ; y All right. You mentioned another 15 s c h o o l . 15 A. The University of California Medical 17 Center in San Francisco. 13 Q. How long was your teaching appointment 19 ^hereTe^-* 20 A;.~: To the best of my recollect,. 21 ..-Approximately 10 years. 22 Q. N o v , would that be 10 years preceding 23 the time you went to work for Monsanto? 24 A . Yes. 25 Q. And what general kinds of courses did r 1 you teach there? , - ; ..* T *+* * if?;. - r 'y?-**?- 2 { . K Occasional courses in elementary 3 ,,^tatisties' to medical students. .4 Q . , Since you have been employed at 5 Monsanto you have published as a co-author at 5 least one epid 1U1o g ica 1 s 7 A . Yes. 8 Q . And t h a t v/o u 1d b e 5 A . That is correct. 10 Q . T h a t yo u c o-au tho 11 A . Yes. 7 ._-;Sr\; - 12 Q . I 'm g o i n g to h a n d ou a corny of whahto^*- <- -i c; '--m-'7\: ' ; \ t 13 h a s p r e v i o u s l y b e e n n a r k e d position Sxhi bf h 'No 14 3 in a deposition of Shirley Conibear whose 15 deposition was earlier taken in this case, and it 15 purports to be a copy, in fact was identified in 17 that deposition as a copy of what I will call the 13 Zack-Gaffey mortality study of workers employed * r " ht, / 1 * 19 at theMfrfbjisanto plant in Hitro, and I would h an d - 20 copy.>tp:'you and your lawyer and ask you to take --I ljj ' r 21 looTc^at that and see if it is what it purports 22 to be, 23 A.. As far as I know, this is the study 24 that you refer to. 25 Q. I think I'm going to mark it as an fV 1 %rA . Yes. - 2 * hjj.^..Looking for a moment at Gaffey Exhibit 'fd> ;- 3 N o 2 , aid you do any work on this study? `4 A . No, I did not. 5 Q . Had it b e e n c o m p l e t e d at the time that 5 you beca m e e m p l o y e d by iionsanto? 7 A. D a t a c o l l e c t i o n w a s c o m p l e t e d and I 3 believe a draft report had been written. o Q. If you w i l l look on p a g e two o f ^ E x h i b i t 1C 2 in the r i g h t - h a n d c o l u m n under " P o p u l a t i o n and 11 ,:e l.n o c s . Towards the end of t h a t firs 1 2 p a r a g r a p h , in fact, the last s e n t e n c e in that.f: 13 p a r a g r a p h reads, " a n a l y s i s of the c'nloracne c a s e s 14 and exposures not associated with this accident 1 5 but rather with the normal TCP, 2,4,5-T processes lo w i l l be the s u b j e c t of a f u t u r e p a p e r . " Do you 17 see t h a t ? 13 A . Yes. 19 Q. : D o e s E x h i b i t 1 c o v e r the a r e a s t h a t are 20 .^.referenced to in that last s e n t e n c e as the f u t u r e t*`d 21 paper? 22 A. To the e x t e n t that the a v a i l a b l e data 23 m a d e it p o s s i b l e . 24 Q . As far as you k n ow, y o u r study, the 25 S a c k - G a f f e y study, was an a t t e m p t to f u l f i l l the 1 p r e d i c t i o n in E x h i b i t 2 that you have there 2 before you? J1 j??;' . A. Not e x a c t j>ly__. 4 q / Can y ou e x p 1a in w hat you mean? 5 A . T h e first stud y w as a sru a v or a c u z e 6 e x p o s u r e mJLli^C seco n d s t u d y w a s a s t u c y o z 7 chronic 6XP O3U re . 3 r\. Bo t h p a p e r s deal w i t h e x p o s u r e to- T C D D ? 3 A . Yes. * 10 Q . A n u b o t h p a p e r s c e a 1 w i t h N i t ro w o r k e r s \r 11 V7h o had c.n e x p o s u r e to T C D D ? ' i?W:r 12 A . Yes . r v't.' 13 Q . Can yo u t ell me g e n e r a l l y wh a t yo u did' 14 in c o n n e c t ion w i t h one Za c k ~ G a fie y s r u g y w h i c h 15 has b e e n l dent i f i e c here as E x h i b i r 1 fr o m tne 16 b e g i n n i n g and if y o u '11 jus t kind of give me a 17 r u n d o w n 0 f w h a t you did? 1 3 A . A population of workers was identified 19 . ..who h a q ^ s p e n t at l e a s t one y e a r as an h o u r l y *- _ Ur *>, ,*r< " ' * 20 ^enrpl'oy e e s o m e t i m e b e t w e e n 1955 and 1956, if I * 21 r e c a l l C o r r e c t l y . T h o s e p e o p l e were i d e n t i f i e d 22 f r o m g o v e r n m e n t s o c i a l s e c u r i t y r e p o r t s and o t her 23 s o u r c e s . T h e y w e r e t r a c e d to d e t e r m i n e t h eir 24 v i t a l s t a t u s as of the end of 1977 . The o b s e r v e d 2 5 d e a t h s by c a u s e found duri ng that peri o d were / 1 compared with expected causes based on the 2 'exp'erie.nce of similar population of U.S. white 3 males. Then those who had died who wet: a found to 4 have beer^ deceased were divided into two groups, 5 one'of which had been exposed to 2 ,4,5 -T as o evidenced by work history assignments in that 7 area and another group for whom there were no 3' such work history assignments. In each of the jrt\ two groups distribution of causes of death was 10 calculated and compared with what one would have 11 expected to find in a similar*collection of death 12 certificates from the general population. r. 13 Q. what kinds of things would you look for i 14 in a work hi-story to determine that a individual * 15 had a potential exposure to 2,4,5-T, and I assume 15 that the exposure to *2,4,5 -T was the key as to 17 whether or not they had a potential exposure to 13 T C D D , was that the idea? 19 A.: Yes. 20 Q . So what kinds of things did you look 21 for in the work histories to ascer rain n a a you 22 had a person who should be a part of the cohort? 23 A. People whose work histories indicated 24 an assignment to one of the buildings where 25 2,4 r5-T was produced or to an area in which f 1 trichlorophenol had oeen produced . 2 v -r-~>_ ~VV::~;Q,..&- DO y o u k n o w if you i n c l u d e d in your 3 /study some of the o e c p le or all of the a e o r, 1e 4 that were inc 1 u d ea in the Zack-Gaffey cohort? 5 A . Scm e o f them were included. 5 Q. A n d on Vih a i_ o a s i s w e r e the y i n c l u a e d ? 7 A . If u h sv s u b e q u e n t to 1955 h a a w orks d 8 for one year or mo re a s a h o u r l y w o rk e r and the -Q/ d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f v h eth er or not they ware e x p o s e d 10 in the s t u d y w as ba sea on v;nether or not their . 11 work h i s t o r i c s had inc l u c s d an a s s i g n m e n t to one 12 of the a r e a s jL-v1.1C- fL. 1r 'v e j u s t m e n t i o n e d , 13 Q . In o t h e r w o rd s , if a m e m b e r of the 14 Z a c k - S u s k i n d c o h o r t of 121 o t h e r w i s e fit the 15 c r i t e r i a for the co ho r t you w e r e d e v e l o p i n g in 15 the Z a c k - G a f f e y s t u d y , t h e n t h e y w o u 1 d be 17 i n c l u d e d ? 