Document g4eyRBBjLbx0k3q6Xz9JgbjG

1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF ILLINOIS 2 ST. CLAIR COUNTY 3 FRANCES E. KEMNER, at al., ) ) 4 Plaintiffs, > ) 5 vs. ) NO. 80-L-970 ) 6 MONSANTO COMPANY, ) ) 7 Defendant. ) 8 Before the HON. RICHARD P. GOLDENHERSH, Judge 9 10 11 12 JURY TRIAL 13 July 29. 1985 14 15 16 17 18 APPEARANCES: 19 MR. REX CARR and MR. JERRY SEIGFREID, Attorney* at Law Appaarad on Bahalf of the Plaintiffs 20 21 MR. KENNETH HEINEMAN and MR. JOSEPH NASSIF, Attomays at Law 22 Appaarad on Bahalf of tha Dafandant 23 MARSHA SCHNIPPER 24 Official Court Raportar 1 INDEX 2 DR. GEORGE ROUSCH 3 Racross Examination........................... . 2 4 Raclarification Examination ...................... 146 5 6 EXHIBITS INTRODUCED ADMITTED 7 Plaintiff' No. 1529 ......... ....... 2 3 8 Plaintiff' No. 1530 ......... 4 9 Plaintiff' No. 1531 ......... 10 Plaintiff' No. 1532 ......... 128 11 Plaintiff' No. 1533 ......... 12 Plaintiff' No. 1534 ......... 138 13 Plaintiff' No. 1 5 3 4 A ....... 141 14 Plaintiff' No. 1 5 3 4 B ....... 141 15 Dafendant* No. 924 ......... 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 I BE IT REMEMBERED AND CERTIFIED chat heretofore, on 2 to-wlt: Monday July 29 1985 being ona of cha ragular 3 judicial days of this Court, tha matter as harainbafora sat 4 forth came on for haaring bafora cha HON, RICHARD P. GOLDEN- 5 HERSH, Circuit Judga in and for tha Twentieth Judicial Circuit, 6 Stats of Illinois, St. Clair County Building, Ballavilla, St. 7 Clair County, Illinois, and tha following was had of racord, 8 to-wit: 9 aaaaaaa 10 THE COURT: Morning. 11 DR. GEORCE ROUSCH. 12 resuming tha witness stand, having bean previously sworn, 13 testified further as follows: 14 RECROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) 15 BY MR. CARR: 16 Q Doctor, I hand you now what's bean marked Plaintiff's 17 Exhibit 1529 and ask you to look at that and sea if you don't 18 agree that this is dealing with 2,3,7,8 TCDD found in Building 19 46. 20 A I don't sea where it says what building it is, sir. 21 Q Look at tha -- cha Pages 1, 2, 3, 4th from tha last 22 -- I'm sorry, 3rd from tha last page. Sea where it tells 23 where they cook tha samples from? 24 A Tha 3rd from last? 1 Q Yea, right in here, from Building 79, we've already 2 gone through that and hare than 46. 3 A Right. 4 HR. CARR: Offer that exhibit Into evidence If it 5 please the Court. 6 THE COURT: Any objections? 7 HR. HEINEMAN: Your Honor, it's clearly a Monsanto 8 document, but I don't think he's laid an adequate foundation 9 for Its admission, and I'd object to it on that basis. 10 THE COURT: Objection Is overruled. It's admitted 11 over objection. 12 (At this time Plaintiff's Exhibit 1530 was marked for 13 Identification purposes.) 14 Q Doctor, I hand you now what's been marked Plaintiff's 15 Exhibit 1530 and ask you to look at that and see If you recog 16 nise that as dealing with an analysis of various soil samples 17 In landfill areas in the Nltro Plant for 2,3,7,8 TCDD? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q Now, 1529 and 1530 both show the presence of 2,3,7,8 20 TCDD In the samples, wipe samples from Building 46 and taken 21 from these various land locations in the Nltro Plant, do they 22 not? 23 A I haven't figured that out yet. 24 MR. CARR: I don't think I offered 1530, your Honor. 1 X offer 1530, 2 THE COURT: Any objection to 1530? MR, HEIHEMAH; Seme objection as before, your Honor, 3 THE COURT: Fine. Same ruling. It's admitted over 4 5 objection* 6 Q . Doctor, can I help direct your attention to the tablet A Ye, sir, I think they list them as -- even though 7 8 the title says 2,3,7,8, in the chart it says parts par billion of TCDD. It doesn't say 2,3,7,5* 9 10 Q Well, Doctor, if you'll look at the introduction, it talks about -- they're comparing it with a 2,3,7,8 spike, 11 are they not. In each of these instances? 12 A X haven't read that. 13 Q Have you read it now, Doctor? 14 j \ A Yes, sir, but it doesn't say that they confirmed that 15 it was 2,3,7,8. 16 Q Doctor, the entire introduction talks about using 17 a specific 2,3,7,8 comparison, and then they give the results 18 using that specific standard. It's not unusual for your compan: 19 to use this shorthand method of describing 2,3,7,8, is it, sir, 20 21 to use TCDD? 22 A Wo, sir, not to me. 23 Q Wow, Doctor, both of these exhibits deal with the 24 analysis of soil samples and wipe samples from these buildings 1 and from those various land areas for TODD, does It not, 2 sir? 3 A They ware looking for something that would elute with 4 2,3,7,8, X'ra not sure they established that it was. They don't 5 say it Is, 6. Q Where does it say they"re looking for something that 7 elutes with. 2,3,7,8? Would you show me that language please? 8 A Wo, sir, X can't find that. 9 Q Than, Doctor$ why are you saying that they're doing 10 that? They're looking for 2,3,7,8 TODD, they call it Analysis 11 of Wipes for 2,3,7,8 TCDD, don't they, sir? Your chemists know 12 what they're looking for and they call It -- they analyses foi 13 possible concentration of 2,3,7,8 TCDD, don't they, sir? 14 A Yes, air, IS Q On the very first page they*re talking about it? 16 A Ye, sir. 17 Q And they don't anywhere say that it's not 2,3,7,8 TCD] 18 do they, sir? 19 A But they don't say it is either. 20 Q Doctor, what is the heading of the document? 21 A Analysis for 2,3,7,8 22 Q Andi Doctor, do they report parts per billion in thei$ 23 tables of what they found? 24 A Yea, sir. V 1 Q Now Doctor, those exhibits were all doted In 1935, 2 were they not, sir? 3 A Yes, sir 4 Q Doctor, the remedial work that took place took place 5 in -- the original testing for the EPA took place in 1983 6 didn't It, sir? 7 A I"si not sure whether it was *83 or *84, 8 Q Well, look at 1527 please, Doctor, Exhibit 1527 9 MR* CARR: Does he have the exhibits? 10 A No, sir. 11 Q The second sentence, Dr. Rousch, of the third page 12 entitled TCDD Remedial Work it says, sampling conducted during 13 1983 indicated the presence of TCDD at the plant, does it not, 14 sir? 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Q And TCDD there la used as a short term reference for 17 2,3,7*8 tetrachlorodibenaso-p-dioxin, isn't it, sir? - 18 A I don't know. 19 Q Doctor, look at the sentence just immediately pre 20 ceding it.> You se th words 2S3,7,3 tatrachlorodibenso-p- l\ 21 dioxin? y 22 A Yes, air. , t ` i , L ,, 23 Q And then behind it the parenthesis TCDD? .24 A Yes, air. 7 f; 1 Q They use TCDD there as- a shorthand reference for ,2 2,3,7,8 totraehXorodibanso-p-dioxiny do they not, air? 3 ,A - I 'm not -- ,I'm not!sure that's what it says 4 Q Doctor, when I write the name Ron Carr hare and put 5 in parenthesis behind it Carr, and you see the name Carr 6 throughout that document, you know from the fact that the full 7 name was written out and then my -- , the last name was put in 8 parenthesis, you know that wherever the, name Carr appears with 9 out parenthesis throughout that document, that that's shorthand 10 for Hex Carr; you know that, that's a very common method of writing, isn't it. Doctor? - JJ A K m , sir, 13 Q And that's exactly the method they uaeO. in this 14 document. Do you see that 2,3,7,8 TCDD right there, Doctor? L - ' 1 . -,, ' 15 A ' Yes', sir, 'i Ir 16 Q And do you see Immediately behind that in parenthesis 17 the letters TCDD? \- 18 A Vos,"sir,^ f* v 1: > ` i i, v... '^ V ' -f- f 19 Q Now, ,they mean to tell you that TCDD means throughout !/. * ' * - >i* ' '-bi 4 20 this document 2;3,7,8, do.they.not, sir? r 21 A I/don't know, i *":v v , . 22 Q Doctor,' isn't that the way a document like that is 23 ordinarily read and interpreted, customary and ordinary usage 24 is just as 1 have described it to you? 1 A Ho, sir* . 2 Q That isn't customary and ordinary usage, Doctor? 3 A Ho, air. 4 Q You don't do that rather than write out the entire 5 thing? 6 A They're talking about two different time frames* 7 Q Doctor, the TCDD follows immediately behind the words 8 tetrachlorddlbenro 2,3,7,8, doesn't it,, sir? 9 A Yes, sir. 10 Q And isn't the TCDD in those parenthesis referring to 11 2,3,7,8 tetrachlorodibenso-p-dioxin^in that sentence, sir? 12 A X don't know 13 Q You don't know that, Doctor? 14 A Ho, air* 15 Q Isn't that the way you would interpret that. Doctor? 16 A It may be that or it may not* 17 Q Doctor, ay question is isn't that the way that you 18 would interpret that. 19 A No* ' - 20 (Pause), ! ;^ 21 Q (Mr. Carr writing on easel.) 22 A I can't quite see that, sir. 23 Q That's all right, you don't need to. I'll read it 24 to you* I'm not writing well enough to read It anyway* Doctor, 1 I've written on this pad which nobody can see but me 2,3,7,8 '2 tetrachlorodlbenso-pdioxin at the top of it right there; you 3 sea that? 4 A Yes sir* 5 Q And although It should have been following it I'va 6 got in parenthesis TCDD dose parenthesis right after. Now 7 you know when you read that that X mean TCDD to be referring to S 2.3.7.8 tctrachlorodibenso-p-dioxin, don't you, sir? 9 A If I put them together like that, yes, 10 Q Doctor, they are put together just exactly that way 11 in this first sentence of this document, are they not, air, 12 exactly that way? Tetraehlorodibenso-p-dioxin parenthesis TCDD> 13 2.3.7.8 totraehlorodibenao-p-dioxin and in parenthesis TCDD? v 14 A ' Yds, sir. 15 Q They're put together exactly -- 16 A Yes, sir. > j . _r - ,, i *; < 17 Q And you Just said that's the way you would read it? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q And you meant what you just said, didn't you, sir? 20 A On that first sentence, yes. 21 Q TCDD there refers to the 2*3,7,8, doesn't it, sir? 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q How, Doctor, this work was done in 1983, wasn't it, 24 sir? 10 .1 A What oimplihg? ;-'You, ^ s h - 2 Q. ;The sampling referred -to In the exhibit that's placed 3 " there in front of you, sir. The next sentence says 4 .. ;&, -.Vais, *sir. .YesV 'sir, . , " * ' /5 6/ Q - And/ Doctor/ `that chart that you see there is attached to the document.that refersjto the 1903 sampling, isn't it, sirl 7' A Vhat,chart?/ -. :- Jv8 Q 'The chart# Doctor, that is the last .page of the exhibit 9 that, you're, holding in your ;hand/> * // io;\ ^ \ A< Oh,, this, one?/ -1 1' n Q; Yes, * - Doctor, .\ t that^ov he/ v ; *,, ~ ; % 1 _l " ,, v r A L., . 12 a ' Yea ;/sirV .,/ / Z ... - /' 13 Q sir? /''* / - `z 14 A That talks .about:the area of contamination, yas, air. v>15 Q And, Doctor, this chart. Exhibit: 15273, which is part r -^ v " i 'j ^ t* ' " %< 16 k of Exhibit'1527,'shows what they intend.to do to remedy the 17 ; findings discussed in that exhibit, Isn't that correct, sir? r '* ,r r ' t *> 4*r ,J 18 :/ ^ A Z "`Yep, .sir.:- .'. ^ r>/V - "r -1 ,Z ,/ "1 " // . .19 * \ rQ /.Blbck H, which, is here where. I 've Indicated; and ' - / f'r P *1?'* i :v'$i- z.,~./Zz ";zz Z// " r 20 Block I, which/i's herein the .lower right-hand comer of that 21 document, are going to be graded so as to promote proper drainage, Z ' -/f1'icZ v.'XZ '/ Z ' " J' `` '- Z z * . , 22 crushed limcstone wlll bev added:so'it's necessary to. provide *, 1 * * ' "' j ,, j I^ 7^ --.>*- ^r t 1 ^^ f 23. a suitable base for paving, and both blocks will be paved with i r! 1 ''1 i.,1 \\ p >i "{ ' , , '>< tr M U i?*j "'::i 4.. j 24 , two inches of:asphalt, and the gravel area inside the dike wail BAYO N NE; N .J. 4V ^' -' 1 shows two storage tanks In Block I, will be paved with four 2 inches of concrete, won't it, sir? 3 A Yes, sir. 4 Q And, Doctor, the -- that's what's going to -- 5 so all of this area here that uis shaded is going to be paved 6 with two inches of asphalt, isn't it, sir? 7 A Yes, sir. 8 Q And in addition to that, they're going to pour four 9 inches of concrete making dike walls around those storage tanks 10 A Yas, sir. 11 Q Doctor, the contaminated soil in this area here will 12 be removed and placed in a. sub-grad* .containment basin, would i- \ 13 it not, sir? ^: 14 A Yes, .sir. . IS Q And these baslna are located in part of Block X, 16 aren't they, sir? 17 A Yes. 18 Q And they're going to be put in that part of Block X 19 that's going to be paved, isn't it, sir? 20 A Yes. 21 Q So.that the -- this soil and this soil that's con 22 taminated are all going to be covered with two inches of black 23 top, isn't it, sir? 24 A Plus concrete. 1 Q Plus concrete? 2 A Vm * .- / 3 Q And that's something along the order that you olks 4 suggested be done to Sturgeon in the area where the contaminate 5 existed* isn't that correct; sir* in July of '79? 6 A X don't know whether that wae in July or what was 7 said in July, $ Q Well* Doctor* accept from me that there's a memo 9 dated July of '.79 in which you; had a meeting to discuss what to 10 do about Sturgeon and wanted -- you do recall that meeting* 11 don't you* sir?[ ". 12 A Yes, sir. 13 Q And you do recall that on of the suggestions made at 14 that meeting was to blacktop the contaminated areas? 15 A X don't recall that* but that's possible. 16 Q You don't recall that? 17 A Right. 18 Q Well* there's an exhibit in evidence to that affect* 19 and that's what was suggested and what was ultimately done at 20 Hitro* isn't that correct* sir? 21 A Yes, sir, 22 Q Also at Nitro this area up here where you have the . 23 diagonally lined parallel area* that -- all that area was to 24 be covered with crushed limestone* wasn't it* sir? a 1 A Yao, sir. 2 0 Now, this area was where there was once upon a time 3 a trash Incinerator, this area what they're talking about here 4 where all this lined area is in the north part of this plant, 5 isn't that correct, sir? 6 A Yes, sir. 7 Q Now# that incinerator, tlio1fumes from that incineratoi 8 would go everywhere, would it not, sir? 9 A r Th exhaust,' yes. ; /' r1 % '7 -- ' 10 . Q Yes, and all this area is going to be covered with j t" J '*** , * i. > t m j 11 crushed limestone and this dotted lino around here is going to 12 be an earthen -- I'm sorry, this lino right here, this looks 13 like about a quarter inch wide on the chart that's blown up, 14 is all going to be an earthen dike, isn't it, sir? 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Q To prevent runoff from that area that's going to be 17 covered with crushed limestone? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q It's going to be graded to a slope to two new catch 20 basins and going to have a minimum thickness of three inches of 21 crushed limestone? 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q Eow, this area here that theyire going to do this wor] 24 in in 1983, 1984 rather, is right next to your parking lot for 1 that plant, isn't it, air? 2 MR, HEINEMAMj Objection, your Honor, the document 3 says the work was to begin in March of 1935, , 4 Q Well, she work that's to be done in March of 1985 is 5 right next SO: this*parking lot,. Isn't it, sir? 6 A Yea, sir, 7 Q And this, parking lot has bean used there by all the 8 employees of that plant, hasn't it, air? 9 A X have trouble because X can't place chat parking lot 10 That looks like the parking lot Is in the wrong place to me, n but it may be the same one, X don't know. 12 Q Well, it. says parking -- 13 A Yes, sir, it sura does. 14 Q And that parking is for the entire.plant, isn't it? 15 A Yes, sir, 16 Q And it's right adjacent to Building 73 and 79 and 17 right adjacent to this area that has bean used for the incinar 18 ation and right adjacent to this area where they're going to 19 put a concrete vail up -- or rather, I'm sorry, an earthan i 20 wall and cover that all with limestone, isn't that correct, si^f! 21 A Yea, sir* 22 Q Is it fair to assume that thererjusemight have been 23 over the years from 1946 to 1985, nearly 40 years, that there 24 might have ha&n some exposure -- i f 2,3,7,8 was found in this i ] area, in this entire area here as these exhibit* Indicate and 2 2*3fl7,8 was in this building in a dusty condition and they had to use vacuum sweepers to remove the dust if it was found in 3 A y ' r l' 'i 11 1, \ " .4 " * 4f that area, isn't it'reasonable to assume that th people that 4 used that parking lot have some exposure to the TCDD In those 5 areas? 6 A Yes, .sir, '1 7 1 8 Q Yes, (At this time Plaintiff's Exhibit 1531 was marked for 9 10 identification.) Q I hand you now what's been marked as Plaintiff's 11 12 Exhibit 1531, which is captioned ftltro File, Dioxin Cleanup? A Yes sir, 13 14 Q Do you recognize that as a Monsanto document? A No, sir. 15 MR. CARR: Your Honor, I'll represent to the Court 16 that this was among documents supplied to us by Monsanto under 17 rules of this Court, 18 19 THE COURT i Are you offering it into evidence? 20 MR, CARR: I am, yes, your Honor. 21 THE COURT: Do you have any objections? 22 MR. HEINEMAN: Well, your Honor, a couple of things. 23 First of all, thia appears to be part of soma other document, 24 it's obviously not complete in and of itself. I MR. CARR: I know it's not* and I wish I had the com 2 plete document. This is what was given to mo. 3 MR. HKINEMAN:t Well, you've got -- 4 MR. CARR: 1 wish I did have the complete document. 5 MR. HEINEMAN: You've got what we've got. If this is 6 all there is, then this is all there Is, but I don't know that, 7 and the witness says he doesn't even recognize It as a Monsanto 8 document, and therefore, there's obviously been no foundation 9 laid for its admission into evidence, and I'd object to it on 10 that basis, 11 MR. CARR: Are you representing that it was not given 12 to us, Counsel? 13 MR. HEINEMAN: It was obviously given to you, Mr. 14 Carr. 15 MR. CARR: Is it not part of the business records of 16 Monsanto? 17 MR. HEINEKAN; Mr. Carr, you certainly know something 18 about rules of evidence with respect to laying a foundation for 19 the admission of a document. 20 MR. CARR: The rule is that you may not state somethlt 21 that is not a fact, Counsel. You know this was supplied to me 22 as part of the documents and you're now saying that I haven't 23 proven that it's a Monsanto document? You alleged to me that 24 it was a Monsanto document. ir - 1 MR. HEXNEMAMi Of coursa it's a Monsanto document 2 that was produced by Monsanto to you. 3 MR. CARRs Fin. `- i.4 MR, HEICEMAN: But befora you gat it into evidence 5 sir you have to establish a foundation from the witness stand. 6 MR. CARR; That foundation is all X need to establish 7 Counsel and it has to be relevant, and the document itself 8 shows that It's relevant. 9 THE COURTi It's admitted over objection. 10 Q Ur. Rousch, this does deal with Building 73 and 79 11 TCDD cleanup, doesn't it. sir? 12 A Yes. sir. 13 Q And who is Mr. R. A. Baits? 14 A X don't know. 15 Q And'you do know who the O.H. MaterialscCompany is? 16 A Yes. sir. 17 Q That's the same people that were out char in the , 18 second stage of tha cleanup at Sturgeon} you know that, don't i 19 you. sir? 20 A Yes, sir. 21 Q And they were selected to -- in 1935 I take it, 22 there is no date on this document, but in reference in time it 23 would b sometime after the 1983-84 document that you have, 24 Document 1527, would it not, sir? 1 A I would assume so. , iv ],, : * i* 2 Q And it8s dealing with cleaning up Building 78 and 79 3 in the northern half or top half of Exhibit 1527B, is it not, 4 sir? (Pause) Doctor, the vary first paragraph on that 5 document-*rors to it. 78 and 79 you can see is over here, 6 Building 78 and 79 is the back of Page 15, the last page of 7 1527, last page, Doctor. 8 A t'ra sorry. 9 Q Right there, 79, 78. We went through this Friday. 10 A I just couldn't remember those being the building 11 w talked about. 12 Q W talked about Building 79, but this exhibit talks 13 about as If it's one building, 78-79, and they are adjoining 14 one another, aren't they, sir? .15 A 1 think they're contiguous. 16 Q ij Yes. And this document talks about going to clean 17 Building 79 by spraying with water at 3,000 to 4,000 pounds per 18 second? 19 A Yes, sir. 20 Q I'm sorry, pounds per square inch. Doesn't it, air? 21 A Yes, sir. 22 Q Building 78 has loose dust and powder in it that 23 they're going to collect by vacuuming, aren't they, sir? 24 A Yes, sir. 1 Q Doctor, that loose dust and powder in 78,;would have 2 Tied to have been there since 1969 at the latest, wouldn't it, 3 sir? 4 MR. HEINEHAN: Objection, that assumes that anybody 5 knows what in the world it is. 6 THE COURT: Objection la overruled. 7 Q Doctor, insofar as counsel's statement that if anybody 8 knows what it is, the very first sentence says it's to remove, 9 to clean the interior of Building 78 and 79 in order to remove 10 trace amounts of 2,3,7,8 TODD -- 11 A Yes, sir. 12 Q Isn't that exactly what it says? 13 A Yes, sir.J 14 Q Can't you conclude from that, although counsel 15 apparently cannot, can't you conclude from that that the dust 16 thay'ra going to remove is for the purpose of removing the 17 2,3,7,8 TCDD? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q Can't you conclude from that that 2,3,7#8 TCDD ia 20 in that dust? 21 A Yes, sir, 22 MR. HEINEMAN; My objection still stands, your Honor, 23 THE COURT: Objection is overruled, 24 Q Doctor, these workers that we have discussed earlier 20 1 and that you have gone over with Mr. Hointman are all workers -r 2 ' that have worked in this plant that's, outlined in Exhibit 1527B, -3 isn't it, sir? ,j 4 A , Jss, sir. ' V . - ' - 5 Q ./They've all used,the parking lot, they've all been 6 exposed to the fumes and the incineration and the dust from ,, 1 ' this area that1s paved, they all; -- well, they have found 8 2,3,7,8 TCDD.contamination on three sides of this four*sided ; 9 plant lot, haven't they, sir? 10 A - Yes, '-sir; " ''V \ . ' 11 Q So the workers that work in this area are in -- *Le + - ' ,J ir 1" 7 12 nearly eurrounded by areas of 2,3,7,8 TCDD contamination. 13 aren't they, sir, and hove been for twenty, thirty, forty.years, '' - 14 : isn't that correct, sir? -- not forty years, but since 1949 ^ ^A ^ Jl,# 1 *- J * 15 , or thereabouts, f4S, *46 up until 1985., just thirty-eight, raOt 16 thirty-nine.years, isn't it, sir? V SOrO*'l ' , ,i" 17- 1 .A Yes,' sir. FEN GAO C O ., B A YO N N E, N .J. J . 18 Q Is it fair to say that these workers that have been Sc |m o :* > 19 ' 20 1 , surrounded by these areas of, TCDD 2,3,7,8 contamination have had exposure to it, sir? t *-- T A 1 don't know. 7 , \ ' , _ C 22 Q Can you deduce that from the fact that they're aur-: j- 23 rounded by, it, *Doctor? ;-v ,r\ r / . . :'-v if~ i f V' '! 1i'-^ 24 A NO,; v :``J - :` ) i x- . - 1 Q Vou can's deduce that? 2 A No, sir. 3 Q well, Dr, Moses and Selikoff assumed that share was 4 exposure, didn't they, sir? 5 A Exposure of what? 6 Q Of what we're talking about. What are wo talking 7 about, Doctor? 8 A These workers. 9 Q Yea, and what are we talking about them being exposed 10 to? 11 A Dioxin. 12 Q So now you've answered your own question. Could you 13 proceed with the answer to my question, Doctor? 14 A No, sir. 15 Q You won't proceed or you can't answer it? 16 A X can't answer. 17 Q Did Hoses, Selikofr assume they were exposed or not? 18 You've read the article, Doctor -19 . A Yes, sir. 20 Q You discussed It with Mr. Hclneman 21 A Yea, tnsirv 22 Q Did they, -assume these workers were exposed or not? 23 A Not all of them.. 24 Q And, Doctor, didn't you last week when X asked you .'V ' `\ . i i* i ` 1'X .-- -^^+ 4 '' ,, " 'J H J t --1 * 4 _r , V'i1 "J,, ,' ^ i about it/ didn't you aay that a11 the workers in that plant 22 '.2 werQGXpoaed 02,3,7/8 TDD to .some extent? > .3 :a / Theoretically*;. W . r '- ' 4, : '.Q * You said, you ` didn't r use >. the wordatheoretically when 5 I asked you about it the -first tima, did you, Doctor? . '6'' - A .. don't recall'/li , / ^ "J ,'T ',l ^ t ^ A' , 1 71 : Q Ho, what youvsaid"was. they have all been exposed to -8" 2,3,7,8 TGDD, didn't you| air? . *4 .v 9 '' ;AJ Hot measurably!/;-; ' r .,* ' n- *, " -1f( ' 4 ' '1 :10' f Doctor, X don't care, and I'm not using the word \ 11 f measurably or immeasurably. X It'a there, it's there whether , 12 you can measure it or not, it*s there, and they were exposed ; 13 - to it; wer&n*t they? ^ V J,14 A M'`d-on't know.( ;y, r -v ''1'', " 15 J ; : Q You don't know?/ :. r . - BAYONNE,*1N.j. i6 : A `Ho/.sir.. : V- * " .17 " q ; Can you daduca that from.the fact that they're u '*J jV ft, w j. -t rM- ^ * r j 18 /surroundedjby it; _sir^'nd,,'thGy:?ye.been working there for thirty i?1 ,* , -`. i'.,h; ;-V-'-i"'"''t'V VL' t ,, . . '*r' 19 or forty years? v ; / . v '-- : ilr'\rr- . ,-.f,L I,.' ij- - -.r 20 \ X'.'don't knowr// ``l' 21 .22 . -Q Eousch? . Would your mind,tell you that - Yt'1ji-i,V<1 V5,"1*" ' 4v JX:'.iVJ t';^V ' ` u'iif' J1' "a .' to ', deduce that. Dr,. -n;- -. '` .. > r y 23 *i . -24 ^ A '. I J don,'tTknow. -# > 'f _ * . Q Doctor, I'm not asking you whether or not you know  r*J-!: Jv,, .'r -. ;^ ' -M /v . ... ' ' *,* i, L '.c - i 1/ \ ` . v / / , ., . . ' '/ , - . 1; BAYONNE, N.J. O Of i ! 1 .whether; or not they were exposed, I1in hiking you whether your 2 % Blind will deduce that* ;You know what-your mind ill do. Can your mind dductfrora these facts,, deduce from these facts, sir, ,3 . that they-VO:,had s o W exposure through the ;years that they've'v, 4 > r. ' i i.r-' j i o . r, S worked in that plant? Would your logical mind tell you that, / ,C '. . 1 ^', . 6 Dr. Rousch? \ f v. * ` '' i: A / X .don't know., :''l/ 'r . . . ' '8. Q You don't know whether or not your mind would tell 9 ^you.that? ^^ 10 , , " A ":'K6* . [' t\V V '" * , 1:1, Q , .You have v. : Pr j ,, * . -, - * ' /j ^ 1*' 1 iX ^ ^ -" -' 12 ; A ,X can't make a decision. *1 ' k i 13 - Q You can't make a decision on that? ,/ 14 - ' A , ;No,. sir. ' . `` . r' Q So your mind doesn't tell you chat? You haven't the is - capacity, in:.that-mln&' that Vsbeon< \ trained, _ e cientific mind 16 - , ' , -T' r - " 1L '~ r. \ V .s ' i*. ' : 3 b ` `' i - : 4 v .. V - ''"' K .L 17 for all thse yaars:to deduce that people, that have been working 1. ' V'^ - ; , 4*- *, 18 ' in an area that:'irsurrounded b y ' TCDD 'contamination and the wind , ' ; -L * * .-`Wr -*--,,rV -Vr` 1;! r-.-"'r.`J.-j. ` >` \l ? 1 .. * '. - 19 -, blows and the rains run and the water washes oft of this area 20 ; that they're putting,."this tbig; concrete-, earthen dike up there " r 21 , and the.incinerator burns .materials, and cars pass in and out, 22 and man walk in and out this dusty plant, they walk to lunch r 1 ' ' ,- 23 rooms, they walk to rest rooms, they walk to the parking lot, : 24 ` cars, drive up-and dora, strucks drive Up and down,. All these 1 thirty and forty years, your mind wouldn't tall you that thay 2 have soma exposure to 2,3,7,8 TCDD if it's chare? Your mind 3 won't tell you that, Dr. Rousch? 4 A I don't know, I don't think so. I can't decide. 5 Q Your mind wouldn't tell you that? 6 A Not at levels like this, I don't know how to do that 7 Q Doctor, now you're talking about low levels again. 8 Let's talk about the same thing. I'm not talking about high or 9 low levels, I'm talking about exposure to 2,3,7,8 TCDD to what 10 ever extent. 11 A I understand. 12 Q Does your mind tell you, sir, and don't go back to 13 that other measurable business again, because I've laid that to 14 rest, do you understand, I'm not asking about that anymore, 15 that's at rest. Now, does your mind tell you that these workeri 16 have some exposure to 2,3,7,8 TCDD? 17 A It's possible. 18 Q Yes. Doctor, these facts that we've gone into here, 19 all these were things that were known to thepeople atthe 20 Nitre Plant or could have been known if they looked, if they 21 were trying to find out if somebody was exposed, could have 22 been known to the people at the Nitro Plant that helped work 23 with Dr. Suskind, couldn't they, sir? 24 MK. HEINEMAN: Objection, sir, all of these things, J all of what things? 2 THE COURT: Objection is overruled. It's clear in 3 the contest. Answer the question, Doctor. 4 Q Isn't that correct. Doctor? 5 A If they had known that contamination, they could have 6 told them, yes. 7 Q Doctor, this contamination was known in 1983, wasn't 8 it, sir? 9 A Yes* sir. 10 Q And the Suskind report didn't come out until the 11 spring of -- until Hay of last year, isn't chat right, sir? 12 A Yes,* sir. .> . -'1 ' ij- , 4 T .* ' 1 3 Q Sir? 14 A Yes, . / ," 15 Q How, Doctor, Dr. itoses, Sellkoff found 30 cancers in 16 this group of people that Suskind. found a total of 20 cancers; 17 do you recall that, sir? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q Now, and pr. Suskind had the cooperation of all the 20 Dr. Koses-Selikoff had was some limited records and the men, 21 Monsanto had the cion and the plant records as well, didn't they, t 22 sir, which they helped give 'to Dr. Suskind? 2 3 A Yas, sir. 24 Q Now, how do you suppose it was that we going through >>v 26 the records found 28 canccrs./going through Dr* Suskind* s racorcli0 found 28 cancers as being reported by/history which we went - -through *-r; , '""'if 1 ' i'11 A / Yes, sir.r j- ; -.*" j , > . r F, < 11 \ * rj ^ iA , _ * Q f bfoses-Solikof found 30, but yet Susklnd reports only a. total of 14 on the: exposed group and 6. in th unopposed group for a total of 20? . Doesn't that striko youras, strange, Dr. Kousch? ; ` r;, - / A- No, .sir, X went through those records -- Q . Doesn't it strike;'you-aa aittttaarnge? -J. F \ *\ A airj;\;;rt^:f/ 1:v V -, . Q Albright; /No w ,y Doctor, ;now you've gone through the *' ' /'- ` t"-1V. I*: ' ,* " " ^ < - v ^ b-, M r.u o * , 7 -/ ' - y ^ jf i <* , v -k ` ' ' . exhibit with' Mr. Hoineman, and';you1va eliminated certsin of these persons^ that-'you had-put Along with' -- under my inter rogation you put 27 and possibly 28 cancers in this group* do you recall, that, sir?/;,./- -l ' A .Yesv sir/ / / ,'* / 1 ' Q Now, you aliminatad approximately 12 of those more than that, 13 or so of those 28 cancers didn't you, sir? A r I didn't add up the numbers. Q Oh, didn't you add them up, Doctor, to come put - r>: exactly like Suskind didV' coma out with 14? ^ '- ' ,,, - 1 .. ^ ' '/ r ~, * j *- . l j \ < ', r A I had mor question1marks than that. J- 1f /. -A /- Q You ultimately-eliminated 3 cancers. You did that 1 in eliminating two of them with one stroke on Scarberry, didn't 2 you? 3 A Yes* sir. 4 Q Now, Scarberry is the one that you said you talked 5 to Hertsberger, and they counted as lung and bowel cancer; do 6 you recall that, sir? 7 A No, sir, 8 Q You don't recall testifying that on the 9ch of July, ; 1 9 1985 at Page 106 relative to Scarberry* and your answer to that 10 question that he's listed according to the interpretation you . *ip i r 11 got from Ksrtsberger aa having had lung cancer and bowel cancer* 12 Is that correct, sir, and your answer was yes. Do you recall 13 testifying that way? 14 A I don't remember it, but if X -- what I said was 15 X Just had talked to her. 16 Q Yes, and you talked to her, and she said that Scarben 17 had lung and bowel cancer, didn't she, and that they treated 18 him as such? 19 A X don't recall that. 20 MR. HEINEMAU: Objection, your Honor. 21 A ,X don't recall that. 22 MR. HEINEMANs The testimony refers to the computer 23 printout and the fact that there's a listing chore for lung and 24 bowel on the printout, that's what the testimony, that's what 1 the question is, 2 Q Isn't that what you got from Dr, Hertsberger? 3 A I. don't recall that sir. 4 THE COURT; Objection is overruled, 5 Q You want to look at it and see if it refreshes your 6 memory? Right there sir, 7 A X don't know the basis of what tsy interpretation of 8 what Dr* Hertaberger;had.;said., 9 Q Well would you look at Exhibit 1472 and look at 10 Searbarry right in hare. New ID Humber 118 do you see that? 11 A Yes, sir, 12 Q And you see the computer Hats Scarberry as having 13 lung cancer and bowel cancer? 14 A Yes sir, 15 Q And do you recall now that you talked to Miso Herts* 16 berger about interpreting this computer printout and you helpec 17 us with that interpretation? 18 A No sir, 19 Q You don't recall that? 20 A I don't remember talking about Scarberry with her, 21 Q Do you recall talking about how to interpret the 22 computer printout? 23 A Yes, sir, 24 Q And she told you that where they have a V701 or 702 I number that that means there was a confirmed cancer; do you 2 recall that, sir? 3 A No, that doesn't -- I don't know what that means. 4 It says on that list chat there was a lung and bowel, and I 5 don't know what that means whan the 701 and 702 is there. 6 Q You don't recall telling us after you calked to her 7 that that means when you have that number there, that means 8 there was a confirmed cancar? 9 A No, sir, 10 Q Doctor, when you get away froia Court hare, do you 11 deliberately put out of your mind what things you've testified 12 to earlier? 13 A No, air. 14 Q You do recall talking to Hertabarger and Kertsberger 15 telling you how to Interpret this tape? 16 A How to interpret the tape, yea, that's right. 17 Q And you do recall telling us chat whan it has that 18 number there, V701, chat that maana a skin cancer, and V702 19 means some other kind of cancer, that Chosa numbers refer to 20 cancers? 21 A Yes, but I'm not sure the basis for that decision. 22 Q Doctor, a basis for whose decision, your decision or 23 Hertsberger's? 24 A Or her decision. I'm not sure whether they're B a y i n g .1 that there was a history of it or that was their conclusion that: '2 that's what it meant. %4 v V -rv-f* y;~`.* J ' y -L jj f :* j- }t t j. -j 3 Q. Doctor, the/;conclusion la ;i s what you got .from Herts* r *. I i -i 4 bergsr. 5 A I .don't knowrwhat that* .V7I means, I have to know : fS ./ " `V " 4j- _v >- /<- . 6 that before I can answer the, question. t1j\j' > v,1V //*i>y z ''i s' J' ^ j * * j ^ ^ `1 1 * * \ ^ y 7 - Q Doctor, do" you recall your testimony when you said 8 you had called Vicki Hertzberger at lunch time? 9 - A r Yes, sir,/and she did say that one is for skin and , 10 the other was for others, and X don't recall what those number *, "i 4 *r * 11 mean. ' '**-r ^ ,* . *r I n , Q Now, Doctor, on Page 93 of the July'9th testimony* 13 . Counsel, X asked you; "Well, did shekadvise you that the'item 14 before.that','we're talking about Woodall at this time, and X've >ENGAD CO.. BAYONNE; N.J. 07001 FORM |L 24 8. 15 lost him on this printout, Kb. 167, did she advise you that , 16 ,tha numbers before that' whore it says V701. skin, that that 17 indicates a skin cancer"?: And your answer was "Yes, sir." .18 A Yes/ sir. 19 Q Do you recall that being your testimony? 2 0 .. A I d o -- I know that, but I 'm not sure what that 21 means, what V701 means. It doesn't m a n '-- 22 Q- ' Well, the next question, A .All-right.- , . - 24 Q Whore it says skin cancer history* n* cancer histo t y L 31 l. r 'no, it waa ;thc adyiceyou racriivad' that the figures before that, 1. in front ofthatV that"'wbuld b^ 701 equals shin,indicated that `3 .;J ,Lthere was a ,history ;;of\shin .cancer,^is that correct, sir? Yes, r . `tr if''\h V i U ! ^ -J-i V-` d* "4 Wall, '.would that be true, say,-, of,the one above . > , 5 Mathany where\lfc says'701 bowel / that would'indicate a bowel .6 ,history? / ^1 ' 1 r*, ^ '- "7' - ' ; 'Yes,'sir, " ; y/ V* - ;8 - ; r Arid hare up whore we have ID 118, Scarberry, wa haven 9 ^ , talked about Scarberry, i t says there,; th at would be lung and ; 10 bowel. cancer?; ^, ,11 . And your, answer was, I ,think that's yes* .' > 12 Do you recall.all those questions end those answers? 