18 A. Tha t i s c o r r e c t . 19 n- -#2'-- t Q h n a t you we r e a f t e r was p e o p l e who 20 .TTworked at the p l a n t d U ring the time p e r i o d you -* -U.V"^ _ i 21 - -A-we r e c o n c e r n e a a o o u t a no p e o p l e v;hc *./o rk ed ir. 22 a r e a s of the p l a n t tha t you were c o n c e r n e d about 23 and who had a p o t e n t ia 1 for e x p o s u r e to TCDD, is 2 4 that correct? 25 A. B a s e d on w h a t v/e f o u n d in their work 1 histories, ves 2 !' - I Q W5-. If you w a 11 look at t a b l e 2 on E x h i b i t 3 No'. 2 , wh i c h is t h e Z a c k - S u s k i n d s t u d y , \> n a c o c e s 4 that table sho w ? i 5 A It I i 3 t s the i n d i v i d u a l s in that c o r ig in a 1 c v;h o had died of c a n c e r and g ives U V-l O J~4 o 1 spec : . i c s such a s t heir y e a r of birth, year or O \J hire r year of d e a t h and death cert if ic ate 9 s t a t a m e n t as to the c a u s e of d e a t h and 5n;ok ing 10 h i s t o r y . 11 D A n d do e s that table l i kewise i n dicate 12 l n a t - ho s e ni n e i n d i v i d u a l s w h o s e info rmat ion : 13 a p p e a r s t h ere were i n d i v i d u a l s that w e r e 14 b e t e rit.inec to h a v e be e n e x p o s e d to 15 t e t r a c h l o r o d i b e n z o d i o x i n ? 16 A. T h e y w e r e p e o p l e who w e r e d e t e r m i n e d to 17 h a v e had an a c u t e e x p o s u r e on the b a s i s of the 13 1949 inc i d e n t . 19 ' Q ; Now, if you w o u l d turn to ta b l e 10 o f xy ; 20 .Gaffey D e p o s i t i o n E x h i b i t 2-1o. 1? 21 A . Yes. 22 0. W h a t d o e s that t a b l e s h o w ? 23 A. It l i s t s the d e a t h s due to n a l i g n a n t 24 neoplasias a m o n g M i t r o p l a n t w o r k e r s e x p o s e d to 2 5 2 , 4 , 5 - T and, again, gives such s p e c i f i c s as their f year; of birth, year of hire, year of last . - - - - - - - - - Si-Sir---. ; i- jde.taiiJXs :such t '-''" " --* ' '" ^'h a b i t s . '* of termination, year of as the cause of death and death and smoking Q. 3y looking at the five bases that are identified there in the tables, such as year of birth, year of hire, year of death} ''cause of death and smoking history, you're able, are you 9 not, to make a match between persons identified 10 in table 2 and persons identified in table 1 0 ?. 11 A . w ith a fairly high degree of * 12 c o n f i d e n c e , y e s . ^ 4 'V ; ` * t -: 13 Q. And likewise, 'we would expect to find 14 in your study, th Zack-Gaffey study, all of 15 those persons who were a part of the cohort in 15 the Zack-Suskind study who otherwise met your 17 - criteria, is that right? 18 A. N o . 19*; All right. Can you explain that? .2 V:-; :A. r";lrSome of the people in the Zack-Suskind 21' 22 r ere salaried employees, therefore, who did not meet the criteria as having had one year's 23 employment as an hourly worker. They further did 24 not meet the criteria for exposure in- the second 2 5 study which was a measure of chronic exposure by r 1 1 A N u m b e r si x 2 .. Q . " And w o u l d that be the p e r s o n w h o s e year 3 of -b i r t h was 1 9 2 2 ? 4 A . T h a t is c o r r e c t . 5 Q . Year of hire, 1945? 5 ti Yes. 7 Q . And year of last exposure, 194 8? 5 A . Yes . 3 . Year of termination, 1972? x. 10 A . Yes . 11 Q . Year of d e a t h 1973? 12 A . T h a t is c o r r e c t . < 13 Q . P e r s o n was a n o n - s m o k e r ? i4 A . Correct . 15 0 . And died, a c c o r d i n g to the dea th 15 c e r t i f i c a t e , of b r o n c h i o g e n i c c a r c i n oma w i t h 17 m e t a s t a s i s . 'Can y ou e x p l a i n if y o u r s t u d y was 1 o one c o n c e r n e d w i t h c h r o n i c e x p o s u r e as o p p o se d to 19 acute :<exg)sure h o w it is that this g e n t l e m a n ' s 20 last-.yeax of e x p o s u r e was 19 4 3 ? 21 A . No, I can not. I would have to review 22 the o r i g i n a l d a t a to see if t h e r e is a 23 t y p o g r a p h i c a l e r r o r there. 24 Q. Y o u ' l l n o t i c e the last two p e o p l e on 25 t a b l e 10 i n d i c a t e s 1943 also. 19 1 A. I can't w i t h o u t a f u r t h e r r e v i e w 2 e x p l a in-rthe 1 9 4 8 . 3- SQ ' Is t h e r e sore w h e r e in y o u r p a p e r w h e r e 4 it s t a t e s that y o u ' r e c o n c e r n e d wi t h c h r on i c 5 e x p o s u r e as o p p o s e d :o a c u t e e x p o s u r e ? 6 A . Only i mp li c i t l y by the d e f i n i t i o n of 7 e x p o s u r e as b e i n g p l a c e of e m p l o y m e n t , that is, 8 t h o s e e x p o s e d 'were d e f i n e d in the s e c o n d s t u d y as 9 having been exposed by virtue of their 10 e p l o y m e n t . 11 0 . Can you find some l a n g u a g e t h a t ^ e n aJol es ': isyrn1': 1 2 v o u to m a k e that s t a t e m e n t th a t it is implied^--:,' 4. 13 t h a t y o u ' r e d e a l i n g w i t h a c h r o n i c e x p o s u r e 'as ` 14 o p p o s e d to a c u t e e x p o s u r e ? 1 5 A. I t h i n k you can find it on p a g e 577 in 15 the f i r s t p a r a g r a p h u n d e r " P o p u l a t i o n and 17 M e t h o d s . " The f i r s t s e n t e n c e I b e l i e v e d e s c r i b e s 13 the c o h o r t in t e r m s of d u r a t i o n of e m p l o y m e n t . 19 ^ Q . Is there any r e a s o n wh y if y o u r i n i t i a l *- i` 2- VJ* -S ../ . 20 - .`ipintent was to do a s t u d y on c h r o n i c e x p o s u r e , you jr '- i 21 *7 -.^wouldn't h a v e just said this s t u d y is to, am o n g 22 o t h e r t h ings, d e t e r m i n e the e f f e c t s of c h r o n i c 23 e x p o s u r e ? 24 k . I can't now remember why we did or did 25 not sav that. r 1 Q. W h e n did you d e c i d e that it was a 2 cotonici exposure pacer? >rO ' 3 A.r- B e f o r e we d id t he study. :^ 4 Q . Now, i f you W 0 u Id turn to t a o 1e 11 o f 5 S x h ib i t 1 , can you te 11 me w h a t that carle 1 1 is? 5 n T h a t is a 1 1 s t of the d e a t h 3 due u0 7 cancer a mong Nitro pi ant w o r k e r s not expos e d t 0 S 0 A s - *7' g i v i n g e s s e n t i a l l y the same sort of D i n f o r m a t ion as was p r o v i d e d in tabi e 10 for 1C such person. 11 0. And is it fair to infer fr o m the ti t l e 12 of that table that those are persons who were.-not 13 e x p o s e d to T C D D ? 