13- - A Yes, but not ' -r* \ 14 * MR,,,HEINEMAN: ,Objaction, your Honor, the prior quo** 15 tion was doesn't'that indicate a confirmed cancer was the,way 16 yMr* Carr asked the. question, and this .testimony talks about 17 history, ^ 18 THE COURTi Objection is,overruled. I? ` Q. Don't you-recall all that as your testimony, Dr. 2 0 ' Eousch? 21 : a : Y e s t h a t *s, history, that's what I .thought, ,' 22 J' J v Q. Doctor, that's all we're talking about* The whole 1 23 , table deals .with just history of skin cancer, it's titled History 24'V of Skin Cancer.- Non of, your doctors, Suskind .arid no ona else T"N `3NNOAVBr"OD 0DN3d 1 went in chare and did a biopsy, they weren't chare* All they 2 could go by was by history. A Yes, sir; t , 3 -* *r i' Q And Dr. Hertsberger told you that the V701 and the 4 V702 indicates a confirmed history of cancer, doesn't it, sir? 5 A No, sir, it doesn't say confirmed history. 6 Q Well, history of cancer then. 7 A Yea, sir. 8 Q Isn't that what it means? 9 A Yes, sir. 10 Q And what you use, this printer, this computer printout 11 and the other records that you have to determine whether or not 12 a person had a history of skin cancer, isn't that correct, sir? 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q And she - based upon what she told you then, 15 Scarberry has a history of lung and bowel cancer, doesn't he, 16 sir? 17 A Yes, sir, 18 Q Now, you eliminated him from the list that you pre 19 pared along with Hr, Heinem&n. 20 A Yes, sir. 21 Q Didn't you, sir? 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q In the face of this history of skin cancer, didn't 24 1 you, sir? >L \ i M 2 A Ye, sir. . * * . .Q And bowel cancer? 3 A 1 did that.independently, yes, sir. 4 Q Well, you had -- you weren't referring to the-'cdmpui 5 6 printout whan you eliminated Scarberry, were you, sir? A No, air, 7 8 Q And the computer printout shows how Suckind recorded it, that his printout. Isn't it, sir? 9 A Yes, sir. 10 Q And we're talking about what Suskind reported to us, 11 we're talking about whether or not he waa honest in reporting 12 14 cancers in the exposed group when in fact there was 27 or 20 13 That'a what this entire exercise is about, Dr. Housch, isn't it 14 i sir, whether he's honest or Monsanto is honest in this inter 15 pretation? 16 A No, sir. 17 Q They told you that Scarberry, the records on Scarberry 18 19 should be interpreted, the records that they have and they gave us should be interpreted as having lung and bowel cancer, 20 21 didn't they, sir? 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q And if those records are to be Interpreted that way, 24 then Scarberry should be on the list, shouldn't he, sir, as t' ** 1 having a history of cancar? 2 A If they're right, yea* 3 Q Yea, if they're right. That' all we're going by is 4 what they've got, aren't we, air? 5 A Yes, air. 6 Q You haven't made any independent investigation, have 7 you, sir? 8 A Ho, sir. 9 Q You're looking at something less than they looked at, 10 aren't you, sir? 11 A Yes, sir. 12 Q Yes. How, Doctor, you eliminated in addition to 13 Scarberry, you eliminated Reynolds, didn't you, air? 14 A ' Yea, sir. IS Q How, Reynolds you testified to on the 9th of July 16 that it's possible that he had exposure because he was respon 17 sible for transportation of the raw materials, finished product 18 responsible for receiving raw materials in containers and that 19 he would have `history of exposure, and you said yes, possible 20 exposure, didn'* you, sir? 21 A Yes, sir, 22 Q Now, if he's got. If he's bean a shipping foreman for 23 three years in the warehouse, he surely would have had an 24 opportunity to be exposed to 2,4,5 T, would he not, sir? 35 t 1 if A Possible. 2 Q And therefore, he should be in the exposed group 3 shouldn't he sir? 4 A I don't thin!; so. Q Doctor the entire exercise is to find out whether or 5 1 not those people who had possible exposure in fact had any 6 history of cancer* That's what it's all about isn't it, air? 7 1 1 8' A Yes, sir* Q You don't know that anybody from your own definition, 9 10 you don't know that anybody actually had exposure do you, sir? 11 A Those who worked In the unit X sure would say wore 12 exposed* 13 Q You don't know that though, do you, sir? You just 14 .deduced that from the fact they work in an area where there is 15 2,4,5 T, don't you, sir? 16 A Yes, sir. 17 Q That's something that your mind tells you? A Yea, sir* 18 19 Q So your mind has told you that they are exposed to it o (j 20 and your mind tells you that a man that works -- he was a 21 foreman that works for years in the department where they ship 22 the stuff out after it's made, he, too, has a good possibility 23 of exposure, that's what your mind tells you, doesn't it, sir? / >* 1 , Tjrj^ j;' ' 24 - A Dome;possibility* ^ * I Q Well, have you got soma possibility, but you eliminate 2 him from this group, didn't,you, sir? 3 A I put him in the questionable group that Suakind had, 4 Q Well but you eliminated -- 5- A X put him in Susklhd's questionable group, 6 Q Suakind didn't have a questionable group, 7 A When he got down and finished it he had -- there wai 8 about 50 of them he left out because he couldn't decide whether 9 they were exposed or not, 10 Q 50 cancers left out? 11 A No, sir, 50 people, 12 Q Were these 50 sick people, do you know, that he left 13 out? 14 A No, sir, 15 Q What did they have wrong with them besides cancer? 16 HE, HEINEMANi Objection. There's no indication they 17 had cancer at all, 18 HE. CARR: Reynolds had cancer, and ho was left out, 19 wasn't he? 20 THE COURT: Objection is overruled. 21 Q Besides cancer what did they have wrong with them? 22 A That was decided before they did their evaluation 23 whether they're ill or not, that was done separately. The 24 definition of these cohorts -- Cl 1 Q It was done separately* Doctor? 2 A Yes* 3 Q Hasn't it actually don all at the same time? 4 A But by -- 5 Q Wasn't it dona at the same time Doctor? 6 A Ho 7 Q Doctor at one time didn't -- didn't Suskind have a 8 group that he calls questionable exposure? 9' A Yes sir, 10 Q But he eliminated that didn't he sir? II A Yes sir* 12 Q Wow ha knew the health of those people when he 13 eliminated.that questionable exposure, didn't he sir? 14 A I don't think so* 15 Q Doctor, he had created e final draft a draft already 16 He had to know. 17 A But that was ~~ 18 Q You saw the draft didn't you sir? 19 A Yes sir., , , -j 20 Q So he had to know whether ofc not those people had 21 possible exposure and their health history* didn't he? He had * *,, . ' 'r ; 22 already made cables he had made the porphyrin tables, so he 23 absolutely knew what was wrong with those psople when he elirai- . s. 1 1 r ' /" 24 anted these 50 from that study didn't he, sir? Didn't he, sir? 1 A I don't know whan he eliminated them from the discussi 2 Q You know he eliminated them after he created the 3 health tables, after he had his text written for the first and 4 second time He eliminated those people in the third and final 5 draft, didn't he, sir? 6 A Yes, sir* 7 Q He hod two drafts prepared before that* 8 A*' Right* 9 Q So don't tell me that they didn't know the health 10 status of those 50 people* They knew the health status and the? 11 eliminated them* , 12 A Yea, sir* 13 Q Doctor, you eliminated Vols, didn't you, sir? 14 A Ho, sir. 15 Q You eliminated his bladder cancer, you gave him the 16 skin cancer? 17 A Oh, yes. 18 Q But you eliminated the bladder cancer? 19 A Yes, sir# 20 Q Doctor; why did you eliminate the bladder cancer? 21 A Because it was a benign tumor# 11 ^ 22 Q And does it say benign tumor in the Volas records? 23 A X think so. 24 Q Do you have -- could you give Group Exhibit 1468 J to the witness* 2 ,(Pause) 3 A I'll need the number, sir, if it's In here. 4 Q 52* 5 A Pardon? 6 Q 52, and hla name is written bn it anyway. 7 A All right. 8 Q Now, Doctor, the question that's -- first of all, 9 the interviewer is what hind of person, the person that takes 10 these medical histories? 11 A I think they were both -- there are at least two 12 of them, and they were nurses. 13 Q Registered nurses? 14 A Yes, sir. 15 Q Yos. And they were trained presumably In Interviewing *** : t ^ ,, i * ,. ' _ f .# - 1 16 and making sure that the facts they got were as full and complex * ,, H . ' _'' ' i J ". 17 as they could gat -- as they could got? 18 A Yes, sir.:1. , :*,/' :,, 19 Q And they.know the difference between a -- well, 20 first of ell/tumors or either -- when you say tumor, you can 21 mean either a cancer or a non-cancerous growthr can't you, sir? 22 A Ye, sir. 23 Q So just saying tumor doesn't tell you whether or not 24 it 1 or is not cancerousdoes it, air? 1 A That's right, 2 Q Now, the questioner asks "Have you aver been told fay 3 a doctor that you had or hav any type of cancer", doesn't it, 4 sir, Page 151 5 A Yes, a ir. 6 Q Now, they're not asking whether or not the employee 7 believes that ha has a cancer, they're asking a question, a 8 trained registered nurse asking the question whether or not 9 they've ever boon told by a doctor that he had cancer? 10 A Yes, sir. 11 Q How that doctor would know better whether or not that 12 was a cancer than you some years later or an interviewer some 13 years later, wouldn't they, sir, the,doctor that looked at 14 the tissue,to start with and that treated the person? 15 A If the doctor had said it, yes, 16 Q That's what you're asking, if the doctor said it, 17 aren't you, sir? 18 A Yes', 'sir, :" 19 Q Did anybody go back and cheek with the doctor to see 20 whether or not the doctor said it? 21 A No, sir. 22 Q Now Hr, Vols told your interviewer that a doctor had 23 told him that he had bladder and skin cancer, didn't he, sir? 24 I'm sorry, bladder cancer. 1 A Yas, sir. 2 Q And your doctor interviewer who got additional history 3 -- now, to put it in proper perspective, the personal medical 4 history is the history that's taken officially, it has a whole 5 list of things of what you had wrong with you and when you had 6 wrong with you? ' ' 1 Hi (i * 7 A Yes; sir,';-;/ v*; \ 8 Q And when you had it, right? r- *; 9 A' Yes, 'sir. r: ^ ' 10 Q And in that Mr. VoIs said that he had been told by a <[*' ; ;* : 11 doctor that he had bladder cancer, didn't he, sir? 12 A Yes, sir. 13 Q How later on there's additional history taken, isn't 14 there, air? 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Q How, it's not instead of, it's more history, isn't ifct 17 sir? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q And Chat more history revealed that he also had a 20 basal cell carcinoma, doesn't it, sir? Pago 21, Dr* Housch. 21 A Yes, sir. 22 Q And that's where you come up with the skin cancer, 23 correct, sir? 24 A Y e s , s i r . 1 q Now on Page 23 there la additional history taken with 2 reference to the bladder? 3 A Yes, air* 4 Q How there is written in there bladder tumor 1951 L5 removed, no recurrence, annual cystogratn then in parenthesis 6 above it, benign? 7 A Yes, sir. 8 Q Now, how would that doctor know in 1979 when he's 9 taking this additional history from Mr. Vola that it wasn't 10 cancer when Kir. Vlt was told that: it was cancer that he had in "i 4' t `t rr 11 1931 ? > 12 A I don't know 13 ,Q Yes. Th original doctor is one that would know 14 whether or not it was cancerous or not, wouldn't he, sir? 15 A . Yes, air. 16 Q You can't look at a person's body who's had a tumor 17 removed from the bladder or that matter a tumor removed from the 18 skin, you can't look at that person and say -- tell by looking 19 at them whether that was a cancerous growth that was removed ,,i 20 from the skin or a cancerous growth that was removed from the 21 bladder, can you, sir? 22 A No, sir. 23 Q And so the additional physical examination that takes 24 place, both of the skin and of the body, doesn't tell the doctoz I Che examining doctor, anything as to whether or not chat parson 2 did or did not have a cancer in the past does it, sir? 3 A You can tall from the skin. 4 Q You.can tell from tha akin? 5 A Because usually when there's' a basal call carcinoma 6 there are other premalign&nt lesions* ' r ', f > r'" 7 Q Dodtor, that' usually, but you can hav -- I've 8 had nine growths!. remo*v'e(d fkr,o<m,.m'y back. A Now can you look at my 9 back, at the scars on my back and tall me which one might have 10 been cancerous and which one wasn't? 11 A No, sir. 12 Q No, and you can't look at anybody's back and tell 13 that. They have to have more than one growth removed, wouldn't 14 they, sir? IS A Yes, sir. 16 Q So you cannot tell by skin examination, by tha fact 17 that chare was a scar on the skin whether there was or wee not 18 a skin cancer? 19 A Not absolutely. 20 Q Yes. But the doctor, the doctor that takas it off 21 can't even tell, can ha, elr? 22 A No, sir. 23 Q He has to send it to a laboratory? 24 A Y e s , s i r . 1 Q And they have to look under -- they have to staiti 2 It and look under a high powered microscope and do other things 3 before they can -- and it'takes hours for them to -- some 4 time9 days for them to even be sure of that diagnosis doesn't r. / _ ' /. i. 5 it sir? ^ ` 6 A Yes, sir., ^ 7 Q And they report back to the doctor chat's taking care 8 of the patient and say well this was malignant this was 9 cancerous or this was not cancerous doesn't it sir? 10 A Yea sir. 11 Q But the history that Volz gave was that he was told 12 that it was a bladder cancer isn't that the history that he 13 was told? 14 A That's what he told the nurse. IS Q Are there any medical records connected to these? 16 We had them in the case of Hein where he talked about this 17 carcinoma -- 18 A Yes. 19 Q Are there any other additional medical records here 20 to tell you that this was not a cancer that that doctor report 21 t o Hr. Volz? 22 A Only what the doctor reports. 23 Q Yes only that, and the doctor reports what Volz saidt 24 A Y e s , s i r . I 0 And i, Volz I- said i' 4It: was cancerous, rJ J didn't he? 2 A You can't rationalise those two* 1r * ^ , '1 f- ' f ' ' \ ' 3, Q Excuse me. Vole eaid it was cancerous, wasn't it, 4 sir? 5A 6 . ; '>k* L\ -He also told ' ** HR. HEINEHAN: You mean to the doctor? 7 A told this doctor? 8 Q Sir? 9 A He told the doctor as well. 10 Q What did he tell the doctor? 11 A That he had a benign bladder tumor. 12 Q No, the parenthesis is added there by the doctor, he's 13 doing the interpreting of what Vola gives him, isn't he, air? 14 A On Page 25 he says benign bladder tumor. 15 Q That's what the doctor that examined Vole said. 16 A What the doctor saya on history. 17 Q Excuse me, the doctor that examined Vole said that. 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q And not the doctor that did.the operating? 20 A That's right. 21 Q Yes. Now, Doctor, let's look at Honaker, another one 22 that you eliminated a cancer. Now on Honaker you've agreed 23 that Honaker had leukemia and prostate cancer, didn't ha? 24 A Y e s , s i r . . *. t- 1 that* We've already showed you that in the Moao~Salikof group 2 the last person reported had leukemia and prostate cancer ~~ 3 A Yes, sir. 4 Q Do you recall that, sir? That's the same person here 5 that we're talking about? 6 A Yes, sir. 7 Q So It's the same group, Doctor, and was supposed to 8 be the eame group, only the Moses-Selikoff people didn't have 9 access 10 MR. HEIHEMAN: Objection, your Honor, there's absolute 11 no evidence that it's the same group examined, none. 12 MR. CARR; Your Honor, both studios deal with the 13 workers at Nitro Plant who wore supposed to have been exposed* 14 The Moses-Selikoff group goes by -- not by work history, per 15 ee, but by acne, chloracne, and the morbidity study by Suskind 16 also uses chloracne and talks about the same group. The intro 17 ductlon to each and the cohort in each Is ehe same group. 18 MR. HEIHEMAH: Your Honor -- 19 MR* CARR] They're not identical, but they're taken 20 from the same group of workers. 21 HR, KEINEMAN: They're taken from the same plant, bu 22 they're not -- there's no, absolutely no evidence, that they 23 are the same group. 24 THE COURT: Objection is overruled. There is evidence 1 Q Biit yot the leukemia was excluded, wasn't it, sir, 2 from this table? i'' * ' ''/ ' `r ' 3 A Yes, sir. 4 q There's no question but what the leukemia was excludec 5 Is there, sir, doesn't even mention anybody having leukemia? 6 A Ko, sir. 7 Q He could have put, if ha wanted to report it, that 8 one of those in the exposed group also had leukemia, couldn't 9 he, sir? 10 A Yes, sir. - 11 Q And in each Instance where there were multiple cancert 12 ha could have done just that, put anothar little star down 13 couldn't he, sir? 14 A Yes, sir. 15 Q Now Moses-Selikoff did that? 16 A Yes, they did. 17 Q How, 14 cancers or 20 altogether is only two-thirds 18 of the cancers reported by Moses-Sellkoff, isn't It, sir? 19 A Yes, sir. 20 Q It would appear from SuskincTs study that these people 21 are a lot healthier than it would appear from the Moses22 Selikoff study, wouldn't it, sir, one-third fewer cancers? 23 A It was a different sample. 24 Q Excuse me, it was the same sample, you've already seat I In the record. You may proceed. 2 Q Dr. Rousch, didn't you and Heineman bring up the 3 ,Mosea-Selikoff study to ba talking about ths Nitro workers? 4 A Yas, sir. 5 Q And you meant to bring it up to show what 2,3.7.8 6 TCDB either does or does not do to your group of people at Hitro, 4 f: 7 doesn't it, sir? 8 A Yes, sir. 9 Q And you tried to include all of your Micro workers in 10 your morbidity study by Suskind, sir, except those that had 11 terminated before *55? 12 A Wo had those before then. 13 Q Isn't that correct, sir? 14 A If they wore working and had started before 1955 -IS Q Now, Doctor -- 16 A They would be part of the study. They went back and - 17 18 Q The Selikoff table would appear that this group of 19 people, these workers in this plant are healthier than what it 20 would appear in the Mbses-Salikoff study, doesn't It, sir, 20 21 cancers as opposed to 30? The Suskind study showe the people 22 to be healthier than the Mssee-Selikoff group, isn't it, airy 23 if you look at their cancer history? 