14 A. P e o p l e who w e r e not e x p o s e d to T C D D by 15 the c r i t e r i o n e s t a b l i s h e d in this p a r t i c u l a r 16 subject. 17 0. So you w o u l d a g r e e w i t h w h a t I s a i d ? 18 A . Y e s . 19 x."- ;If you w i l l look at t a b l e 2 on e x h i b i t : ' 'SB*. 20 ^2-t- t'he,rZack-Susk ind study, can you find any 21 matches b e t w e e n the p e r s o n s i d e n t i f i e d there ana 22 the p e r s o n s i d e n t i f i e d on t a b l e 1 1 , aga i n , u s i n g 23 the c r i t e r i a of the five b i t s of i n f o r m a t i o n 2 4 p r o v i d e d in b o t h ta b l e s , that is, y e a r of birth, 2 5 year of hire, year of death, type of death, 30 1 s m o k i n g h i s t o r y . If y o u 'd like to make some 2 -Aotes-'oni'.these e x h i b i t s , D o c t o r , go ahead. .1, - V * '"V- 3 . T h a t '-s q u i t e all right. 4 (W h e r e u p o n a r e c e s s was taken, 5 after wh ic h the folio wi n g 5 proceedings were had:) 7 Q. D o c c o r , h a v e y ou c o m p l e t e d y our uo c o m p a r is on of the d a t a c o n t a i n e d in t a b l e 2 of 9 the Zac;-; - S u s k i n d s t u d y w i t h the data c o n t a i n e d ...in 10 t a b l e 11 in the Za c k - G a f f e y s t u d y ? -Vv r 11 A . Yes , I h a v e . i 4?:. ,, - fh 1 2 Q Do yo u find any m a t c h e s ? -7%.^ . . a*" *v- 13 A . Yes. I f o u n d four m a t c h e s . 14 Q . And w o u Id the four m a t c h e s , can you 15 tell me wh a t four m a t c h e s you find? 16 A . If we c o u n t d o w n f r o m the top of the 17 list, the f i f t h and s i x t h ones, the n i n t h one and 1 S the t w e n t y - s e c o n d one, w h i c h is four fr o m the 19. b o t to m go f the list. ; *i- -* 20 Q . And the y matc h , do they not, wit h the 21 p e r s o n s i d e n t i f i e d on^ t a b l e 2 of E x h i b i t 2 in the 22 one p o s i t i o n , the two p o s i t i o n , the five p o s i t i o n 23 and the s e v e n p o s i t i o n ? 24 A . Yes . 0. All right. Now, can you e x p l a i n w hy it 1 jfiu r is that, the four p e o p l e c o n t a i n e d in table 2 of If--. ;E x faib who are ident if ie d as having been exposecLjft'o t e t r a c h l o r o d i b e n z o d i o x i n a p p e a r in your stu d y as p e r s o n s who w e r e not e x p o s e d to tetrachlorodibenzodioxin? A. B e c a u s e two d i f f e r e n t d e f i n i t i o n s of exposure were being used. Q. Well, tell me a b o u t that. 9 A. The e a r l i e r s t u d y i d e n t i f i e d exposure.- 10 as b e i n g a c u t e e x p o s u r e d u r i n g or i m m e d i a t e l y _ .pj* 11 a f t e r the 1949 i n c i d e n t . The s e c o n d s t u d y - St .. >iir 12 d e f i n e d e x p o s u r e as h a v i n g w o r k e d in an ar e a ... .y. x. 13 w h i c h t h e r e was p r o d u c t i o n of 2 , 4 , 5 -T or TCP. h 14 0. Is t h e r e any o t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n for 15 t h a t ? 16 A. Not that I'm a w a r e of. 17 ' Q. How did you d e f i n e c h r o n i c e x p o s u r e in 13 19.- the study that you performed? y We d e f i n e d it as h a v i n g b e e n a s s i g n e d 2 0 . " /So 'a w o r k ar e a in w h i c h 2 , 4 , 5 - T or TCP v/a s V' .e 21 ._.rp P O d u c e cT. 22 Q. W o u l d a l e n g t h of time be i m p o r t a n t in 23 d e t e r m i n i n g c h r o n i c e x p o s u r e in that i n s t a n c e ? 2 4 A. It c o u l d be. 2 5 0. If a p e r s o n was a s s i g n e d to work in the 22. .,,time period that you were concerned about, 195 5* 77 and met all the other criteria with ^^eVetTce":--to being an employee of the plant 1* * .% <i vi .' during the times that you were concerned about, wou ld he have been i nc lu d e d if he had wo d a y ' in a 2,4, 5 -T u n i t ? A. He C 0 u 1d h a v e b e e n . 0 . How i s t h a t c h r o n i c e x p o s u r e ? A. In the s e n s e t h a t t h e r e was no accidental extreme release of large amou n-fcs o fy; A? ^ ,'0 - any of the substances under consideration^> * V; 0. So it's your :~ epidemiologist that in i testimony as your, study a JT'. ' g|.: a -d- - -^ W ? W r person coul'd \ * be exposed one time in the normal course of events at the plant to 2 , 4 , 5-T that may have been contaminated with tetrachlorodibenzodioxin and be a chronically exposed person? A. This is the definition that N 1 0 SH used shing 'their Dioxin Registry. Q ;VJ And that is the definition that you '^U'^e'd*:in' your study? A. Yes. * m Q , Now, tell me how you defined acute exposure. A. Those persons who were exposed -- I beg 2^1 ct* * *y'is. 3 -. 4":' 5 S 7 8 '9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 ' 18 191s 2 <&j. 21' 22 23 24 25 .your pardon. I have not defined acute ex d o sure i-There are two studies here, one of which - jr-". ^ ' * .-^cu te exposure but which was done bv - other persons . Q. Die you not in determining who was chronically ex posed and not acutely exposed have to have some understanding of the difference between acute and chronic for purposes of your study? - w f '- --.. v* -.. ^' A. Only in the sense that we needved ~ vvv .> . -- . i t fc_ - . ^ *' * ';* , ; v'= definition of chronic exposure. Vai lii Q. You had no definition of acu 3 :> exposure, I take it? : -t A. Not in the second study. Q . Well, why did you tell me just a minute ago that you would differentiate a chronically exposed person who was exposed on one day from an acutely exposed person because a chronically person would not have been exposed to any v". C id'enjbirl release? 'A * There is in my opinion a difference between the two kinds of exposure. Having studied the acute exposures in one study it seemed appropriate in order to complete the picture to look at those people other than the 1; ,on.es who. had been involved in the 1949 accident. v. . Do you know vw,hether the persons who 3/ '.^:i^SE-feL`-4^posed in connection with the 1949 accident 4 suff e red-, repeated expo t* 5 A . I don 't know 6 Q. If they were 7 exposure? 3 A. I'm unable to speculate because I don't '9 have any knowledge in detail of the kinds of 10 exposures that are involved in the '49 accident.- ...V 11 Q . Vihy did you decide to begin at year /\ 12 19 55? M'^v-at *': ! 