24 A At cancers, that's right. 1 Q Now, is i t an advantage to Monsanto in its dealings 2 with its workers, its dealings with the world as far as dioxin L 3. . is concerned to show that.the people who are exposed to TCDD in 4 the Nitro Plant are healthier or less healthy, which is to 5 Monsanto *s advantage? 6. A To show there's no cancer or. -- ... i'7 Q To show fewer cancers?. :'8* A Yes, sir, 9 Q isn't that correct, sir? And would you say that the . 10 Suskind report of 14 cancers or 20 cancers in the total group 11 is more advantageous to Monsanto than the Mbses-Selikoff report '12 of 30 cancers? ^. 3 -..A' No, sir,' 14 Q . Sir? ; 15 ,A No jsir.. ,,b ^ \ 3 J- 16 Q vYou would say it's hot?, . J .f*-. 17 A . ' No, air, BAYONNE, N.J, 18 Q Well, it shows a healthier group of people, doesn't 19 . it, with fewer cancers, doesn't,it? 20. J r ^ , mt ' j A Yes,, sir, 21 , -,Q Acid therefore that's to Monsanto's advantage, isn't 22 it, air? You Just got through saying that, didn't you, sir? 23 A' Yes, ^sir^ " '*>>' ^ ~` 24 ' Q , Now, Doctor ,on Lowoll West you eliminated, according `;'i ,>.i f?./ y \ V'-'s 'it ,;I`- 1 to Mr. Saigfreld's notes you eliminated a skin cancer, didn't 2 you, sir? That's Ho. 89. 3 THE COURTi Before ws got him is this a good point 4 for a short break? 5 MR. CARR: Surely, your Honor. 6 THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, we'll take a shore 7 recess at this time. I would remind you, and this would go for 8 any other breaks we take during the day, that you're not to 9 discuss this among yourselves, with anyone outside the jury 10 panel or as of yet form any opinions or conclusions about the 11 matters on trial. Court will be in a short recess. 12 (At this titan'a short recess was taken.) 13 DR. GEORGE ROUSCH, 14 roaming the witness stand, having been previously sworn, 15 testified further as follows: 16 RECROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) 17 BY MR. CARR: 18 Q Doctor, the next one I'd like to ask you again on 19 review would bo Lowell West. It's No. 89. Did you find that, 20 sir? 21 A Yea,- sir. 1 >*' 22 Q Mr. West gave a history of skin cancor, did he not? 23 A Yes, sir. 24 Q There is nothing in the record to take away from that 1 history that he gave, is there, air, no additional history that 2 he did not have skin cancer? 3 A The physician when he did his examination didn't even 4 mention it. 5 Q Ky question is is there anything in the record to 6 take away from the fact that Hr, West reported to your inter 7 viewer that the doctor had told him that he had skin cancer in 8 1958? 9 A I'd say it's inconsistent with the doctor's report, _ 10 Q What did the doctor say that's inconsistent with -- 11 what did the examining doctor say so we can gat It straight, 12 keep it in order,'what did; he say that war inconsistent with -** { .li" .r \ 13 the -* what the treating'doctor said was skin cancer in 1958? 14 A Ho made no mention of skin cancer. 15 Q He didn't say that there was not skin cancer did he? 16 A Ho, ir, ;' `,Vv 1*/.'* t1 ' ' -" 17 Q And the history that you're looking at where he -- 18 where you say he made no mention of it is that called additional 19 history, isn't it, sir? 20 A Ho, sir. 21 Q Doctor, look at Pago 21. 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q That is the -- what you're referring to* is it not? 24 A Y6 8 sir. 1 Q Sir? 2 A Yes, sir. 3 Q And what does lc say on chat page Doctor? What does 4 It describe the history being taken on that page? 5 A He says he had, I think it's chloracne. 6 Q What does It describe, what does that page describe, 7 what's It listed -- It uses the words additional history, 8 does It not? 9 A Right, yes, sir. 10 Q Yes, that's as I've asked you a moment ago that you 11 said It wasn't though, it is though, it's talking about addi 12 tional history, isn't it, sir? 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q Now, is there any additional history taken chat's 15 given there, sir, that takes away from the original history 16 that was given in the history section, personal medical history 17 section, that takes away from the fact that he says a doctor 18 told him that he had skin cancer two times as a matter of fact 19 in 1958? 20 A The doctor didn'tmention that hehad skin cancer. 21 Q All right. But he did not say chatthathistory was 22 Inaccurate, did he, sir? 23 A No, sir. 24 Q And, Doctor, if you will look at the computer study. 1 1472, for West, ID, No. 89, you 8e that ha the computer 2 lists him as having skin cancer, history of skin cancer, does , 3 it not, air? 4 A/ Skin cancer. 5 Q ; Sir? ': : v 6 A I don!t know whether it's history of skin cancer or x skin cancer; * .^ V 8 Q It says V701 equals skin, doesn't it, sir? 'll .i v:T 4 i r si1 C f i * i "' r - -r( M_ k *i ,1 9 . A. Ye, sir..;.;. v < 10 Q And don't you remember we established that Hertabcrge^ 11 told you that means li.a;history;of skiricancer? Remember we just 12 went through that before the break. Dr. Rousch? j ; '-L; 'i -.h ''; T ,, - . ; * ,. 1 ; - 1 . i * '. . , 13 A Yes, and.I didn't remember It then and I still don't. i i t ' p * ' 14 Q You do recall . 15 A I do know -- 16 Q reading your testimony, didn't you, Doctor? 17 A Yea, sir. J 4 , 18 Q And you did testify that way under oath on July the . 19 9th, didn't you, sir? , 20 A Not that Hertsberger told me that. ?! Q, Doctor, didn't you testify that Hertzberger told you that those numbers, V701-*skln, means a history of skin cancer? X Just read it to you, and X handed it to you arid you read it4 yourself. ,* -V* 54 1 A . The. next: on#!says rt 2 Q Excuse me, Doctor, you're on another point. How, 3 , let' get that point settled,. Didn't you just read that this 4 morning that that's what Hertzbergor told you? 5 MR, HEINEMAHj Objection, your Honor,, it's with 6 respect So one particular person and he's referring to that ".7' ` record. 7 ' v, < , ~ * i V^ <. i ' *1 V 8 THE COURT: Objection is overruled. It wasn't framed n 9 that way. Answer/the question Doctor. 10 Q Doctor, you're not listening to my question. y' 'j * 7 :- 11 . - ' A . I'm sorryl / * ^ , 12 Q You weren't paying the least bit of attention to what 13 T was askingi Do. you.have any idea what I; asked you, sir? 14 A Yes, sir. 15 Q I asked you whether or not you just testified this k ,* jL'1 * " i , . 16 morning, you,just read your testitBony this morning that Herts- 17 barger told you that the V701 letters and the dash behind it 18 skin or dash behind It leukemia or dash behind it bowel means 19 cancer of those organs. 20 r* 21 A . I'm not. sure, .' . , .. - * i 1 * * * J i ! Q You're, not sure that you Just saw it this rooming, 22 sir? 23 A Yes,.sir, 1 - 24 Q You don't recall me showing you the transcript? PENGAD CO;. .BAVONNE. .Nl. i-1' 55 1/ A Yes, sir. 7 _7 .-7'; ./ > \ i Q And yon read it, didn't you? 3 A' Yes, rsir.: ' ' > ,4 J Q You read what you said? 5` A But" i ' v," J--rV'' t V v -7w;:e-7ein7**fc>',compi;l^et7e7,,.;'7 i:;.'> 7;,/ ?7 .> >;i ' . j. 1* % 6 q Sir? 7 ; A It's not complete wliat I -redd. . ' .. 7. y ^ / v' i 7 * 7 '7? f-; ' 7*7-U' r> ;J - ', . - .' 8 ' Q , What i gave you is the conflate transcript. That's \ 1' '} 7 i"7 ^ ' ,r'? '*7' -" ' .9/ the only transcript-we have, Doctors ;: t j * ' _ * 10 7 A - .I understand,' " ' j7 j* ", i f , 1, 1 ^ * r f. '* * M , Q 7 And 711 was your answer, wasn't, it, sir, at that time 12 under oath on July the-9th? {. 77 *" 13,. A -What's 'V' , .. .''; ; 1ir r # t r . ` J 14 Q Wasn't it,7sir?*7 ^ 7/ r -.7 `, 15 ,, A ' What?' 7, . 7 ;; ' 7 / 16 Q 7 The; answer that you gave on July the 9th was your 17 answer to the question; and you",said at that'time that Hertz-c 18 berger told you that that means skin cancer, those numbers 19\ there, V701, means it's a.oancor, a history of cancer. Do you 20 j recall that? Mr. Heinem'an said ho, 1 was, using the words that 21 ^ it was confirmed skin caricar, and ha said no, that's history ', 22' and I said. yes,. that's/right* it's a history of skin cancer, r - i^ \ ` *l " ,, V: t .- " r ,- *^ 23 : / those humbers mean-that .7sWe Just went ^thzrough that through '- 24 the break. 7 ' ' ' *- 'v * BAYONNE, N'J, 36 1 A But we're beck on whether, this means skin cancer or ' v ' \ '/ ' ` ',* ' " ` -i x t * >' * T ,J , ` L 1 "" 4' 12 HOt. ' .r/' ;' 1 ... 3 ,Q D.oVcto-r J ' y->o77u'r7e h7 ot ,listening.to a .' ^ jay question,, My ques* j' -' * ; 7 l t ,,r. t'"|J< Ifc-?-.`' -'t.'t 'A,'.} \ - 4 tion is notwhat you "believe today this means or doesn t mean. 5 My question, is is what you; Said this ;inorning and on July the. \ 7, * A'A A A? ' 1 ` . ' . ', - `6 9th that Hertsberger told you that it meant. Could you listen ,', , J. ` ;* , y- "7 : ">T * '' '0"^ L> r 1 ` i r ,to me* Doctor?,. A A * c a a A v i A-y':t , r 8 A Yes*'sir,, - " . /' A 9 Q Now, Hertaberger told you. according to your ,testimony 10 ,on July the 9th that meatit history p cancer, didn't she, sir? 11 ' ' A Vas. d,* 12 Q Yes, `Now,..Doctor, ahd West is listed in Suskind'e * tj -I - T , * * * * 13 computer tpe printout as having V701 equals skin cancer, correct, 14 sir? ` r^ :a . A* 15 A ^Yes,; sir* '* /'*'> 1 , 16 Q And Krtsberger told you that that meant that he had 17 history of, slUn cancer; didn't she? 18 A * ,Wlth that connotation, yes. '|f r . r ', ' -J ** S *f ' r V * I, J ' ' `4 , 4- r Jf 19 Q Yes. Now, actor, he's listed in the only record tlia 20 you have, the questionnaire that h; filled our that a.doctor 21' told him h had skin cancer, he's, listed in Suskind's computer 22 summary, bring together of fill the"information in Sskind9e ' 1 ' ", ."i` J < k` - * > v j j - _ 23 computer printout as having a history of skin cancer, isn't that right,sir? ''A:;' / 24 BAYONNE. N.J 1 A Yes, sir. ! 4j . t - ,t 2 Q And you hove no document anywhere that says that he 3 did not have skin cancer, all you have is that another doctor 4 in additional medical history didn't mention it one way or the 5 other -- _ . ,Y< 6 A Yes, sir. \i 7 Q Isn't that correct, sir? 8 A That's right. 9 Q All right. Doctor, the next one that you referred to 10 was Hill,,was It not, sir, or the next one that you eliminated 11 a cancer would have been Keith Hill. His ID number would be 12 133. 13 A What number was that? 14 Q 133, Keith Hill. It will have a three page medical 15 discharge summary paper clipped to it on the top. There it is. 16 Doctor, that -- you eliminated the bladder cancer history on 17 Hill, did you not, but you Included the skin cancer? Do you 18 recall that, sir? 19 A Wo* sir. 20 Q Well, look at the records and see, firpt of all, if 21 there is not medical records there which it says on March 22nd, 22 1976, the second page of.the exhibit that you have in your hand, 23 Doctor, the second page -- 24 A Kight. .? '- * ^: a .r1 'A < ';; r- *" '\ 'V V, - : . *\ . \ m.\- ' ' 1 Q You got cha .second paga?, 7 ^ / JA- r '*,U-.' i >", ' 4>/* 2 A .Yes,"sir; V` ' 58 3 Q It says March,22nd, r *7.6 ;in;the,right-hand cornar? 4. A Yes, sir. 5 Q And then it .says history of carcinoma of the bladder, .6 rule out recurrence? 1i . * ~ " :-7 -A Yes, sir. t 1 s ,, 7 / , * ` v- 8 Q See where It says that? / 9 A Yes, 'sir. - 10 Q. And they do an operation, a, cystoscopy and a pantoscojj>y, 11 and they have the same post-operative diagnosis. They say no *i * j >*' r J * t * - . 12 recurrence seen, don*t they, sir? 13 - A .Yes,, sir. 14 Q And that is a statement that he has a history of 15 carcinoma of th bladder, isn't It, sir? FORM !L J A B 16 A - Yds, sir. , J- B A V O N N E , , N . J , 7 D0 I 17 Q And, Doctor, you eliminated when you discussed with . 18 Mr, Heintm'an any bladder cancer history, didn't you, sir? 19 A : Yes, sir,-. " ** * * t 20 Q Thank you, sir,. The next one that you eliminated 1 2! would have bean a skin, cancer to Rogers and that would bo tto. 22 422. Have you got that one? ' 23 A L Yes, sir.. -24 Q And you eliminated him because you said there was. tv- { i t 1 if I remember your testimony correctly he had no history of . v 'J'l; r 1i < - ,, . 2 exposure or did you, sif?,, 3-,, A .I don't.have my notes/ 4 ` Q Wall , you want to look at the record then and tell us, 5 what you would -- 6 A Yes* sir, 7 Q . ` say about Hr, Rogers? Is he exposedor not? 8 A 'On history he said he was not exposed, ,*9* Q, Now, Doctor, you testified relative to Hr. Rogers 10 whan X asked you.questions that he was exposed. Do you recall 11 that, sir? '. -7 '1 12 A . This is a case of whether you can say ho exposure 13 versus some or possible exposure, 1 14 Q ;YeS, Now, you said directly that .in your testi 15 mony with Mr, Heiheman that he was,,not exposed? . 1 16 A Yes,- sir, ''< J ' ./ * / ,,/ 17 Q And the history doesn't say that he was not exposed, 18 does it, sir? I? A I think the fact that he was transportation foreman 20 and receiving supervisor that,said ha wasn't exposed, 21 .Q 'Doctorwhat did he do from 1949 to 1955? " - b . vJ > ` dv 22 A He.was foreman -- he was shipping, 23 Q He worked in the shipping from -- for the first 24 three years as a warehouse man from 1949 to 1951, didn't he, 1 s ir? 2 A Yes sir. 3 Q What did they ship out in that period of time when he 4 was a worker? 5 A All the products that were made at Honsante. 6 Q And was 2,4/5 T one of those products that was made? ' 7 A Yes sir. 8 Q, And did he then work with 2,4,5 T that was made sir 9 at that plant from *49 to 451? 10 A I'm not sure what the foreman -- of the 2,4,5 X? 11 Q Did he work with 2,4,5 T in that three year period of 12 time, sir? 13 A X don't know. 14 Q Sir? 15 A X don't know. 16 Q Xf ho was working in the Shipping Department and he 17 was shipping out 2,4,5 7 wasn't ho working with It, Dr. RouscM 18 A Hot necessarily. 19 Q Well, do you have anything that says that he wasn't 20 working with .it? The evidence that you have is that he was 21 working with It. You have nothing to the contrary, do you, 22 sir? 23 MR, HEXHEMAH: Objection,.your Honor, X don't think . i 'i ,, ^ 1 h r 24 the witness agrees. 1 ' A . I don1t believe -- 2 MR. CARR: I'm siting him. Q Wher do you have something to th contrary that says 3 4 he was not working with 2,4,5 T shipping it out from the ware- - *f 'K ' , "5 house?. 6 jTHE COURT* Objection overruled. <HR, HEINEHAHi Your Honor, I didn't get to finish my 7 8 objection. . THE COURT.: I thought you had. 9 MR,. HEINEKAHt My objection to th question was Mr. 10 ii. Carr was assuming that there was nothing in the evidence or 12- that the evidence established that ho was working with 2,4,5 T, + '. j i 13 and I don't think there's anything in the evidence, in the 14 record to establish that, and that's what X was objecting to. 15 THE COURT: Objection is overruled. The question was P E N GAD C O . . B A Y ON N E, N . J . 0 7 0 0 * FORM )L_ " 2 4 B 16 proper. - '\>i;_ 7 A X,don't believe that he had exposure to 2,4,5 T even 18 if he was shipping the material, because it was put into drums 19. and.vats and bags before, and all they would, they bring them 20 in on dollies and take them out on doH i os, and there was no 21 exposure taking place. . _ ;.. : _ ' 22 ' Q Doctor, .do you -recall;thatthe area all in the 23 these buildings where they were shipping this product from,. 24 it was all dusty, and they found 2,4,5 or rather TCDD in .the 62 dust on the.floor -- V:1 1 ij | i ' ` ,, ." ^. t t- . ( ` ,r \ 1 p J '* '` - i' y , .* , , . ,2 A No* `sir*/ \\ Z r i . ,/*- , M ' * r >f ` } k - 'L '7 3 Q,\ You dbxi't recall that?' , j * * ' J - J 4 ' A. . No, sir. ; " : J' Z- i 5 Q t Building 78 and 79? 'J , * Z 6 A That wasn't where thcyshipped from, .7 r Q 0 Do-c1tor, w*h_enith*1eyJ*, doI _ --' wh'e. n ,theyp do fill u(p a ba,,g*, t , ^4 * J T , Ih '` " * --8 4' b it possible for them ,to not -* to keep the outside of the 9 bag from getting some of the dust and material on it?. Is that 10 possible, physically possiblerto do that, Doctor Rojasch? 11 ^ A, .Well, I'm sure there were traces* * >^ ,\ 4 1- 1 T*- ^ 12 Q Doctor, thatVs vihat wo'r talking about in thls;whole 13 case, is dealing with what you call traces; 14 'A " .'Nbtvsair:.` 'Vr' t: 15 Q Doesn't the drums that they fill'it with, doesn't tha^ 16 drum sit thereomder spout. and it comes down and fills up chat 17 drum? ./v Z* Z; ./ ' / * \-`Z ~ 18 A Y^e, sir, but not in .shipping, '/ 19, v 20 , * / rVi - -- w ( Q They fill it up where they make it,-don't they, sir? " >. " ; ;* % - >, u . Z ' /Zv1 -7 v* l- - v c ;-,-.' 7 . . *r'-^ w ;:'- A Yes, sir-, 7^7; \ \ .7 : 7 . ,' V 7 .V;r`J. 21 ,'Q \Ahd is it possible to keep some dust f:rom that 2,4,5 T -' 'T ?F; if:-'7-' .'*;>% ' t> '>>VV-i1'7> ; . r'- . 22 that, s going inep that drumi is- it; possible to keep that from 23' from going onto, the side of,the drum!' k 7/ {;'JV.- :-v,H^ v^' '' >f'>i-'7- ,;L- ' - 24 I 'misure there was some. / PENGAD CO;. BAYONNE, N.J. 0700 1 Q You're sure there's some, and it's taken from that 2 department where it's made and where is it taken then, Dr. House 3 A To the warehouse. 4 Q And when it gets to the warehouse, do those men in the 5 warehouse handle that drum or that box or that bag that's filiac 6 with 2,4,5 T? 7 A Yes, sir. 8 Q And do they not handle it when it has some 2,4,5 T on 9 the outside of the surface, sir? 10 A I'm sure they do. 11 Q And when they drop it on the floor, doesn't some of 12 that dust that's on the outside of that package gat Into the 13 air or on the floor? 14 A It's possible. 15 Q And when they breathe that dust in and when they touch 16 that dust and wouldn't chat dust touch their skin from these 17 packages? 18 A At trace levels I'm sure that's true. 19 Q That's what we're talking about. Doctor. 