13 A. Because the record system at the p Ta n t f 14 did not retain the records of all people who 15 terminated before 1955. Had we included those 16 people, there would have been no way to identify 17 * a considerable number of those who had terminated 18 and whose records had then been lost. -rt-- .. Why did you exclude the 1`22 or the 1 2 1 ? equate records on them, didn't you? 2 They were not excluded. 22 Q. They were excluded to the extent t h e y , 23 didn't meet your 1955-1977 time criteria? 24 A. Nor exposure criteria. 25 Q. So what I'm saying to you is why didn't .C ; '";>? "J:" xpan^* your criteria to e n c o m p a s s .those ^ ` Because the acute exposures had already D eeti tu d ied and found to have turned up nothing and*, therefore, the purpose of the second study was to complete the picture by looking at chronic exposure. Q . But you didn't know whether the acutely exposed oersons were also subject to ch roiti'S 10 exposure, did you 7 11 A. Mo , we did not. 12 Q- And 1 u s true, isn't it, 13 numbers you have in your cohort as a 14 epidemi o log i.st , the more accurate the 15 conclusion's going to be, isn't that right? 16 A. No. i 17 Q. Why do you d i s a g r e e .with that? 18 A. Because if one increases the sample 19j including a.different exposure or people 24) ^exposed, the results may not be 3... .-and may indeed be deceptive. .v' ' tf >; -/ 22 Q. My question was you made no effort to 23 determine whether the members of the 122 could 24 have properly been included as chronically 2 5 exposed persons because you cut them off at 1955? 1 A. Would you repeat that? V 2 * 'V* MR . PLESKA: Read it back. 3 *. 4- (thereupon the requested portion of 'the record was .read 5 by the Reporter.) 6 n> > That is correct. 7 Q. 17hy did you do that? 8 A . Because if we had made an effort-to 9 deter iTiine whether they were includable, we,would 10 have been biasing it because those people"were ' - 11 pe opl e V7e happened to have information on''fo r`4the-.' 12 pr e-19 55 pe rio d . There was an indetermina*nt. -CSr-* a 13 n UIT;be r on w h o w e did not have information... 1 4 Q. Do you know if each person identified 15 in table 2 of Exh ibit 2 is an hourly worker? lo A. Are you referring to table 2 of the 17 Zack and Su sk ind study. 13 Q . Yeah . 19 r- Av. . No, I d o not know. 20 Q- Do you have records that v/ould tell you 21 'that? 22 A. I believe so. 23 O . Do you know if all the persons 24 identified by data in table 10 of the Zack-Gaffey 25 study are hourly workers? 9.1 1 A. Not necessarily. 2- 'VQ;.'-;v\ Do you have data available to you that 3 T'-'-:'wbuid allow vou to know who on table 10 was an * -r- ` " - 4 hourly worker and who was a salaried worker? 5 "'V a Excuse 6 0 . Or is? 7 A . Ail of these were hourly workers at one 3 tine or another. 0 Q. And would that be true for the p e o p l e 1 10 identified on table 11? * i, , U; . ' -Ti-' t* ' v; .vA-.-v.n: 11 A . Yes. 7:- 12 o . And you have information available j2hat >. 13 would allow you to make the same determination-'"" 1 4 for the people on table 2 , is that right? 15 A. I believe that is the case. 16 Q. When you undertake a epidemiological 17 study, and I suppose that is what your study, the 13 Zack-Gaffey study is, is that right? 19 A,,*.. v Yes. 20 Do you identify some kind o f cont ro 1 21 r on p1? 22 A . Yes. 23 Q. What is a control group? 24 A. Beg your pardon. Did you say what is a control group? r - v- Q. tH-A, V` , ' * Yeah. 2i- A~iy^ : It is a group or people -r- rA ; ';?&'&exp'osure which is under study who but oo not nave who are 4-; otherwise comparable to -the exposed group that is 5 being studied. 0 Q. Ivhv do you have to have a control 1 group? s A. There is no other way to determine " 9 whether what is observed is in excess of what 10 would be expected. 11 Q . And did you have a control group in J 12 connection with your study, the Sack-Gaffey 13 study? t . - i 14 A . Yes. 15 Q. Could you define it? 16 A. The control group was the U.S. white 17 ' male population suitably adjusted to the age 18 distribution of the people who were under study. ; "ft ? ; IS. 1 Did you make any other adjustments .2 0 21" tpjte#'. than age adjustment? . ...1 'i " A g e , race, sex, date of birth in 22 addition to a g e . 23 Q . There is language in your study that 24 indicates you made no effort to ascertain 2 , 4 , 5-T 25 exposure in' the entire cohort of some eight r a? 1 hundred people. --V \ ^ 2';. \\;m: 3;" - ** t J;-A.r;.v That is correct. V.' .2*.-' And that you only ascertained 2,4, 5-T 4 exposure in. so far as the decedents were 5 concerned, is that correct? 6 A. ` Y e s . 7 Q . tTila t do you mean by the word 8 "ascertain"? 9 A. To determine whether the exposure,in 10 fact existed or did not exist. - 11 Q. Does that mean you went bey ond'- jus t 1 2 what appeared in the work histories? ,**> 13 A. Mo, because our original definition-of 14 exposure was exposure as measured by the 15 appropriate entries in the work history. 16 Q. Did every member of the cohort have a 17 ` work history of 2,4,5-T? 13 A. Every member of the cohort had a work 19 - history... a 20 .Q . I d o n 1t doubt that if they were . --.r . ;/ ---- r.: .. 21 isLv emp 1o.yed at Monsanto. Did they have a work 22 history of 2,4,5-T? 23 A . I don't k n o w .. 24 Q. Can you explain to me how it was you 25 came up with eight hundred and, what was it, 3O 1 eighty-four people? 2 Those were all the people who fit our 3 i" *-**?-'. ;d e i ' in i mjp.i?-o-ti in terms of duration of employment and 4 cates of* employment . 5 Q W ith no consideration given to whetner 3 they were a ss igned to work in 2,4,5 - T or not? 7 * N one ar> Q . And how is it that you only came .up 9 with 884? 10 A . Weil , I can only repeat my answer that 11 those are the people who met the crit e r ia that! we 12 set up. ;~V 13 Q . And out of that 884, and I hope I'm- 1 4 using the r igh t number -- is that the right 15 number, 834? 16 A. Yes , I believe it is. 17 Q. You then only ascertained 2 ,L-, DS m 1 S e x p o s u r e for the d e c e d e n t s , is that ri g h t ? 19 A^;^: T h a t is c o r r e c t . V.*. 20 .Q v< Now, w hy was t h a t ? 