20 A No, sir. 21 Q Yes, we are, sir. You may not bs talking about it, 22 but that'8 what this cass is about, that's what this case is 23 exactly about. My question is wasn't that workar exposed to 24 2,4,5 T, wasn't that shipping worker exposed to that? Given ] your statement that it1 trace amount, wasn't be exposed to it, 2 sir? " . 3' A Yes, . 4 Q Now, after that three years of handling those bags he 5 then became foreman, didn't he, sir? 6 A Yea, sir. T Q And he was a foreman then until 1955 in that depart 8 ment, in the Shipping Department, wasn't he, sir? .? A Ys, sir. *t 10 Q And if there was dust; on the floor or dust in the eir 11 from handling those bags, he was exposed to it while be was a 12 foreman in that mode, wasn't he, sir? 13 A Xf there was dust and if it was from 2,4,5 ? 14 Q And there would be dust, would there not, ir? r" *- t 15 A Not measurable. 16 Q Doctor, there, would) be dust, "would there not, sir? . 17 1 have given you,every single question, Doctor, I've given you 18 that there's some 2,"3^73 TCDD.or:some 2,4,5 T, and you said *:'v ^ O *"*'C ' ' -t 1 19 you can't measure it. Matter of fact, they did measure in the 20 dust, but I'm not'evn going to argu that with you at this 21 point. Doctor; It's there, isn't it,sir? 22 MR. HEINEMAN* Objection, your Honor, there's no 23 evidence they measured 2 ,3 ,7 , 8 in the dust in the warehouse. 24 THE COURTi Objection is overruled. 1 A I,don't know. 2 Q You don't know that it's there? I thought you juet 3 got through agreeing that it would bo there In tract amounts? .4 A In tract amounts* that's right., 5 q But,^Doctor, pitas* kttp in your mind so that X don't 6 have to say it aachtima. If It's a tract amountc it's there, 7 Isn't > It, sir?1' 8 : A Yes.- V-\l _ y 9 Q And that* exhibits that we just want through where 10 they chocked Buildings 46 end 79, they titled it tree* Amounts, II didn't they, sir?\ 12 A I don't recall. 13 Q Wall, the exhibits are right in front of you. the 14 exhibit where they, are going" to pave the' lot, they talk about W ,;1 `h. \ ; ' 0 - is trace amounts in.the materiel, don't they, sir? /; ,.Ji ,1'i- ;\ iVs'1)/`t 16 Yes, siirr.'tc -Vi. .*-v ^ C'H i* > , i 'it-' * - 17 Q And they talk about, they say during the period from . ,1 . t r - C'n ^ ^ *I i 18; 1948 to 1969 Monsanto's Kltro Plant manufactured 2,4,5 T, which 19 contained traca amounts of 2 ,3,7,8 tetrachlorodibenro-p-dioxin. 20 That's what they say, don't they, sir? 21 A Yes, sir. 22 Q ,Nowj those trace amounts were as high as 55 parts par 23 million, weren't they, sir, or. 60 parts per million? 24 A ' Yes, sir.! 1 Q And trace amounts then can go all the way from 60 2 parts par million down to parts per trillion that they were 3 detecting the lowest amounts in these samples isn't that 4 correct sir .16 ports per billion is 160 parts per trillion 5 isn't it sir? 6 A Right. 7 Q And over here on the area that they're paving .12 ->> 8 no I'm sorry, .1 1 that's 1 1 0 porta per trillion isn't it 9 sir? 10 A Yea sir. 11 Q Now, these ere the areas that they're talking about 12 that they *re paving and putting asphalt over these are the ' -- * * . 1 J / * L , , 1 ' c ' *` s \ l -- 13 areas that they measured .1 1 1 1 0 parts par trillion this is 14 where they're putting the:crushed limestone this is where *15 they're preventing the landfill from moving, this Is where 16 they're putting the asphaltv ?r /: 17 A No, air. 18 ,Q those are those samples are they not, sir? 19 A No, sir* 20 Q Well, where are these samples'when they say Nltro 21 Site 1A and all the way down through 0, where Is this land that 22 has the 1 1 0 parts per trillion? 23 A I don't know. 24 Q Now, Doctor, it's this plant, they're talking about 1 this plane wipe samples from the Nitro Plant aren't they, air? 2 Isn't that this plant is the Nitro Plant and they're giving the 3 results from that Nitro Plant, aren't they, sir? 4 A These are landfill samples hare. 5 Q In the Nitro Plant? 6 A Yes* sir. 7 Q And turning the next page it's Nitro soil? 8 A Wall, it says site. don't know what that means. 9 Q Nitro site, you don't know what that means, air? 10 A No. I know it's a site, but 1 don't know which site. \ * 11 Q You know it's a site in the Nitro Plant? 12 A Yes, sir. j * * ,, 1 * .- 13 Q You know that, don't you, sir? 14 A Yes, sir.; 15 Q And you know that the land, the soil samples they took 16 was from this area where they put the crushed limestone and from 17 this area where they put the blacktop and from this area where 18 they excavated? 19 A Yes, sir. 20 Q Now, those are trace amounts, aren't they, sir; those 21 described there as 1 1 0 parts per trillion? 22 A No, sir. 23 Q They're not trace amounts? 24 A Yes, they're trace amounts. 1 Q That's what X've asked you. 2 A But that's not what they're covering it up for. 3 Q Doctor, they are covering up the area that contains 4 1 1 0 parts per trillion, aren't they? 5 A Yes, sir. 6 Q And they did that in 1985, X take it? 7 A X don't know, 8 Q And why are they covering up the area that has 110 9 parts per trillion of 2,3,7,8 TCDD,`Doctor? 10 A They're covering -- 11 Q What are they trying to prevent by doing that? 12 A They're not trying to prevent.anything. 13 Q They're not? 14 A No, sir. IS Q they just want to cover up this area just for fun? 16 A No, sir. 17 Q What are they trying to prevent then? 18 A They're trying to cover up higher concentrations, not 19 that 1 1 0 parts per trillion. 20 Q Well, what's the highest that they're trying to cover 21 up? 22 A About 11 parts per billion. 23 Q Now, Doctor, are you sure that's not a spiked sample, 24 Doctor? 1 A N o, s i r , I d o n 't t h in k -00. 2 Q Don't you see that right there, Doctor? It means 3 it's a spiked sample, 4 A The one down on the previous page it's 10.34 parts 5 per billion. 6 Q All right. Doctor, for the sake of argument they went F* - r* P J 7 from 1 1 0 parts per trillion to 1 0 parts per billion, and they 8 cover up that entire area, didn!t they, sir? 9 A I'm not sure the relationship of what we just read to 10 that. 1 * * , . II Q Doctor, do you know what the level of the contaminate 12 is in this large area here? 13 A No, sir. 14 Q Do you know that that Is not this area? This Is the 15 only document that we have, Dr. Rousch. You gave ug these 16 documents dealing with the Micro Plant, Doctor. 17 A Yes, sir. 18 Q Doctor, there are no children in this plant that's 19 going to sit dov7n and eat that dirt that contains 1 1 0 parts par 20 trillion or one part per billion or ten parts per billion, is 21 there, sir? 22 A No, sir. 23 Q And the men aron1 1 going to sit down and eat that 24 dirt over their lifetime, are they, sir? 1 A No, s i r . 2 ` Q They are simply, if they don't cover that up, they 3 are going,to be exposed to the water that runs off onto the 4 parking lot, and that's the reason they've graded this, and i ' ^\ ' " i ' (1 5 that's the reason they put ,that wall there. They're simply 6 going to be exposed to whatever might be in that soil and run 7 off Into chat plant, aren't they, sirt 8 A No, sir. 4 9 Q They're not going to be exposed to it? 10 A There's no evidence that they're going to be exposed 11 to it. 12 Q Doctor, why are you doing this, why is this called 13 remedial work 2,3,7,8 TCDD remedial work, why are you going to 14 this expense of excavating that, blacktopping that and putting IS limestone there and a big earthen dam there? Why are you.at 16 l&msanto doing that? You just want to spend some money? 17 A To cover up chat site where they found dioxin* 18 Q Why do you want to cover up that site, Dr, Rousch? 19 A It's good practice. 20 Q Why Is It good practice, Dr. Rouech? 21 A Because the EPA would like to have it done. 22 Q Why would EPA like to have it done? 23 A Not for health reasons. 24 Q Nall, why would they like to have it dona? Do they 1 Just like to go around and make people do things not for health 2 reasons? Why do they want that covered up, Doctor? Why, did yoi agree to cover it up? they didn81 go to. Court and force you to 3 cover it up0 You agreed to cover that up. You could have said 4 L " t- r -, - , r -1 ! ' hey, no, that's hot ;'health.hatard, that's not going to bother 5 6 our workers, that's not: going to bother anybody, we're not goinj !' '` . v- r '/*;"r^ to cover it up. We believe what Dr.Rousch says about ,health 7 8 hazards, and we're not going.to go to that expanse. Now, why 9 did Monsanto cover that up? i - 10 A I'm not sure of the reasons why they did it. 1 11 Q Well, just speculate for roe, Doctor. 12 A So they wouldn't have to be, talking about the fact 13 that they had found trace levels of dioxin in that area. . 14 Q Well, why wouldn't they want to be talking about it, 15 trace levels, you said yourself trace amounts can't hurt any* body. What do they care whether they talk about it or not? 16 A X think it's Just good practice. 17 18 Q Well, I know that, Doctor, but the question is why is 19 it good practice, what kind of practice is it? It's a health '/ 1 * 20 practice, isn't it? 21 A Ho,'sir*. 22 Q Sir? 23 ' A Wo* sir. ** < 1 24 Q Well, what is it* Just practice covering up? You maaii 1 to get practice in spreading limedtone or spreading asphalt? 2 What is it a practice that relates to what, industrial hygiene, 3 health, to protect children? What is that practice, Doctor, 4 why is it a good practice? 5 A To cover up an area where there's dioxin, 6 Q And why do you want to cover up an area where there's 7 dioxin? So It won't get out and expose people to it, isn't 8 that right, Dr. Bousch? 9 A No, sir. 10 Q Well, why do you want to cover it up? If that's not 11 the reason, why go to the trouble of covering up where there's 12 dioxin? 13 A It's because of a political issue. 14 Q It's a politicalIssue? IS A Yes, sir. 16 Q And there are some politicians now that are making 17 you do that? 18 A No, sir. 19 Q Well then, how is it a political Issue? 20 A Because of the issue of what level is going to be 21 consistent with concensus standard of what is a no exposure 22 area. 23 Q Doctor, what it is is that neither you nor no one 24 else on earth knows whether or not exposure to trace amounts I down to 100 parts per trillion or 65 parts per trillion or one 2 part per quadrillion nobody knows but what that might have Ion .1 j. 3 tana, long range latency period health effects isn't that 4 correct sir? 5 A No, air. 6 Q Does anybody know that it doesn't, Doctor? 7 A the CDC says It doaan't. '8 Q Where did the CDC aay that it doesn't have long range 9 -- wa read the Missouri Division Health Report just last week, 10 Doctor. The CDC was part of that, where they said exactly the II opposite. Do you recall ehat, Doctor? 12 A Yes, sir. 13 Q All right. Now, Doctor, is there any study anywhere 14 that says it doesn't have, low dose exposure will not result in 15 long term latency health effects? 16 A Yes, sir. 17 Q What study Is It? Doctor? 18 A The CDC said that. 19 Q Doctor, did the CDC aver publish a document that said 20 that? 21 A Yes, sir, 22 Q And what document was it, sir? Are you talking about 23 whore they said levels at one part per billion cannot be con 24 sidered safe, is that what you're talking about? 1 A Levels above one pare per: billion and above was not 2 safe* 3 Q Levels at one part par billion -- 4 A Or above, 5 Q -- and above are not safe? 6 A For residential areas, 7 Q. Yes* Now, Doctor, is there anywhere that anybody sal 8 chat levels below one part per billion are safe? 9 A That's what that article is about, 10 Q Doctor, tay question is does anybody say that -11 A Yes, air, 12 Q Where did they say it, Doctor? 13 A It's a report by Klisbrough and her associates, 14 Q They said below, one part per billion Is safe? IS A Yes, sir. 16 Q Doctor, the only thing they said was levels at one 17 part per billion and above cannot be considered safe Is exactly 18 what they said, isn't that correct, sir? 19 A Yes, sir, 20 Q They didn't say the opposite of that, did they, sir? 21 A Yes, sir. 22 Q If the only thing they said was levels at and above 23 cannot be considered safe, Doctor, then they could not have 24 the opposite if that's the only thing they said. i 1 A They said chat for residential eraos. 2 Q Y9 , Doctor but we're now talking about an industrial. 3 area. 4 A Yes, sir. 5 Q Where they're not going to be eating the dirt. 6 A That's right. 7 Q Now. I want to know. Doctor, have you seen any report 8 from anybody that would excuse you from considering that this L9 is a health hasard and support your instant position that you'ro 10 doing that for political reasons? 11 A Yes, sir, I think that same article talks about in 12 a comercial area you do not have to have the same one part 13 per billion standard. 14 Q But you apparently used that and below it in Nitro, 15 didn't you, sir? Now, does the CDC have any regulatory powers? 16 It's a voluntary organisation, isn't it, air? 17 A No, sir, it's not voluntary. 18 Q Oh, does it have any regulatory powers? 19 A Not regulatory, no, sir. 20 Q The EPA, however, does have regulatory powers, doesn't; 21 it, sir? 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q And the EPA is concerned here, isn't it, sir, in 24 Nitro? 1 A I don't think so. 2 Q Doctor would you look at 1527 again picas* sir. 3 A Yes sir, 4 Q And isn't It talking about the EPA and remedial ` 5 studies done for the EPA? Isn't this attached document called 6 ditto's Proposal Response to Walter Lee United States Environ* 7 mental Protection Agency Region III Request for a Written 8 Description of Nltro's TCDD Remedial Work Plan. The, plant wants } 9 to send Monsanto's response as soon as possible. Isn't that 10 what that is said sir? 11 A Yes, sir. 12 Q And aren't they talking about their response to the 13 EPA? 14 A Yes, but I don't know what the request was. 15 Q Doctor, aren't they calking about their response to 16 the EPA? 17 A Yes, sir. 18 Q And doesn't their response include those things that 19 we're talking about, paving the area,where it was manufactured, 20 removing the soil from contaminated area, covering the area 21 where there was a trash Incinerator with crushed limestone, 22 providing a clay cap over the disposal site of the equipment 23 from the 2,4,5 T facilities; isn't that what thay'ra talking 24 about? 1 A Yes, sir. 2 Q Now* Doctor, why would the EPA -- and it's not a 3 political organization, Is it* sir? 4 A No, sir. 5 Q It's an organization of scientists, Isn't It, sir? 6 A And regulators, 7 Q And regulators. And they and Monsanto worked out the 8 plan to remedy the TODD contamination exposure in Nltro with 9 what's called 1527B, have they not, sir? 10 A No, sir. 11 Q Wall, isn't that considered your remedial work, 12 Doctor? 13 A Yes, sir, 14 Q What are you remedying, Doctor? 15 A Wo're changing the measurable dioxin levels in the 16 surface 17 Q You're remedying the fact that you have TODD there at 18 levels of 1 1 0 parts per trillion up to 1 0 parts per billion, 19 aren't you, sir? 20 A X don't know, at least that's part of it, 21 Q That's what this, document tells you, Isn't it, sir? t .r ' 22 A I can't relate that to all those sites, 23 Q Doctor, that's> what this - document . tells you, doesn't 24 it, sir? You can't relate that? It describes exactly what 1 they're doing* 2 A Yes, sir. 3 Q If it's attached to this project, it is related to a l l 4 of those sites, isn't It? 5 A Yes, sir, but X can't relate it to the concentrations 6 that you're talking about, 7 Q That's the point. The concentrations, it makes no , 8 difference, wherever they're finding 2,3,7,8 TCDD they require 9 something to be done about it, don't they, sir? 10 A No,.sir, 11 Q Oh? Where did they find it that they didn't require 12 you to do something about it? 13 A X don't know. 14 Q My question is wherever they find it they require 15 something to be done. 16 A $fo, sir. 17 Q Well again, that no, sir moans to me that my state 18 ment Is, my question to you is not correct? 19 A Yes, ; ^ ,, -,,` . 20 Q It's -stated affirmatively that there was some areas 21 were 2,3,7,8 TCDD was found and no remedy was required. How 22 where Is the area where it was found and they did not require 23 you or you did not remedy that? ' 24 A X don't know, but the standard would be -- 1 Q Doctor, don't you understand that if you don't know 2 of any place where they ever found it and didn't require you to 3 do something about it that you cannot answer a question the way 4 you just did? MR, HEINEMAN: Objection, 5 6 My question is of your knowledge isn't it a fact, Doctor,{that every place that 2,3,7,8 TCDD was found, you are 7 i 8 doing something about it? 9 No 10 MR, HEXNEMANi Objection, there is no evidence to 11 establish -- i 1- 12 A i: I don't know, . _ . MR. HEINEMANi eh, findings with tha location. 13 \ . L 14 That's what the witness is trying to say, j THE COURT: Objection is overruled. Number one, 15 6 there is evidence, and number two, that's not what he's saying, i *, you're wrong on both, 17 18 Q r Doctor , the remedial work, is taken in order to prevent 19 exposure to these trace amounts, isn't it, air? t - , - 20 A . No, sir, > V 21 Q Doctor, why would you take remedial action except to rk iJ 22 prevent exposure?' What other possible reason could you have? 23 - 1 In response to EPA's request. 24 Doctor, why are they requesting it? i 1 A | 1 don't know. 2 Q Wall, just speculate. tthy would the EPA want this 3 work done? 4 A I don't know. 5 HE. HEINEMANt Objection to requiring speculation. 6 A I don't know. 7 THE COURTi Objection ie overruled. 