'M? ' 21 A ,7 T h e r e w e r e a p p r o x i m a t e l y 160 d e c e d e n t 22 w h i c h is a b o u t o n e - f i f t h of the total c o h o r t of 23 804. At that time our w o r k h i s t o r i e s w e r e not 2 4 c o m p u t e r i z e d , so in o r d e r to d e t e r m i n e e x p o s u r e 2 5 we had to look m a n u a l l y t h r o u g h the individual 31 1 records of as many people as we set o ur s el ve s a 2 sk o f l o o k i n g . At that time there was one 3' ~epi d e m i o l o g i s t e m p I c y e d am t h a t time other than 4 m y s e l f and p r e s s u r e of other d u t i e s mace us look 3 for ways to e x p e d i t e the study. The m e t ho d we 5 se was to do a p r o p o rt i c n a l m o r t a l i ty ana 7 t h o s e that Vere d e c e a sed . 3 Q. W hen was this s t u d y u n d e r t a k en ? 9 A . To the b e s t of my re c o l l e c t ! on, I . 10 b e l i e v e it was u n d e r t a k e n in 1380, late 19.80 v . y - ** 11 Q. Do you r e c a l l w h e n it was complete'd'g-., 12 A . Prob ably in 1981. 1 3 Q . You n c w h av e all -- J l - ** 'L \ ' 4 * .. 1 4 force c o m p u t e r i z e d in terms 15 you not? 16 A . All of t h e h o u r l y 17 Q. W h e n wa s that c o m p l e t e d ? 1 S A. To the b e s t of my k n o w l e d g e , p r o b a b l y 19 in e a r l y or m i a - 1 9 8 2 . ... * > 20 r z . Q. W o u l d y o u r s t u d y h a v e b e e n m o r e 21 'reliable had you a s c e r t a i n e d the 2 , 4 , 5 -T e x p o s u r e 22 for the e n t i r e c o h o r t ? 23 A . Yes. 24 Q. Yo u w o u l d n ' t be s u r p r i s e d if a s t u d y of 25 the c o h o r t w h e r e 2 , 4 , 5 - T wa s a s c e r t a i n e d in the 32- 1 ..entire:-cohort had conclusions different than the .J 2 e.s reached? *'rtj 3 -**Ia A..*C': I would be extremely surprised. -4-- - ^.-S . .4 Q. Or disappointed? 5 A. Surprised. 5 Q. V7hy were the salaried people excluded? 7 A. Salaried people do not have work 3 histories in the sense that their histories give 3 their titles rather than the place to which they 10 were assigned. There is, therefore, no w a y 'to 11 determine from a work record.whether a salaried 1 2 person was exposed to 2,4,5-T or not. t>*. 13 Q. Did your cohort include salaried 14 persons who at one time were hourly? 15 A . Yes. 15 Q. Could you have asked the salaried 17 people where they worked? 18 A. Not the dead ones. / Vi-:-- 19 - ^ understand that, but if you were 20 C*ingr*t6if- if they had been included in your 21 ^entire cohort and if you're going to ascertain 22 2,4,5-T exposure on the entire cohort, you coul 23 have asked them, couldn't you? 24 A. At the time we did the study a 2 5 substantial number of them would have been deat 33 another substantial number would have left Toymen,t. ;-k Q /'kjl How did you determine wnether the dead p;eople smoked or not? Did you ask them? A . We inquired of probably their co-workers at the p l a n t v Q. That won't `have worked, I'suppose, for the dead salaried people as to where they worked? A. It might have, although, the numbers would have been large and it would have been correspondingly less reliable- because we couldr.-rnf1't have made the -Q. How do you know the numbers would have been large. Weren't there more hourly people than salaried people and presumably more hourly People that smoked? A. ' I don't know. Q. Did you want to exclude as many people as youlcbuld to .get-the number down, make the -'=r j, *--?'* vdhu-mbe r ;-sma 1 le r and smaller? ' A.- N o . The real idea was to get people who had exposure unequivocally and not subjective-Q. Your position as a epidemiologist is it doesn't bother you to exclude as many people as r 1 possible to get the cohort down to a small size, , * y: 2 ;tii'at^ d 6e^sn 11 concern you? *Vii ,'j ^ ^ i 3 */?- f 1^ depends whether the people excluded 4 were exposed and whether their exposure could be 5 ascertained. 5 Q. But you didn't determine that in this 7 case? 3 A. 77e determined we could not ascertain 9 their exposure by objective means. The only w.a-y 10 we could have done it was by the method you &- 11 suggested which has been criticized by people .gin 12 other studies. 13 0 . You could have done it by determining 14 the 2 , 4 , 5-T exposure with the raining members of 15 the cohort you did identify, couldn't you, by 16 objective means? 17 A . Yes, 18 Q . Why was it presumed that people who had 19 plant^-ifd-e, responsibility such as mechanics and -w 20 Lagr-ters and electricians, were not exposed? 21 A,,`"' Because some of them were not and some 22 were and there was.no way to distinguish between- 23 these two groups on the basis of their work 24 histories which' did not identify the -areas in 25 which they worked. 3< 7 '. 1 k:'.* Q*_ Wouldn't it have been just as valid to ` t-rc---^vV^<r--?--..: ^Tl-^'^3 sume.l;tl3'ey were as to assume that they weren't? ,*.V -4-1 T^v'" . A'br"^ No Q.~ Why?. A. 3y assuming that they weren't, v/e had a study group we knew was exposed. If we had assumed that they all were exposed-, then we would have had a study group consisting of some exposed 9 people diluted by people without exposure.-.^..-. ,/f 10 Q. By the sane token, you also had study ` .v `v 11 arouD that excluded o eoole who aid in fac^^m'ejKfcV^ 12 your criteria by arbitrary exclusion by Hecidgi.g: 13 people who had plant-wide respon si bili ty-**'s-imply" f 14 did not have' exposure? 15 A . No . 16 Q. Did you make some determination that 17 ` people who had plant wide responsibility in fact 13 did not have exposure? 19 * . i'SA^:V-'--No . 20 'T Q--^V How can y ou sa7 'Y taking your 21 lar b-itrary decision to exclude them you did not i 22 fact exclude people who had exposure? 23 A. Because our definition of exposure war 24 identification of the appropriate v/ork area. 2 5 Q. Tell me about the time period 1955 to 3<e 1 1977, why did you choose that time period? 2 -iirf' Af IsT; I have already explained why we didn't 3" " include people before 1955. At the time the .4 study was done the principal means of foliow-up 5 was- through the Social Security Administration, 6 and at that time the most recent data they could 7 give us was the vital status as of the end of 3 1377. ' -' 9 Q. Is there any other reason? *. 10 A. No. 11 Q. Does the fact that by choosing -that J 12 time period you necessarily must have considered 13 people who were perhaps hired in 1976? 14 A . Yes. 15 Q. And you necessarily must have included 15 people who were hired in 1969? 17 A . Yes. 13 Q. Providing- for a ever-shortening l a t e n c y 19 period,*.; i s n 't that true? 20 V Av " Only among the unexposed. 