8 Q Sir? 9 A I don't know. 10 Q Well, think, use your medical mind. You're head of 11 this department, Ur. Houschi -12 A Yes, sir. 13 Q You confer with these people, you have conferred with 14 these people, it's your responsibility for the health of the 15 workers in that plant and for the environment outside of that 16 plant, you're the top men'In that area, 17 A Yes, sir. -< % 18 Q How, I want you to use th skills, the medical tr&lnir 19 that you've had and answer my question. Why would the EPA want 20 this remedial work done and why would Monsanto agree to do that 21 remedial work? And don't tell me you don't know, Doctor, be 22 cause you're the head of this whole department, you've been the 23 head of it for many,many years. 24 A Yes, sir. Z&nitorlng had disclosed the presence of 1 dioxin 2 Q Yes, we know that, Doctor* Now, wc'ra talking about 3 the response, the remedial work being done after finding that 4 dioxin there. 5 A Yes, sir* 6 Q Why are you doing this remedial work? 7 A So that it would no longer be found present in that 8 soil 9 Q And why don't you want it to be found, why don't you 10 want It to be in that soil? 11 A X don't know* 12 Q Doctor, you don't know why you don't want 2,3,7,8 TCD1 13 in soil at your plant? 14 A At this concentration -- 15 Q You don't have the vaguest idea, Dr* Rousch? 16 A Not at this concentration. 17 Q You don't have any idea why Monsanto agreed to do thi$ 18 A Not at that concentration. 19 Q Well then. Doctor, did they confer with you on that 20 point? 21 A No, sir. 22 Q Did they just ignore you than altogether? 23 A Yes, sir* 24 Q Well, you knew of it going on, didn't you, sir? ] A Hot th is n o , s ir * 2 Q You didn't know of Itgoing on? 3 A No, sir. 4 Q Isn't this part of yourresponsibility about the 5 health of tha workers at Hitro? Aren't they under your Juris 6 diction and part of your responsibility as well? 7 A Aren't who under ny responsibility? 8 Q I'm sorry? 9 A Who Is? 10 Q The Hitro workers. 11 A Yes, sir.- :` *' 12 Q They are, aren't they, sir?. , , f *r * _ * ,/ 13 A Y@s,r sir, 14 Q Than, Doctor/ Itjwes under your jurisdiction this 15 work was don, this is In your department, isn't it, sir? 16 A Ho, sir, no, sir. 17 Q 2,3,7,8 TCDD exposure to your workers is not in your 18 department? 19 A Yes, sir, that is. 20 Q That's what this is, isn't it, sir? 21 A What is? 22 Q Hils document deals with 2,3,7,3 TCDD in your plant, 23 and It suggests remedial action in order to protect your 24 doesn't It, sir? I A No, s i r , 2 Q Well, Doctor, you say no, sir. That means that you 3 know why it was done. Otherwise you can say, well, I don't 4 know, I don't have any idea. Now, why was the remedial work 5 done if it was not done to protect the health of the workers 6 being exposed to these trace amounts? 7 A I don't know why they did it. 8 Q Well, Doctor, if not for that, what other reason 9 could there be? Is there any other reason that you can think 10 of other than health of the workers why they might have done II it? 12 A Because EPA told them, asked them to do it. 13 Q Doctor, now we're going in circles again. That isn't 14 a response. Why would the EPA want it done then, sir, for any 15 reason other than health of the workers? 16 A I don't know why they requested it. 17 Q My question is do you know of any reason other than 18 the fact that the health of the workers would be affected by 19 exposure to these trace amounts of 2,3,7,8 TCDD? 20 A Because they had established a standard. 21 Q Doctor, why do they establish the standard? 22 A Because they can get to that level. 23 Q Why do they want to establish that level? Who are 24 they protecting, Doctor, why are they doing that? 1 A It's not related to health. 2 Q Wall, why are they doing it if it's not related to 3 health? 4 Because EPA asked them to do it. 5 Q Doctor no, we're talking about why would the EPA 6 establish the standard now. You said it's.a standard they're i 7 doing it in response toa standard that's established? S A That's a speculation. 9 Q Why would they1establish it sir other than the 10 health of the people that might be exposed to the 2,3,7,8 TCDD? 11 A Ko, sir. 12 Q What other reason other than that would they have? 13 A Because it's feasible.s'. 14 Q Doctor, why would they want to do it if it's feasible; 15 A I don't know. 16 Q Doctor, what reason would they have other than pro 17 tecting the health of people? 18 A Cause it's feasible. 19 Q Doctor, there's all kinds of things that are feasible 20 that have got nothing to do with health. You don't go around 21 doing things because it's feasible. The EPA has the obligation 22 to protect tha environment, doesn't it, sir? 23 A Yes, sir. 24 Q And why do we want the EPA to protect the environment 1 why do we want chat, why do Che citisens of the United States 2 want Che EPA to go out and protect our environment? 3 A So chat chore is no needless contamination. 4 Q And why. do we want to prevent noodles3 contamination? 5 A Because there's no reason why we should have contami 6 nation, if it can be avoided. 7 Q Why would .we want to avoid it if we can? What reason 8 Doctor, other than health?. 1M 'j1 , 9 A So that it doesn't gat up to a level where it would JO be a health problem. 11 Q Well then, Doctor, that is connected with health, 12 isn't it, sir? 13 A No, sir, 14 Q Doctor, if they want to keep it from getting up to 15 a level where it would be a health problem, isn't that a health 16 reason? 17 A No, sir, 18 Q It's theonly, reason you've, given. 19 A No, sir. 20 Q What other reason Is there,,what is it connected with 21 if it's not connected with health? 22 A Because It's not at tha level found. If there's no 23 health problem, there's no health problem, 24 Q Doctor, but it accumulates, the EPA knows it, you kno1 1 It, I know it, the Jury knows it, everybody knows that it csn 2 accumulate. 3 A No, sir* 4 Q You don't know that? 5 A Not in this case. We haven't baen making it sinea 6 1969. 7 Q Doctor, this is 15 years aftar you mada it they've 8 coma out with this. It's thara, thay found it, thay want to 9 prsvant exposure to it. Now, why do thay want to prevent 10 exposure to it, Doctor? Because it may affect the health, 11 isn't that correct, sir? 12 A No, sir. 13 Q What other reason, Doctor? 14 A Because they don't want it to be present. 15 Q Why don't they want it to be present? 16 A Because that's needless contamination. 17 Q Why is it needless contamination, Doctor? 18 A Because the material was being made. 19 Q And why do they want people not to be exposed to that 20 material? 21 A They didn't say that. That isn't what was said. 22 Q Why are they covering this up if they don't want peop 23 not to be exposed? What other reason do they have to pave it? 24 A Because it's contaminated. I Q Sir? 2 A Because it' contaminated. 3 Q And why are they covering it up? 4 A Because it's contaminated. 5 Q Aren't they covering it up o that nobody will be 6 exposed to it, sir? 7 A No, sir, 8 Q Why do you want to cover up things that are contaminat 9 If there's not going to be an exposure, Doctor -10 A It's the EPA approach to taking care of dioxin when 11 they can find it in the aoil. 12 Q But why do they want it covered. Doctor? Doctor, 13 you've been playing a game with me for thirty minutes here. 14 A No, sir. 15 Q You've been avoiding the obvious and only answer to 16 this question, and I take It that you're not being In good faith 17 to this Court or to this jury. You know the only reason the 18 EPA Is In existence is for the purpose of protecting our enviro^ 19 ment so that we may not get unhealthy and so that our children 20 and our children's children will not get sick because of the 21 environmental contaminants, and you know the work they're doing 22 at this plant is In order to protect not Just the people at 23 that plant but the people in Nltro, West Virginia and the peopl+ 24 at elsewhere where this water runs off. You know that, too. '"' "r ^ ; v-v / 83 i'^v v> J"-`i / ' , ft ( 1 don't you, .Dkoctovr?f-t : / # ; ft, ft ^ j - v,i* xT 11 * ., -1 * - ^ r? ' ` r^ 2 A ,No, sir/ ' ?r':-<i 3 MR. HEINEMAN: Objaction^ your Honor , Co'the speech - ^- -* ,- r * ', < 4 that Mr. Carr Just gave. That "might be fins Jury summation, 5 . but it's an. improper question for-the witness, and it's not 6 t proper for him to give his opinions about whether he believes i1 ** ' "h jt 1 , \~ ; 7 or doesn't believe whatthe witness is saying, 1 and I. object to 8 '- it, and I ask that it bo.stricken and ask that the jury bo . ' 9 instructed to. disregard it. 10 THE COURT: Objection is overruled, it* proper. 11 , Excuse me, proper questions 12 Q Doctor, you know they also paved the parking lot at 13 Krummrich; you knew that, too, don't you, sir? 14 A I know they were going, to. I don't know whether It's 1* f ' \ * ` * v* 15. been done. , V1 ? ,. 16 . Q ; Ahd\they found one part per billion of 2,3,7,8 TCDD 17 . in that parking lot, didn't they*., sir? 18 A . I don't know what they found. 19 Q Well, nobody told you they found it Cher? *j j *- 1 ^ 20 A .^They found it,;but I don' t .know what level they found 21 it. 22 Q Doctor, why are they covering that parking lot? 23 ' A Because it's contaminated. . \ 24 Q Doctor, you are.an educated man -- .. , "#r.-tr " ,, * ' ' :r4 r "J ` * J r,\ * *>'- * 4 " . ,,` V< ' i* - -A- v '*'* * *'p - " L , , r 1 1 11 ' * V .i' 'J ';\V; V ;V>*'. A- ` Yes t_,sir.'-' - v>j *--- "^ , ; 2 * Q. And you know exactly what you're doing'hero, don't 3 you, sir? -/ ` _ . " , 4 A .Yes, sir. ; 5 Q .You're trying to avoid giving, an answer associated 6 with 1health-,- aren't y1ou, sir? .; 7 A' Ho, sir.-, , 8 Q Doctor, why are we all concerned about contamination? 9 Has, it to do .with health? ^ L\ 10 A We're concerned, because it could be health. H Q Doctor, that's the reason we're working with contami 12 nation, because of our health concern, isn't that right, sir? 13 A Yes, ,,sir; 14 Q And,that's, the reason they're paving the lot, because 15 it's contaminated, isn't that.right, sir? 16 A / Yes,jsir, ... 1 ^ ,, '* 17 Q And that's connected with health then, isn't it, sir? 18 - , A. Ho, sir. > '/ *1 19 Q Dr, Kousch,, you just got through saying that you're r 20 concerned about the contamination because of Its health effects; 21 and you're paving the lot because It's contaminated*; 22 A -r Yes> sir, ' 23 Q You said those things, didn't you, sir? 24 A Y e s `s i r . \ p *V J * '* , j* s* '. ?V "V 'v '*1 1 i~ ir'"`- * -''? - V ; ; ;; "ii ; ;'i ' 1 Q 1 And you're paving the lot then because of the possible ' 2 health affects? ' 3 A No, `sir. f / ' ' f- r 4 ' p Q . Then why are you paving it, Doctor? .5,. ' A Because it's contaminated. *- 6 . Q Why do you want to pave something that's contaminated; , " .' " '. > `7 Doctor? 8 ' J A Because of .staT"^ndards that aPre being writt'en and the ' 9 concensus of positions and feasibility and all sorts of things 10 Q What do ail these.things rotate to, these standards, - -"\ i 1r 11 Doctor dealing with contamination? ^ 12 A At some level of concentration in the soil it may 13 become.a hazard, but not all presence -- 14 Q A hazard to what, Doctor? 15 A * - Only if it'gets above a level . 16 ' Q A hazard to what? To our health, isn't that right, 17 Doctor? 1 r. ' ' 18 A *If it's high enough. 19-, Q So they're paving these contaminated areas because 20 they're concerned about health effects? ; 21 A Wo, `sir.. . 22 Q s i i f 23 A Wo, ^sir. \^ \ ' 24 l . Q - What other possible reason, Dr. Eousch? " r-j\ J;, * -r;. i ( y v- ` ,'*., (-,j*"r't'',vi''' .'1!. t:* i'^ . ji- \\\ .i.'i.; .L'-*jj'.tfr; PENGAD C O .. BA YO N N E. N .J, 07002 1 A Because it's there. 2 Q Doctor, wa wont through that. Doctor, it's there, 3 and how does It affect anybody just because it's there? They': 4 paving it so it won't gat away from there, aren't they, sir? 5 A No, sir. 6 Q Why are they paving it? 7 A So that it 'ill be covered up. 8 Q Why do they want to cover it up? 9 A Because somebody asked them to. 10 Q Why did somebody ask them to? 11 A Because a standard has been written. 12 Q Why did they write a standard? 13 A Because at some level there's a hazard. 14 Q And, Doctor, and a hazard to what? 15 A To man if it's high enough. 16 Q What in man will be at hazard? 17 A Pardon? 18 Q What in man will ba hazard or harmed if it gets high 19 enough? 20 A The man will get chloracnc, 21 Q What else will they get. Doctor? 22 A Depends on what concentration. 23 Q Depends on whet concentration and accumulation, 24 doesn't it, sir? 1 A Yes, sir. 2 Q Chloracne deals with what Doctor? 3 A I don't -4 Q It deals with a roan's health, doesn't it, sir? 5 A Yes, sir. 6 Q Mow, Doctor, can one part per billion in the soil 7 cause chloracne? 8 A Mo, sir. 9 Q Can that one part per billion or chat 110 parts per 10 trillion in that soil, can it grow with the passage of time? II A Mo, sir. 12 Q It can't Increase then, can it, sir? 13 A No, sir. 14 Q They're concerned about covering that not because 15 they're afraid chat it will increase, are they, air? 16 A No, sir. 17 Q They're concerned about the level that is there, 18 aren't they, sir? 19 A Yes, sir. 20 Q They want to keep that level chat's there in place, 21 don't they, sir, and they don't want to let anybody get assocla: 22 or connected with it or touched by it, do they, air? 23 A No, sir, 24 Q They do want to let people get couched by it? t|[ iI II s a 4'-'' ** v f , ; T' . r- J'r , ,,-^ V " ^ fj - ' - J, *- . 4' * ` * 4t 1 'LA<" ' Kte^^s i. r ",*`1i. '^ 1' , v . t ,,4. " ,' <t ^ ti I .2 Q \ They don't want'to let people get touched by it? 3' , ,A Wo, sir* _ tt 4. Q / No air, to both those questions? 5 A -/'I don't think that's related* .1 think this is;a /' 6 . standard; that's been set that's feasible* . 7> J Q Doctor, the standard that's set that's feasible is I I J8 .related to contamination, isn't it,.sir? " ' 11 9 A " Yds, sir..,`_; r_. /' -r ^ \ 10 Q And they .want to cover it up because they don't-want M people exposed to it, dp they, sir? 12 r. ..*A .X don < t .know why JstJ l-* 3 .they want A J'* to c-o*vet" it'.up,1. 13 Q ; You don't hava> any vague idea, sir? : bj 14. A X 'don't know what the levels were, X don't know IS Q Don't worry about the levels. Trace amounts is what 16 I we're talking about, ; That's. what the document says, trace ; 17 *amounts, goes down to, 1 1 0 parts per trillion, and they call 18 trace ambtmts anything from 5 5 million apparently, so don't/ \ 19 worry about that amp(mt;H They don't want/people exposed, they. . - `J J v- : Tf : fi: , "" 2 don't want to take the 'risk' qf:that 2,3,7,SrTCDD escaping, 21 , whatever, the level mightih.o.i' ftom^ that soil at Nltro, do they. 22 ' sir? ' ' .J f \\ r ' 23 / 24 ; .A . .No, . . "-'.'//^ /' Q. And, Doctor; Rogers working there in that plant wae; a FORM IL 24 B B A Y O N N E .,IN ,J. 07001 1 l.i: ' ` ^ *** t r ^^ I foreman in '5 5 , up to '55 and than ha was a transportation 2 foreman. As a transportation foreman from '55 to *59 he is 3 responsible for all transportation of raw material and finished 4 product wasn't ha sir? 5 A Yes, sir. 6 Q And from *60 to *73 he was responsible for receiving 7 raw materials and containers wasn't he sir? 8 A Yes sir* 9 Q So at least from 1949 to 1959 he had a possibility 10 of being exposed to one of the produces being manufactured at 11 the Nifcro Plant, that is. 24,5, T, isn't that correct sir? 12 A Trace exposure yes* 13 Q That's all I'm talking about. Doctor. He therefore 14 can be included in the exposed group, can he not, sir to a 15 trace exposure? 16 A If ho would put trace people in with people with 17 heavy exposure. 18 Q I'm sorry? 19 A If you'd put people who have trace exposure at most 20 with those who have heavy exposure. 21 Q Doctor they took people and put people in the expose^ 22 group If they had worked in the 245 T Production Department 23 for one dayv?did they;not, sir? . ' 24 A No, sir* 1 * Kmjr* 1 95 ^ *- *,>w"41 4** " , J i j ' J' XK -' i " * Nf ^ [ 1 i . ; Q ..Oh, Doctor,-did they not-include in the, exposed group " 2 everybody.that worked in the 2,4,5 T that wasn't terminated -, r '" r\ 1 _ *L 3 before 1955? By definition anyone that had been,assigned to ^_ i ' ' , / 4 ^ 4 that Production.Department was considered as part of the expoaec. 5 group by "Suskir.d by definition, wasn't ho, sir? . 6- A No, sir. He would look at the exposure before he 7 would put/them- into> the exposed group . '' - 8 Q Doctor, if.you look at his study* he said by deflnltlci . 9 anyone that's been assigned to that .department was put in the 10 exposed group, didn't he, sir? ' / y ii ( ! 12 A I don't recall those words. \A Q .. X think it's Exhibit 62. Plaintiff's Exhibit 1467 13 is what "if t; would bo. 14 A Thank you/. I^ , .i 15 Q Doctor, you'll see on tho second page it says they FO R M IL 24 0 , ' ' ' rlij-.* A i< '*. '' *"i, J 'Vjj "/ ' , ' i,/ : . ' ' ' . i i _ * 16 were remaining 3671 who were; designated by:..exposure, exposure -Ok. # P E N G AD C O ., B A Y O N N E . N .J. 0 7 0 0 1 So o 17 without qualification m s 204 subjacts who were involved in l .. - 1 \ i ^% v y, ^ ' \ ^` *r 2_ kzi - ; 18,. .* any aspect'r of. the"JprbJ du' /c'ti4io`r'i'o1f .2^4,,5'<T 7inJcluding maintenance |d 19 from 1948 to 1969. * i "-- ' A ;V . 'i ' ' ' ' / / f f 20 A / Where are you reading, sir? z (L j 21 Q .Second page,. Dr; Rousch, first column, middle of 22 that column, . -* - 4* 23 > A . Yes, sir., - " * ; 24 Q And-that is the subject group, isn't it, Doctor? 1 A Yet, sir. 2 Q Anybody who had aver bean assigned during that period 3 of time to the production of 2,4f5 T. 4 A Yes, sir. 5 Q Now, Doctor, you can have a lot more exposure working 6 for ten years In a department that handles finished product in 7 these bags and these boxes and these drums than if you were 8 working in that department for one day or one month, can you 9 not, sir? 10 A No, sir, I don't think so. 11 Q You don't think so? A No, sir. 12 13 Q Doctor, doesn't your reasoning tell you that, as you 14 described this before, that you could have one person standing 15 right next to another worker and not have any exposure or very 16 little exposure? 