21 * Q. And as far as you're concerned, that 22 reality about your study does not materially 23 affect its conclusion? 24 .A. That is' correct, 2 5 Q. V7hat do you base that on?' 37 1 ... - A. ... The fact that for the exposed people . ?.. imum latency period was approximately 1 1 , y i '.U`"Sr:?;- 3 ; 6 r .liVy ears. Whether or not the un exposed 4 people were-hired more recently or not doesn't i 5 affect -- we had a latency period for the exposed 5 people. 7 Q. From 11 to 12 years on the average? , 8 h N o . M in im um . '9 Q . If you would look at tables 5, 6 and 7. 10 of Gaffey E x hibit, I think it's 1 , wh ich is your " V_u* _ 11 study, the n Li a c k - G a f f e y study.- *5?rT~ 12 7^ %r ,j ULi huh (yes). . 13 rV\- r^*c-Kln you explain those to me ? ,-ty i 14 A. PA case me, those are tables 5, 6 and 7 7- 15 Q . 5, d and 7 . 16 ` A . In each case we have loo k ed at observed 17 * and expected deaths and at their ratio and we 18 have done it for different subject group s of the 19., ^^^feudy^^ppula t ion . Table 5 w e did it by the years 20k,. "which people died, table 5 V7e did it by a q e at 21 `' T ^ d a t h `and in table 7 we did 1 t by the year in 22 which they were hired. 23 Q. So these were subject groups that you 24 sought to test? 2 5 A. That is correct. 1 Q . And the subject groups were generally 2 . -if&entifiea by c a l e n d a r time, age at d e a t h and " * ^ ' v ; 3 y-ea r' o f hi re for purposes of testing, is that A right? 5 A . That is correct. 6 2 . Was there any c ther 1 im :Ltation? Did 7 you h ave to have a certain n u mb e r of malignant 3 neoplasms appearing before you would? 9 A. Yes, in the sense that I believe there 10 was some causes where if we had no observed 11 deaths, they were left out of the table. P fi 12 2 . Was there some cutoff number, a minimum 13 number that you had to have before you considered 1 4 them? 15 A . No . 16 Q . You d i d n ' t test a n y t h i n g t ha L. had fewer 17 t h a n five e x p e c t e d d e a t h s , did y o u ? 13 A . No , I did not. 19 *--r*. Q ,->- Why is that? 20 cT* - A It is c o n s i d e r e d g o o d p r a c t i c e by m a n y 21 e p i d e m io 1 o g i s ts, i n c l u d i n g s e v e r a l t ha c w o r for 22 NI OSH 23 Q . Can y o u tell me who seme o f U 4iose good 24 epidemiologists are? 25 A. Doctor James Beaumont (phonetic). 7 i 1 1Q Does he have some publication you rely d.f^that bit of information? N0 . '"Q.-"'' He just tell you that? A. If I am not mistaken, he's included that same structure in one of his publications, but I can't remember what it is. , 8 Q . Y o u d o n ' t k n o w why he di G it t h a t w a y ? '9 A . Y e s . * f^ 10 Q- B e c a u s e i t ' s c o n s i d e r e d g o o d p r a c t i c e ? 11 A. Y e s . 'yf: 12 Q. H o w d o y o u k n o w t h a t it is c o n s i d e r e g t y 13 good practice if he didn't tell you and you"^- 1 4 haven't read- anything that he wrote that said it 15 was good practice? 16 ' A. The assumption used in doing 17 statistical tests of this kind is that the 18 observed deaths follow a prosaun (phonetic) 1 9/-v d irsCcioutiion. It's.been verified in several *-- . , -- -* ..S' . . .20--5 21 1| ^ u B :lcat:`ions that that is not true but it is 7r^/- ^approximately true as the number of expected 22 values gets larger, and in similar situations of 23 that kind five.has been used as a cutoff point. 24 Q . Any other reason? 2 5 A. No. ifo (Whereupon a recess was taken, after which the following Proceedings were had:) t-iQ*.' Doctor, I believe you have been identified as an. expert witness by Honsanto? Yes . 0. Do you know what you are going to testify about? A. No. i Q. You have not been briefed about%-any opinions you're expected to give? ~?v ! Vipu w-.v- t! A . Only that if they are professional'^ opinions tha-t I have already arrived at, I'm to respond and give you those opinions. 0 . Well, what professional opinions have you already arrived at? A. About what, Mr. Calwell? r~ * ? Well, a b o u t t h i s c a s e . * '. In so far as the case concerns dioxin i^expos'lir*eI have cone to the conclusion that there is no evidence of 'any untoward effect from- dioxin exposure based upon both on the studies that we have been discussing and several studies done in other times and places. 1 Q. All right. Now, the studies that you 2 discussing have been the 3 4 5 0. Now, tell me about the other studies 5 that support your opinion that there are no 7 untoward effects in humans resulting from dioxin 3 exposure . T*fhen you say dioxin, that is 2,3,7,37 3 A . Yes. 10 o. And does that also extend to any other 11 isomer of dioxin? 12 A . Most of the studies have concerned 13 themselves either explicitly or implicitly with 14 2 ,3,7,3, although, in some others there were 15 exposures to others well. 15 Q. You were about to tell me the names of 17 some of these other studies that you arrived on 13 your opinion that there are no adverse health i , ''I, 19 .elffects-'hiUi humans from dioxin exposure. - r 20 ..` A mortality study of 2,4,5-T workers 21 ..yardne by*Dow Chemical, cohort mortality study. 22 0 . Can you identify that study a little 23 more particularly, time frame? 24 A. The senior author was a Gerald Ott, 25 O-T-T. I can't further identify it at the 1 moment. 2V - think that is sufficient. -*i' ^ i' 3 r''V;-'* . . " `5^ Finnish study, cohort mortalittyy study V; of fb'rest'ry workers whose senior author's last 5 name is Riihimaki, R - I - I - H - I - M - A - K - I . A study of 5 New Zealand pesticide applicators. The senior 7 author's name is Allen Smith. NIOSH 3 investigation of soft tissue sarcomas, in - 9 particular at Nitro and at one of the Dow plants;,.- 10 which established that half of them had b e 11 m i s o i a g n o s e a . ^ -Si'VT"'' r 12 Q. Does that have any more p a r t i c a r 7 % 13 identifying information? t :A` :`S- f 14 A. It has not yet been published. It was 15 presented at a symposium in Rockwell University 16 last October 2 2. 17 ' Q. Do you know who presented the paper? 18 A. No. The senior authors, I forgot the 19,, hi*.order'>inwhich they appear, are William Halperin, 2 0 :..iQ^pSlA-L-P-E-R-1-N, and a Merlin Fingerhut, , jt. * 21 *'::- - ^ i -n -g -e -r -h -u -t . 