17 A Yes. 18 Q That's the reason you said they didn't get chloracne. 19 A Yes, sir. 20 Q Doctor, you know there's people got chloracne that 21 ware never in that Production Department? 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q So, Doctor, doesn't it follow by your own definition 24 of exposure that a person can be working in that department for 1 a month and have, little exposure' whereas a person could be ,2 working a s a foreman or shipping product worker for.ten years 3 and have.a:lot of exposure? , r *" - *'* * ** f j ,,> ,tf - ' fc 4 A / NoV sir.. . - ' : J, - .> ` ., , \ 1 5 _ Q That doesn't follow? - , 6 A 7 No/, sir, '' , 7 Q Why doesn't' it follow, Doctor? 8 A 7 ;A\m'an who is working with low level' exposure for ten: 9 years is' not the, same as:somebody who works for a short time at 10 high levels. 11 rBut, Doctor, if he doesn't get chloracne, by your 12 ` 13 14 . definition: He hasn't; been.\exposed. 7 Don *t_ you recall that, <V , - By.your definition -- 7 ilr- *--Y A. : No, 1 ,* si ir*,,,7 sir? 15 Q No, r sir? *f 1 7 ^ ^ : tv r`: Yf'7t;-j ,Y';v13?' 16 A. No., sir." PEN GAD C O ., B A YO N N E,, N .J, 070 01 17 - Q ,What is y 18 have chloracne?' ' i ' ^ , p * . , 19 A Yes; sir, - -" 20 Q Then you do agree then, sir, that you can have exposure 21 that will.cause these problems without getting chloracne? 22 A No, sir, . ` 23; , Q Doctor,; do you agree that this man could be exposed, 24 this Rogers could have been exposed to 2,4,5 T and.its contain!- 1 nants? 2A '3 Q ' -v - . At-vary low levels. . '' ' Doctor, I don't care what levels. He could have been 4 exposed, could he not, sir?. `c 5 A Yes, sir. -`' " 6 Q And he did have skin cancer,-didn't he, sir? \ J 1 ,- ' ' - ' 1 v. ( 7 A Is. this 422? *> A 8 Q 422. 9 A It says no cancer - j i* :: V- - T\ - 10 Q Doctor , 'he; had.iskin- cancer,; h e 'had surgery performed r- ^' r . : -.f '-V.*' !v` `1'-'1'\' r-`''\ ^ ' II on it two.times.- h^ - 1 1 ** 4* i t*-* ^a . ^ 1 ;L^ 1,1 v V , i .r A *l < 1 1` ** j 12 A But he 'listSahara' as,>having no'cancer, * 1-' f " ; 'V .;v:.r >r 13 Q Doctor, look at. the .-- I know how Suskind listed r - -y '; V ' L- - ; | 14 him. That's what the'whole'*thing is "about. We'know exactly is how'he's listed him, but ho has a record in there of skin cance^ 16 doesn't,he, sir,-talks about the number of times he had surgery 17. performed twice'oh the ho.se, nine times on the back, once on 1 18 the right hand, three times on the left ear, once in the fossa? 19 A Yes, sir. 20 r Q And it's called recurrent skin cancer, is it not, sir^ 21 A - ' Yes, sir. 22 Q And this is the handwritten part of the record that 23 Suskind. gave;.you which you gave us, isn't it, sir? .jt - A Yes, sir. 1 Q Ha had s k in c a n c e r, d id n 't b e , s ir ? 2 A Yes, sir. 3 Q He, therefore, should be in the group that has skin 4 cancer, shouldn't he, sir? 5 A If he has exposure. 6 Q If he has exposure, 7 A Yes, sir, 8 Q And we have' agreed that`he could have had exposure* kr- 9 have we not, sir? 1 i 10 A I wouldn't call him exposed,; 11 Q Doctor, I'm not caring what you would call it -- >i ^` T .j 12 A Yes1, sir, - 13 Q I'm caring about what did the roan report, what are thi 14 facts, not what you would say. This man working with these IS finished products may have had exposure, may he not have, sir? 16 And he did have skin cancer, did he not? 17 A Yes, sir, 18 Q Doctor, the next one is Postlethwaite. 19 THE COURT: Mr, Carr, before you get into that, is 20 this a good point to break for lunch? 21 MR. CARR: Sure, your Honor. 22 THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we'll 23 break at this time. We will resume at one o 'clock. Tha 24 admonishments that I 've given you earlier will apply during th&3 1 lunch break also. Court's in recosa* 2 (At this time Court recessed for lunch.) 3 DR. GEORGE ROUSCH, 4 resuming the witness stand, having been previously sworn, testi 5 fied further as follows: 6 RECROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) 7 BY MR. CARR: 8 Q Doctor, the next person I'd like to talk to you about 9 is Mr. Postlethwaite, No. 436. 10 A What was the number, air? M Q. 436, . J2 A 436, Yea, sir, 13 Q Doctor, ha was both exposed and gave a history of 14 skin cancer, did he not, that he was told by the doctor that he IS had a malignant akin cancer? 16 A Yes, sir. 17 Q He*8 also listed in the Sueklnd computer study at * * 18 Plaintiff's 1472 as having skin cancer, is ha not? The last 19 entry on the second page. 20 A Yes, sir, f - 21 Q And, Doctor,' you'rersoved him from the list although 22 he has a history given in the -- in his medical records of 23 skin cancer, the doctor told him it was malignant, the Suskind 24 computer record shows that he had a skin cancer, but yet you l 1 say he didn't have a skin cancer. Where do you set the infor 2 mation, Doctor, that he did not have a skin cancer? 3 A I took it from the reading of the physician in his 4 summary. ^ v * ; - , ; \ * >; 5 Q What does the physician say in the summary, that he 6 did not have skin cancer? 7 A He did not list him as having one. 8 Q Doctor, that's the, a*dd?i(t*ionalfhistory taken by the 9 doctor,, is it not, sir? 10 A 1 don't know what you mean by additional, 11 Q It says additional history. We went through chat 12 this morning. 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q How, that's additional history. There's already a 15 history in the record of skin cancer, is there not, sir? 16 A Yes, sir. 17 Q And there's a history in the computer -- It's 18 listed in the computer study os skin cancer, is it not, sir? 19 A Yes, sir. 20 Q And you, however, say that he doesn't have skin cane 21 simply based upon the point that in the additional history it 22 isn't mentioned again, isn't that correct, sir? 23 A Ho, sir, I'm talking about diagnoses* Xt doesn't 24 list them. 1 Q Doctor, the diagnosis la for current conditions. 2 A No, sir.' ' . ' 3 Q Doctor p what page are you reading from? 4 A On Page 25. 5 Q Doctor, that's the diagnosis from the physical exami 6 nation. It's in that section under physical examination, is it 7 not? 8A Ho, sir, it's under diagnosis and impressions. Baaed 9 on the history and -10 Q Doctor, if you're looking at the same page that I'm 11 looking at -- 12 A 25. 13 Q You see the category 42, do you not, sir, Che side of 14 the page, 42? 15 A Yes, sir. I don't have -- 16 Q Yes, you do. And 42 is from physical examination. 17 That is the diagnosis of current conditions, Doctor. 18 A But the history is -- 19 Q Doctor, that is a separate category, that's abnormal 20 findings that they make from a history talking about engine, 21 pneumonia, hypertension, bronchial wheezing -- 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q They're not talking about -- Is that what you've 24 done throughout where they didn't diagnose a present case of I s k in ca n ce r you h a v e 'e lim in a te d i t ? , 2 A No, sir, if that is based on his interpretation i t* ' J '* 3 of this man*s condition, 4 Q Doctor, the man's condition is his current condition. - .' j^ , i ( j 5 We're talking about his past condition* 6 A And he on the history for the skin they list 7 weed bumps In 1949 and resolved since then* So there's nothing 8 here to - when in doubt, you got to go along with what the 9 physician says. 10 Q Doctor, the physician, the computer study, the final 11 document, this computer document was made after that doctor's 12 entry, was it not; sir? 13 A Ye, sir. 14 Q That doctor's entry was made at the time of the 15 examination, wasn't it, sir? 16 A Yes, sir. 17 Q And this computer -- they have it listed in their 18 computer study as having a skin cancer, don't they, sir? 19 A X go back cause X don't know what that -- 20 Q Doctor, didn't they, sir? 21 A Didn't they what? 22 Q Isn't it listed in this computer study that was based 23 upon the medical records, based upon the history, based upon 24 everything else; isn't he listed has having a skin cancer? 1 A I don't know what "that means when it says V701 skin* 2 Q Doctor, we want through that once already. '-i ; ' ''.' \ r- t 3 A Yes, sir. * / " ' ' '' 4 ME. CAEEi Your Honor, would you direct the witness 5 to testify that he did testify that Hertzberger told him what 6 it meant and that he used that in telling us Scarberry had a 7 lung and bladder cancer. 8 THE COURTi So directed, that's what was testified 9 to this morning. Doctor, you are to assume that that is what 10 you testified to. 11 THE WITNESSi Yes, sir. 12 Q Doctor, in that evant V701 does mean skin cancer, 13 and that's the latest record, isn't that right, sir? 14 A Yes, sir. 15 Q /hid, Doctor, the next person is Gorrell, and you have -1 16 him -- you testified on ^ !i when I asked you about him that 17 he was exposed. Do you recall that, sir? It would be No. 123, 18 Doctor, Doctor, do you recall in regard to Gorrell that you 19 testified that on July 9th from these records you can deduce 20 that the man possibly had exposure to TCDD? 21 A No, sir. 22 Q Sir? 23 A No, sir. 24 Q You don't recall you testifying to that? 1 A Yes, sir, 2 Q You do recall testifying to that? 3 A Yes, sir. 4 Q Did you get any -- when X asked you then from these 5 records that you could deduce that he had exposure to TCDD, we 6 were talking about the records that X hold in my hand, pert of 7 this exhibit, were we not, sir? 8 A Yes, sir. 9 Q And from those records at that time you deduced that 10 he did possibly have exposure to TCDD, didn't you, sir? 11 A Because 1 didn't know what utilities meant completely, 12 Q Well, Doctor, it's on these records that the, testimony 13 has been coining. Have you talked to somebody, has somebody 14 convinced you that utilities means something else, have you 15 talked to somebody else? 16 A X called the plant and asked them what utilities 17 meant 18 Q Doctor, what you've done then is you've conducted an 19 investigation of your own, haven't you, sir? 20 MR. CARR: Your Honor, I'll ask that the Jury be 21 instructed to disregard that information that he's obtained 22 as to something that he called the plant subsequent to the time 23 I've been examining him on the point. 24 MR HEINEMAN: Your Honor, I would like -- X would 1 Ilka t o know whan in the world the basis for that la. Obviously 2 -- and I'd object to that request obviously Dr Suskind 3 had access to Max Galloway at the plant, as this witness has 4 said,previously to have information about what those job titles 5 were and what the job descriptions meant, and X don't see any 6 reason In the world why his testimony in that regard should be 7 stricken. 8 MR, CARE; Did this man call Max Galloway? 9 MR. HEXNBM&Ni I don't have any idea. 10 MR. CARRi You said he had access to Msx Galloway. II Did Dr. Rousch call Max Galloway? 12. MR. HEXHEKAMj X don't know who he called. 13 A X called Hex Galloway, 14 Q And he's at the Micro' Plant? 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Q And is that the information that you got? 17 A What information? 18 Q About Gorrsll that he wasn't exposed. 19 A Yea, sir. Hot ~ only indirectly. X know what 20 utilities for sure means now. 21 Q Well, and do these utilities workers -- Is the 22 utility plant in this Nitre Plant? 23 A Yes, sir. 24 Q And where is it* sir? 1 A I don't know, 2 Q Doctor! do you know whether or not it's here in 3 Building 49 across frost the Nitro 2*4,5 T Department? 4 A No, air. 5 Q Do you know whether it's here where this contaminated 6 soil is? 7 A No. 8 Q Do you know whether it was up hero sir? 9 A Not there. 10. Q Then how can you say, Doctor, that he was not exposed 11 If you don't know where the plant was? 12 A 1 know what the job, what that Job entails. 13 Q It entails working in the utility plant which supplier 14 the power to the entire plant, doesn't It, sir? 15 A Yea, air. 16 Q And it's his Job to see to It that tha power gets 17 there, isn't It, sir? 18 A Ho; sir. 19 Q Oh, no? What is his job? 20 A To maintain the utilities plant. 21 Q Doctor, you don't know where that plant Is with 22 relation to the 2,4,5 T, do youD sir? . i ^ ^ ** 23 A No, air,'I'don't; 24 Q Then how c<an you de1duce from the fact that he's a 1 utility worker in the plant that ha did not h a w exposure? 2 A Cause I know what he does. 3 Q Doctor# we just went through that* Now either I'm 4 missing something or you're missing something,, He is a utility 5 plant worker? 6 A Yes# sir. 7 Q And you don't know where the utility plant is# where 8 that -- ' 9 A No# sir. 10 Q Do you, sir? 11 A No# sir. 12 Q It could be here, here# here# here# here, it could 13 he anywhere# couldn't it# sir? . 14 A Not any place, but it's more along that main road:# 15 but I'm not sure where it is* 16 Q And by the main road# you mean this road? 17 A Yea sir, 18 Q That goes right in front of the 2,4#5 T department? 19 A . Yes# sir* 20 Q Do you know how many times a day he has to pass by 21 the 2 " wall, it's In. between, Department 46 is on one side , v - , 22 of the road and the Building 41 is on the other side of the 23 main road? : 24 A Yes# sir. 1 Q Sc a worker using the main road peases right in be 2 tween, right in the midst of the area where they're making 3 2,4,5 T? 4 A It could be, yes, sir, 5 Q Doctor, ha could well have exposure every day going 6 to and from the plant, could, he not, sir, on that main road? 7 You'va got it Building 46 here, Building 41 her. They 8 made 2,4,5 T in Building 46, they made 2,4,5 There, and this 9 building even juts out into the main road, Building 41. 10 A Yes, sir. 11 Q So a man walking by there would have exposure every 12 day, would he not? 13 A Theoretically. 14 Q And on a practical basis as well, although it couldn'u 15 be measured according to your calculation, isn't that right? i ' i'A ' 16 A Yes, sir. * r -- 17 Q Than, Doctor, ho could wall be classified as being *- * , fv 18 exposed, could ha not, sir? J 19 A Not by my classification.; 20 Q I'm sorry? 21 A Not by y approach. 22 Q Doctor, didn't we just go through that he could have 23 exposure every day? 24 A Not measurable. 1 Q Doctor* again you're saying not measurable. 2 A Yea, sir. 3 Q No one -- those people -- your only way of 4 measuring TCDD if they've got chloracne. These people ware not 5 studied because they had chloracne. They were studied because 6 there was a possibility that they were exposed to 2,3,7,3 TCDD, 7 and your plant wanted to find out what, if any, health effects 8 there might bo following this possible exposure, isn't that 9 correct, sir? 10 A Vos, sir. Yea, sir. 11 THE COURT: Gentlemen, could X see you at the bench 12 for a minute please. 13 (The following proceedings ware had at the bench out ' ^ r"i 1-, " ' ' <' , ' s( 1 . - ; . - 14 of tho hearing of the jury.) . 15 THE COURT: This subjection that you made, X assume, 16 has somewhat cleared Itself, up about his making the investigati> 17 and calling ^ 18 MR. CARR: Oh, yeah, 19 THE COURT: This has happened a number of times where 20 things have coma out of this particular witness and then wa flnjd 21 out later there was something the basis of which was not in* 22 dic&ted at the time or something extraneous to what he had been 23 examined on, and it wasn't clarified that It was so. I am 24 insisting at this point that the basis for anything like that 1 is clarified so that if and when it doca come up* an objection 2 -- there is a possibility of an objection being made and it 3 can be considered, but whether It goes in or not depends on 4 what it is. But I'm really getting tired of these surprise 5 sources for contradictory points of testifying from this parti 6 cular witness* and I think at a minimum you should be -- as 7 part of the examination giving what the basis of that is. Both 8 of you gentlemen understand the record* both of you know what's 9 there* both of you can deduce what's been taken from outside 10 that record, and you in the basis of preparation of your witnesi 11 and hopefully, knowing what he has been doing would be even in t *- - f ' - f rt 12 a better position to do that* so X expect that to be done in 13 the future. 14 HR. HEIHEHAN; You mean that If there's anything he 15 knows outside the records -- 16 TEE COURT: In other words* the perfect example is 17 that. He comas up with this conclusion contrary to what he 18 testified to under the basic Section 60 on the basis of clarifyi 19 information. When he called ttltro -- that being the basis of 20 it not having been made on the record before. That is an 21 example of what I'm talking about. The Initial one that I can 22 remember offhand is the call to* I think, Hertaberger, who sat 23 down and explained to him some of the bases for those classi 24 fications. This has been repeated* It comes out In the middle 1 HR. CARR: He says now only on -- I'm not going to 2 get into this argument. 3 THE COURT* Okay. There was a change, it was on Che 4 basis of that call. That is an example. His change on how you 5 do these classifications, the computer printout was on the basitf 6 of the call to Kertzbetger. Those are the two examples of what 7 I'm talking about. I don#t want it done that way again. How 8 whether -- what information comes out of the call or confaren^ >; ' `"l'K * ' .- 9 or whatever la admissible or not depends on what it Is obviously 10 What l*m saying is the way it's been done these last two time 11 it's basically been out and in evidence before anyone even know& 12 that there is a baBis that could possiblyyprova its admissibili; 13 into question. Whether effectively it is or not is another 14 question, but the point that Xvm trying to make and X think the 15 basic point of the rules of evidence is that you proceed In sue 16 a manner so that If there is a basis for an objection that is 17 known in an effective point in time, that's whan X*m instructing 18 you to do, so proceed oh that basis from now on. 19 (Th following proceedings were had in the hearing 20 and presence of the Jury.) 21 Q Doctor, Che noxt person is McDade* That would be 22 numbered 32. 