22 Q. Can you think of anything else, any 23 other studies? 24 A. Yes.- A study by a Dr. Samuel Milham, 25 M-I-L-H-A-M, of forestry workers in the State of r 73 1 W a s h i n g t o n . I c a n ' t r e c a l l w h e n or w h e r e it was 2 n5ubi l V K e d . Those are the o n l " ones I can recall 3 b the' n o n e n t . A Q . Do those c o n s t i t u t e t he p r i n c i p a l ones 5 y o u `w o u l d rely on? 5 A . Yes. 7 T . Mow, is it y o u r o p i n i o n that a ion in has nO no e f f e c t s on h u m a n s ? jn A . M o . 10 Q . W h a t is your o p i n i o n as to e f f e c t s ? . 11 A . A c u t e e f f e c t s fr o m h e a v y e x p o s u r e s have 1 2 been o b s e r v e d , m o s t p a r t i c u l a r l y in the 1949 -m 13 i n c i d e n t at IIi t r o and in o t h e r p l a c e s . I 14 t h e r e f o r e m u s t c o n c l u d e th a t d i o x i n in large 15 e x p o s u r e s does c r e a t e a c u t e e f f e c t s and lo c h l o r a c n e . 17 Q . All right. Mow, tell me w h a t h e a v y or 10 l a r g e dose is, I mean, h o w w o u l d I know. You 19 terlrlf-:m a l a r g e d o s e will p r o d u c e a c u t e e f f e c t s . 20 eh-wh a t " l a r g e " is. <. * 21 Av A dose t h a t w o u l d c a u s e c h l o r a c n e m i g h t 22 be e n o u g h to c a u s e ot h e r a c u t e e f f e c t s . 23 o . W e l l , h o w big is that d o s e ? 2 4 A . I d o n 1t know. 25 Q . Is it y o u r o p i n i o n that u n l e s s 1 chloracne present, there con Id be no other acute 2 . Effects?*. 3 ;,`A . Thar is my opinion, y-e s . 4 Q . And do you have some bit of literature --f chat you case that on? 5 A . 0 . i nave opinions expresses 1 dermatolog S u3 w h o a r a e :<p e r t s in c h l o r a cne . 3 Q . 1 1 r in n t . A n d tell ma V/no cn e v *are. 3 A . Dr. R aynon! Suskina . 10 Q . Is he a dermatologist? 11 C oc -- V-- -J r *\r*. o 12 Q . Is that the same fellow tha e x;aminr*.&e*>d.'*JV**" t ' *>- * i ,p * ' - * 13 the people in liitro? 1 4 A . Yes. 15 0 . And far as you know i t 's his opinion 15 that unless there is chloracne there is not going 17 to be any other acute effects, right? 13 A. That is correct. 19 >/; h`Q";- And so you base vour opinion in oart on ^ ^ /.$ 20 vbh-is opinion, right? 21 "* 4, - -A. On his opinion and other people's * " 22 opinions. 23 Q. Tellme who the ocher people are? 24 A.One of them is a Dr. Edward Crow from 2 5 Great Britain, another dermatologist with some ^ -- ..... - - if; - r 1. .experience'in chloracne, and a Dr. Taylor whose 1 - s* I forget from Cleveland,.a third / r' i\ ''t.y^aeirmato'lipgist, again, with some experience in the 4 area o f-:-chlo racne . 5 Q. And it is .your opinion that if you 5 would observe chloracne in a person who gives a 7 history of being exposed to some substance that 3 is capable of being contaminated with dioxin or 9 dioxin itself, that unless chloracne was ---\prre-sen.t-*i'J-*i>-:T'-*10 there would not be a heavy exposure, is " : t h a t * 11 right? '~" ~ 12 A. That is my opinion. .. --'- .ftt'**'-T> 13 Q. Will chronic exposure amount to> heavtyj^-v` 14 exposure in -time? 15 A . I don't k n o w . 15 Q. If you had' a person who had chloracne 17 but no history of any acute exposure by a history )--1 00 19; of chronic exposure, what would be your opinion t , y.:*^v-u^'. r or not he had a heavy dose of 20 21 - '.,v ArW `V. This is not a medical opinion but one 22 based on my observation. I would say he probably * 23 had a heavy dose of dioxin. 24 Q. It is cumulative, then? 25 A. I don't knoV r* r 1 Q . But in your opinion a man who had a 2 v and no acute heavy your opinion, have 4 ' ' '"'l*what you call a heavy dose? 5 A. My opinion is based on exposure defined 6 as wo rk ing in the 2 ,4,5-T unit, so I cannot say 7 with certa inty that that exposure was uniform or 8 wa sn 1t at sometime higher than others. 9 0 . You have no opinion, then? -----r` - . . 10 A . I have no opinion in that area _V> 11 0 . Tell me what other acute effe ct-:s" d i*cis *** "V;. 12 will cause when it is present in a heavy'do ' s' 13 you have defined the circumstances that wod^ct?- V 1 4 lead you to be.lieve a person had a heavy dose of 15 dioxin? 15 A, I'm not able to recite those symptoms 17 * in detail, but they are described in one or both 18 of the papers we discussed. 1 9_- : -<' Q f e b T e 11 ^ e generally 2 hi L 21- . A:T.* . Aches and mains, insomnia, some liver tion abnormalities. Those are the ones that 22 I recall. . 23 Q . N o w , are tho se acute effects -- when 24 you say an acute effect, what do you .mean by that \ 2'5 term? 1 _ ( A. I mean something that has a 2^ ^ 1-- 3.e^ned onset short time after the exposure 3"V whi^dh then goes away over a period of days or d ''-weeks. Q. How many weeks? A. I don't know, but a condition that 7 resolves itself over time' rather than one that 8 persists. 3 0 . Is there any time limit that you Vre 10 willing to recognize? '*' 7 11 A. No. I think that is a medical-kju.-esl, S..ioh-* n*. . -o 12 that I'm not comoetent to answer. 13 Q. You don't have any idea how nuc^irae:1 14 you 're ta 1k in g about, right? 15 A . No . 15 . Q. By your definition, then, acute effect 17 * could last three years? 18 * A. Oh , I would say no. 19 : " 2 0':- ** v j > , a.ri t a .r Two years? Perhaps . 2 r., -Q You 'r e not going to go three years, 22 right? 23 A . I 'm not certain because what I think o 24 a s acute is a situation that resolves itself 25 spontaneou s l y . 4' 5 5 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ` 18 .C. Q .- In a matter of a few days or weeks? Or possibly longer. But not as long as three years? ? A-; I don't think so. . Q. All right. Q. What's your opinion about any permanent effects that dioxin may cause? A. It may cause chloracne lasting ov.er a good many years. Q. A. Q. regarding And that is all, in your opini on'?' -\\y In my opinion, that, is all. `Q 'as'-* Have you formulated an opinion V. j. . *.r.r~ any of the other' substances tha't 't'h'ese; lawsuits concern? You told me about your general opinions regarding dioxin and it's effects on humans. Have you formulated opinions about carbon disulfide and its effects on humans? A. No . not prepared to testify about 22 Q. .Do you know anything about carbon 23 disulfide? 24 A . No . 25 Q. Have you ever studied carbon disulfide .A . No. ave you read any literature on carbon SrC:x.'^a^s.ulfg.dv.*e"? .A . Yes. Q. Can you tell me what you,have read? A. Mo. It was long enough ago so that I c a n 't remember the publications 'or the-papers that I read. 0. Do you have anv general idea of whafcy.. health effects, if any, carbon disulfide exert on human beings? 'k'.1^.. A. Mo. _iy ' * . o. Y o u 're just not qualified to tfa'f carbon disulfide, is that what you're telling me? A. That is correct. Q. What about, hydrogen sulfide, would that be your answer for hydrogen sulfide, that you're just not qualified to talk about it? A. My answer would be the same. * Q. You.haven't studied it, is that true? A. Only in the sense that I have studied a Nitro population, some-of -whom were;exposed. to_ so 1 .JVr_ -t.- P.t1: all. of..'these substances. *`- study wasn't calculated t those exposures, was it? to. 4 0 ^ _! `N o . 5 Q. So aside from the fact you might have 5 known that those substances were present in the 1 Nitro plant and presenting potential exposure 3 problems, you don't know anything more about it ' 9 that , right? 10 A. That is correc k* ; "c+ij' *- vV t r i i t 11 Q- Would that be 12 A. Yes. 13 f 14 Q. And that would A. Yes. ^ i i a. -l. 15 Q- And para-amino 15 A. No . 17 Q. Well, telT me 18 pa ra-aminobi phenyl?. ---- 19, .It was discovered in the 1 9 5 0 's to have iry y *: ^22 t-ri^^i&radder carcinogen. human beings? -t.,,r-? A.-; In human beings. 23 Q. And are you prepared to render some 24 expert opinion .at the trial of these cases in 25 connection with p a r a - a m i n o b i p h e n y 1 in any t..- r s '! epidemiological sense? 2 '' :* jC .'*v 3 /.--""f 4 ie-.A`Vrf*. N o t beyond the e re'ad which were not `V ^* -***" Q . : Well, you're j t not a u a l i r i e a to give 5 an o p i n i o n about p a r a - a m i n o b i p h e n y l , are you? 6 A . No t of my knowledge. 7 Q. How a b o u t b e n z e n e ? 8 A. Yes, I t h ink I am q u a l i f i e d to have an 9 opinion aoout oenzene. '-tab 10 Q. W h a t is the b a s i s of y o u r _r ., ,, v. r4?' ~ , ' 11 q u a l i f i c a t i o n s to h a v e an o p i n i o n a b o u t beriz.^xje'Xur* * - 12 A. I'm f a m i l i a r w i t h some of the 13 e p i d e m i o l o g y s t u d i e s in the l i t e r a t u r e andp^iliave 14 b e e n on the O v e r s i g h t C o m m i t t e e for i n d u s t r y - w i d e 15 s t u d y of w o r k e r s e x p o s e d to b e n z e n e . 16 Q . And are you p r e p a r e d to gi v e some 17 o p i n i o n in this case on b e n z e n e ? 18 1Q ,fT - > 2 0 :>4lW 2- A . Yes. Do you know what that op in io n is? V' A .V*^f The e v i d e n c e as to the c a r c i n o g e n i c i t y - b e n z e n e , p a r t i c u l a r l y its r e l a t i o n s h i p to 22 l e u k e m i a , seems to be th a t b e n z e n e in large do s e s 23 can c a u s e l e u k e m i a by i n i t i a l l y c a u s i n g a n e m i a or 24 o t h e r b l o o d d i s o r d e r s w h i c h t h e n p r o g r e s s to 25 l e u k e m i a . ._ - - ; -' t (- r7/.- **"4 ---r -*- *'*'--y'--*4->v . \,w- ",, v - ,,.* '**> -***-> " - * r ^ a.-^. ^_QS&-What 'is' a large dose? --` ; '. -" t \ _ 2 . ; ^ i e r a t u r e on Turkish shloemake rs whe re .T-~- `~3^ '---.`^vjrf.-. 4"`i: 5 parts per million. 6 Q. Is that the way you talk about doses in 7 terms of exposure, parts per million? 8 A. Normally, yes. 9 I mean, other epidemiologists 10 11 12 .bout an exposure dose in parts per mi l:l"i o' 13 A. Yes. 14 Q . Youu'1rree not aware of exposure doses to 15 in in parts per 16 17 18 A. No . Q - Do you have an opinion as to whether or someonee exposed to 50 parts per million y-*Ja ---:<-CVji.yv i|ild be a heavy dose? ~'\r&'V 2 l5^ 22 23 24 25 Ten parts per million? A. Since dioxin exposure is primarily through ingestion or skin, th concept of parts per million, which is applied to air levels, is not really relevant here. S2> r - . - 'T -3 ;-r--* **_ Q ._ ..Well, what w o u l d be relevant here in 'talking about doses of dioxin? ^-Probably some indication of how many Zj t . > :<n:riri ogr am s per k i l o g r a m of b o d y w e i g h t was t aken 5 i n .a day. 6 Q . Do you have any idea of dioxin dosage 7 in t h o s e te rms? 3 A . No, I do not. 9 Q. Have you r e v i e w e d the m e d i c a l r-eco'-rds y 10 of the D l a i n t i f f s in t h e s e c a s e s ? - 11 A . No . 12 Q . You do not k n o w w h a t t heir nedical^:>!$?i^7^ 13 c o n d i t i o n s are, do you? ' -L"'r' 1 4 A . No . 15 Q. You didn't have anything to do with the 16 setting up of Dr. Suskind's morbidity study, did 17' you? 18 A. No, I d i d n 't. 1: That was before your time that that got wasn't it? 2 1 , ^ ' T o the best of my recollection, it took 22 place about a month before I came to Monsanto. r 23 Q. The actual physical? 24 A . Y e s . 25 MR. CALWELL: That is it, Doctor. 5 `i r~ !t I r * ..i. .c * - *-* .2^; / '*rr -3-v SS ' iv. tr V 0Y SPRINGER, a Notary Public 4 ""'within and 'for the County, of Madison, State o`f ! 5 Illinois, do hereby certify that pursuant to 6 stipulation there appeared before me on February 7 24, 193*4, at the Clayton Inn, 7750 Carondolet 3 Avenue, Clayton, Missouri, WILLIAM R . GA FFSY , who 9 was first duly sworn by ns to testify to the ` - .V j 10 whole truth of his knowledge touching thehnatterM'-.'' 11 in controvery aforesaid, so far as he ha&ra` 12 interrogated concerning the same; that heVwas-Styi-h t,.| -v- t -,*> i ^ - i - * -v i 13 sxaainea and his examination was taken aoWri' i*n ; 14 shorthand by me and afterwards transcribed by 15 computer-aided transcription, and his deposition 15 ' is herewith returned'. 17 ' I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither 13 attorney nor counsel for nor related to nor 19 r.*^ i g d i i b y any of the parties to .the action in ; I . . hV, * * 2 0;Vj*V ''Kgwfia.ch 'iQi:irs - - .r< *** -i v5 v* - ' vFE 'v . T * vi Tt . r r ZT v 2 1 " y-!- -;r^fra' not a * deposition is taken; relative or employee and further, that of any attorney 22 or counsel employed by the parties hereto, or 23 financially interested in the action. 24 v- 25 T 1 IN WITN3SS WHSR20?, I have hereunto set 2 M iariaV-and affixed ny notar la seal on this 29th 3. . o f'"IFebruary , 1934. Notary Puoiic within and for the County of 11a3 iso n in the Stats of Illinois. !-