23 A Yes, sir, 24 Q McDad you removed from the list on what basis? I A I don't think he was exposed. 2 Q Doctor, if you look at the computer study, he's 3 categorized as exposed by Dr* Suskind, is h not? 4 A Yes, sir* 5 Q And if you look to the records them elves, sir, you 6 note that he's listed as the safety Inspector* Do you recall 7 testifying that a safety inspector would be exposed? 8 A To some.degreeyes. - ; , 9 Q And Sushind has him listed as exposed? 10 A Yds, sir* ; : 11 Q In the computer study? 12 A Yes, sir* 13 Q Is there anything in this record that tails you that 14 he was not exposed? 15 A There is nothing to say that ha was. 16 Q . Doctor, you -- the nature of this examination of 17 these records is that you look to the record to see if they 18 reveal a possibility that the man was exposed, isn't that corre< 19 sir? 20 A Yes, sir* 21 Q Haven't we gone through that? 22 A Yes* sir, 23 Q And we went through the fact that a safety inspector 24 has to go throughout th plant to inspect all aspects of the 1 plant for safety; do you recall chat, air? 2 A Yes, sir. 3 Q And he would be obligated* would he not( sir, to go 4 into the part of the plant where they make 2,4,5 T? 5 A I would think so i '' 6 Q So, therefore, you would think that he la exposed, 7 would you not?, ' 4 t4 1 8 A While he was there, but; that was such a short time. 9 Q Doctor, we're not talking about terms of time, wa're 10 talking about his exposure. 11 A Yea, sir, 12 Q And he has exposure, has he not, sir? If he goes into 13 that plant into that department to look at thair safety equip 14 ment once a week, once a month, once a day, once a year, he is 15 exposed, is ha not, air? 16 A During that time, yes, sir. 17 Q Therefore, he is exposed by history, is he not, sir? 18 A The question is how significant it ie. 19 Q And he's listed as exposed by Suskind, isn't he, sir? 20 A Yas, sir. 21 Q So his work records show that he was exposed, Suskind' 22 computer shows that ho was exposed, and you have no information 23 that he was not exposed, do you, sir? 24 A Other than what I just -- 1 Q What you're making is your judgment value that well, 2 in your Judgment it's not .a significant exposure? 3 A Yes* air. " 4 Q ted* Doctor* that isn't one iof the criteria for this 5 study* is iti sir? 6 A Yes* sir.;/ . vjT- L .* 7 Q Didn't w go through that, sir? 8 A Yes* sir. 9 Q Anybody that has boon .-- has worked in that depart 10 ment, whether they got chloracne or not* if they were exposed* 11 they were exposed, and they don't try to measure the amount of 12 the exposure. There's no place in this study where Suskind 13 tried to measure the amount of exposure* Is there, sir? 14 A No, sir. 15 Q Doctor* for your information on clarification by Mr. , *'r * 16 Belneman you said then that he was exposed. Your reason then 17 for not putting him on the list was because you weren't sure 18 that it was a skin cancer*,but now you're changing the tune. 19 You told me that he was exposed* you told Helnem&n that he was 20 exposed* but now you're saying that he was not exposed. 1% 21 A Yes* sir. 22 Q Dr. Eousch* don't you think that is just being a 23 little bit dishonest? 24 A No* sir. 1 Q To tell Hfilrieman that in1your Judgment he wa exposed 2 when Haineman asked you the' question, t o .tail rua when I asked \1 \ .. * - * 1j _ ' 3 you the question that he was exposed, but now today because 4 you find there is a history of skin cancer today you change and 5 say, well# you now say ho's not exposed. Don't you think that'o 6 just a little bit dishonest-Dr. Kouach? 7 A No, air, X*m not trying to hido anything. 8 Q Dr, Kouach, you testified --* why did you testify 9 with Hr. Heinoman that ha .was exposed? 10 A Because I don't have fixed numbers -- 11 Q Sir? 12 A X don't have the fixed definition of exposure before 13 me. X have to do these individually and baaed on judgment. 14 Q Well, so then your Judgment just varies from day to 15 day as to whether somebody is exposed or not exposed# Is that 16 what you're telling us? 17 A No, sir, but it can well be as X X look over thiib 18 I have to -- if I'm not sure about something, X would call &n<p 19 ask someone about it. 20 Q Doctor, you're not testifying here today as to what 21 others have told you. You're testifying based upon these record 22 The purpose of this examination that you know that X want throu^ 23 was not to prove whether these people do or do not have exposure 24 nor to prove whether they do or do not have skin cancer or lung 1 cancer. The purpose of this is so show that tha studies don* 2 by Monsanto cannot be.relied upon, that there ware 23 cancers 3 by exposure history on tha record and that a reading of the 4 record and you have to coma to the conclusion there was exposure); 5 you have to come to the conclusion that there was a cancer by 6 the record, and that Susklnd put down only half, having the 7 records he cut it in half* That's the whole purpose of this. 8 Wo1re not proving any case for or against these people. We're 9 showing the invalidity of the Monsanto morbidity study, which 10 you note to be the case. Now, Doctor -- 11 MR.1HEIKEMAN j Objection, your Honor, that speech is 12 nothing but a speech, it's nothing but a Jury summation. It 13 had nothing to do with any question, which was clear by when 14 ha said "Now, Doctor" afterwards. X ask that it be stricken 15 MR. CARR; X was not allowed -16 MR, HEINEKAN; That the jury be instructed to dis 17 regard it. 18 MR, CARR; -- to finish my question, 19 THE COURT; You may finish your question, 20 Q Now, Doctor, based upon what you know from your being 21 on the stand tha purpose of this examination is, and you know 22 what the purpose of the clarification examination is 23 A Yes, sir. 24 Q How can you coma In hare and change your opinion from 1 moment to moment? Isn't it a fact, Doctor, that you're changing 2 your opinion with this man because you now see that he has for 3 sura skin cancer and had a history of skin cancer and now you 4 feel you have to take him off the t&bl on a basis of exposure 5 6 A Ho*, sir* 7 Q Isn't that a fact, Doctor? 8 A Ho, sir* 9 THE COURTt Objection is overruled. - `1' 1 -1 11 * * u- JO Q Doctor, did you -- have you agreed until today 11 that this man had exposure? 12 A X apparently have* 13 Q And you agree that there is -- if he's a safety 14 inspector and going throughout the plant that he had exposure 15 by going into that plant as well today* don't you* sir? 16 A Yes, he goes into the plant, yes, sir. 17 Q And we now agree that ha did have exposure, don't we,. 18 sir? 19 A Some, 20 Q Bid he have exposure? 21 A Probably yes. 22 Q And, Doctor, ha should b on the list then, should 23 he not, sir? 24 A ,1 put a question beside him. I have difficulty 1 A Tumor removed, right:. 2 Q So he has a history of both, doesn't he, sir? 3 A I have difficulty reading this one. I can't tell. 4 Q What is it that you can't tell? ,,s 5 A On the physician's write up on this man. 6 Q It says bladder tumor removed 1975, doesn't it, air* 7 has a frequent cystectomy, had on one month ago? 8 A Ipsee that, yes, sir. 9 Q And you see the history that he gave was skin cancer, 10 don't you, sir, on Page 15? 11 A Yes, sir, but I didn't see what the physician said 12 about this. 13 Q The physician said bladder -- as I pointed out on 14 the additional history, bladder tumor removed. 15 A I was looking for skin. It has a question, says skin 16 cancer, question mark. 17 Q Umhm. 18 A So ho wasn't sure that he had a skin cancer. 19 Q But he was told that the man's doctor told him he had 20 a skin cancer, didn't he, sir? 21 A Yes, sir, but that could be without a diagnosis being 22 made. 23 Q Doctor,, how can a doctor toll you that ,you've got skis r T i' t` jp r 24 cancer without '..diagnosis being made? He's giving you his 1 diagnosis, isn't he, sir? : 2 A . Yes, sir, but you can't say -- 3 Q . Excuse me, Doctor, isn't he giving you his diagnosis 41 when ha. tolls you you haye skin cancer? 5 ,, 'A ,* Yes, sir.t V.' ' 6 Q Doctor, the next one is Waldorf, You removed Waldorf 7 from the list, did you not, sir? 8 A I don't-.remember. 9 Q. Well, look at Waldorf's records now and see if he 1.0 hasn't been exposed. 11 A Yes, sir. 12 Q And. look at his history on Page 15 and see whether or ' ' 1J * tr M -1 J r' 13 not he told1the Interviewer that a doctor had advised him chat 14 hIe had skin cancer on h*ifs-'J nors-e in the. past? ' IS A Yes, sir. I, * * 1 .16 Q And he would be on the list, would he not, sir? 17 - , A : .It, depends on what the physician said, 18 Q Doctor, the.physician told him that ha had skin cancel 19 he's got a history of skin cancer, doesn't he, sir? 20 A By the man's statement, yes. .j'-'i'fi-v' C:,t . K t X 1 7 '.' . lrJ 21 Q And the physician,,the physician you're talking about v ' -,-r V- " . -, 22 is the physician Caking the additional history? 23 A- And physical exam*//and. I- can' t;read that. 24 Q Well then, Doctor, what you can road says that he has iJ ' ' S '/ -, ^ ., \ , ,`V 1 \ ^ < .1 . 'history of.skin cancer, doesn't it, air? 1 - r' s ` *T1 , '**. r ", ' J-n * j-i. - i . ' '' ,` ^% 'C '* ' * 2 'v t ,;A *"';.-Yaa, sir,. "r - 3 v. Q - And you have nothing to say that he doesn't, .do you, . - 4 ' -air? - *- - ,.7 ,'V - //. : r _,V` . A' -5 " . - No, but X would tike to,know what the physician said. , 6 Q Well, would you look at the ;computer listing by '^ * V Suskind , ,, -+ that n1had legible l recordsify(. y-vours and mine, is ^ not ,- 8 ' legible/ Ha says skin cancer, doesn't he, V701-skln cancer? ; 9 * ' n _ ,,A , It says skin* ; 7 :'r;i 10 1- i Q So you have the computer that says skin cancer, ,you J - -h * T *' J -, m *" - / : ' , J vwy,ij*rfi- ^. , >- 11 hve his history that a &6dtor told him chat he had, skin cancer 12, :and you've got nothing that- says that he did not have skin ^ 13 cancer, isn't,that correct,,Doctor? 14 A' That's right. " ` < ; 15 Q And based upon those facts that you have ha should be PENGAD CO., BAYONNE, N.J.; D002 -FORM IL 2AB 16- on the list'than, should ha not, sir? . -17 ' A-. 'Unless the physician's, got somathing that -- 18 r Q Doctor, w *<v'already gone through that* lie don't 19 have anything to;:th-contrary. 7 ' y] t - ` J`t. *;.) .f1wil^(C .-.Jv - ^%tn ^ .1 ' 20 MR. .HEINEMANr Objection, your Honor,, he wasn't given ''` r / ,'' "t Y;y ' ' ' -L 21 a, chance to finish the questionY, V? 7 r "*/ ' 22 ` ..THE `COURT It was not responsive,, The question was 23 limited to what he has. aiidtho 'information available * 24 Q ,Based,on th information you have he should be on the j +r . 1 list, shouldn't he, Dr, Pousch? 2 A X don't know* 3 Q Doctor, I'm asking.you to deduce. You don't know any 4 thing, I'm not asking you what you know whether ha in fact had <i 5 skin cancer, I'm asking you based upon the computer printout by 6 Susklnd and based upon what' this man said his doctor told him 7 that ha had and based upon that you have no information to the <i - -r i"*r 1 - ^ 8 trary, can you not say that the man has, a history of skin cancel: 9 A Yes. t ,L ; f - '': 1 1 . * JO Q Doctor, there's another -- if you put bade on the 11 list those people that wo have discussed this afternoon, we 12 come back with the fact that there were 23 cancers shown by 13 these records to the Susklnd interviewers and medical team, and 14 there ware 30 cancers shown to the Moses-Selikoff team, wasn't 15 chore, sir? 16 A , Yes, sir. 17 Q And we have down the fact that at the most -- oh, 18 if we include in the exposed group, if you include the four 19 remaining exposed group persons that are not on this list now, 20 there would be one, two, throe out of the seven or six that 21 would be in Susklnd*s six or seven that ware exposed, so you 22 can't count those twice, so if you take those three that are. 23 not on this table, there's a total of 31 cancers, one question 24 able that shows up in the exposed and unexposed group, isn't 1 th a t c o rre c t, s ir? . 2 A Would you repeat that question? 3 Q If you add the, three cancers known in the unopposed 4 group of Suskind*s -5 A Yes, sir. 6 Q If you add those three to these 27 for sure cancers 7 and leaving out the one question nark, that's a total of 30 8 cancers in the exposed and unexposed group, isn't It, sir? 9 A No, sir. 10 Q No? 11 A No, sir, the ones I don't think Scarberry belongs 12 on there. 13 Q Doctor, I'm asking you -- Scarbarry belongs on 14 there because you talked to Hertsbergar, and Hertsaberger told 15 you that there was lung and bowel cancer in Scarberry. Do you r, - , 1 f\ * ,* 16 recall chat, we went through that, Doctor.' 17 A Yes. ; ^ . 18 Q So I'm not asking you now as to what your opinion is* 19 This exhibit, if we put back these persons on this list, this 20 exhibit shows 27 for sure cancer, doesn't it, sir? 21 A It doesn't show for sure to me. 22 ' Q Doctor, I recognize that, but this exhibit shows 27 23 cancers, doesn't it, sir? 24 A Y e s , s i r . 1 Q That is supported by the record and by the evidence 2 that we vent through while you may; differ with th import of 3 \ those recordsv isn't that correct, sir? 4 A Me went through all those, that's right. 5 Q Yes, and there's 27 here, aren't there, sir? 6 A Yes, sir. 7 Q And, Doctor, there are three then that remain in the i 8 -- were found in the unaxpossd group, correct, sir? 9 A Yes, sir. 10 Q Those three added to these 27 give you how many, Dr. 11 Rouseh? 12 A Thirty. 13 Q And how many that's 30 dancers that wo found in 14 this group. How many did Koass-Sallkoff find in that group of 15 Nitro workers? 16 A Kora than 30, ,^. - i - -* 17 Q No. Thirty, Doctor. . - j 18 A I thought there was some listed on the bottom. 19 Q No, those were asterisks that would explain -- 20 haven't you read that. Doctor Rousch? 21 A Yes, sir. 22 Q Those arc asterisks that explain v?hy there are soma 23 people listed twice. 24 A Y e s , s i r . 1 Q Isn't that right? 2 A Yes, sir. 3 Q So there's a total of 30 there, aren't there, sir? 4 A Yes, sir. 5 Q And that's the same total that we find here, isn't 6 it, sir? 7 A Yes, sir. 8 Q But not reported by Suskind, is it, sir? 9 A No, sir. 10 Q Now, Doctor, I'd like to talk to you about one other 11 -- before I do that I want to get a exhibit that doesn't have 12 the writing on it into evidence. 13 HR. CARR: Would you mark this as another plaintiff's 14 exhibit. 15 (At this time Plaintiff's Exhibit 1332 was marked for 16 identification.) 17 Q Doctor, I'll hand you what's been marked Plaintiff's 18 Exhibit 1332 and ask you if you recognise that as a memo pre 19 pared by Mercy Strauss on the Zack-Susklnd study and the Zack20 Gaffey study? 21 A Yes, sir. 22 Q Now, a few days ago I gave you an exhibit that had 23 handwritten on it on the -- it would be the fourth page of 24 this exhibit referring to John Workman, Turn to the last page Ve j^s * T S3 ;?.7tctr^i);; *-' qo loa t.scstt 33 1*505 sponrc ' *" W ? &*?yq p o; >*g$i p# 3 0 ^rc qo ?Ot &&q<?yr rp^'S Xojs 3:r7*< 0 lTfX p* XXP S) V S' >ST" ^CGt'^C' 0 AOtt ^CfXT CJ** r po/rSyc os: wert? pxoaHps r.b m Xe sp BX^Spfraes? GO YO L.M n tvj paprr^ -- v^f ff uftjifx Xor? bixoss* rsg \ o a 9 d >io*V 3a,' jyoai!cps go Xe-/; s m ^ u jxa'j X&h ** ( I H jr 12 o/,r. roa4 K COilBX* OAGxr.ryjq- $,* T3 HOOX' OSpS'S COS" P ?0 OCTp^r Cpl^C^OSTB* n HST* K:iHEKv&7 0P7% <?5J ynep or ^Oiswg^c^o'- sax n x iE cotra o r - l^ r ^ i 0 W OTBii: G?3- T33S*' 'Xonr H^ox*' T Arqueo* V IP3?, - ftiffi: T S as&a* 3 ft7* 3 tossq3 pr? p* psrq pesi? Gon?;ffq ^a fjyffxhisflffg1 f*a, epffs coxte^c* > y&q T? ^S'X' iswi.-t lopxr /-oxfavifij fcpoayq pscoji^^q v 2 V i^tifss xx^p* A f-XfCCfiit! POCTO!7G ** X?# rart-^ Epff Gi>S> 3 d v^lq p poaaqopcftoxp?# cq^x vfp<>a. m X p$mr 1 V tvra' xr," X! v rpj acpTPTP* 129 >s..i/' ' % Q And, Doctor, at that tims you were, being asked about '*2 tha'effects of exposure with rolacion to chloracne, and it was 3 yor position then as it has bean both before and since that 4 chloracne is> -- that's not tha right transcript* I've got - 5 J wrong not oh .it* I'll find it in just a second* I've 6 given you the wrong date* /(Pause) r 7 .toll,;Doctori,1*11 get. the reference in a few minutest , i Vs' "*-. :j'J< j -i\' '(IJt.*i;t<^1-fir 1.' \-`" -. ' , 8 but I'd lik to ;cohtinuo' thia:exaininationwith you based upon , ' l '!u j 11 Vt,' K ' * J- r * 7V j ' frrr J pl * 1- -- . 9 the -- ohy here it is*, I'm sorry, it's/oh July the 18th. I -- ,: >".J . '1" - ' - *-> / 'v P ` ^ - "r 10 Wrote the .wrong thihg on my 'hota ^-- o / where you testified oh . U ` Page 69 that a Dr.-vKim from-;the-Health'Department had an exami- \ ^r; V *S % ' '/V.' ' ' 2-' nation of those people in Binghamton. Office Building and found , r - 1 n "- ., '' ^ 1 j.--ifi* 13 no evidence of an adverse effect on them? . . r 4 ' A '' Yes,. sir* y / ` - " -, 15 r Q And,/Doctor, I; asked your attorneys to give mejthe r 16 reference that supports that statement of yours, and you know, 17 of cours, that they've given;me that, don't you, sir? 18 A Kb., 'Sir, J.L ` 1 * -; * ;; 19 Q. X o ix -didn't know that? ; : 20 , 21"> h ,* A No, sir, . \ lJ,` s.. " ^ -. , . /. " ' jf*- ', 1 - , i1 4 j` - '* 1 ,, . Q =. First of all, you knew and you had-- * you said at. 22 J that time that they had had an examination of those people and 2i ; found no evidence of an adverse effect on them* You have known 24 V and you knew at the tim you testified to that that an industrial /' 1 clinic at Binghamton, in Binghamton area examined a number of 2 people there and found a large number of adverse.effects on thoi 3 people in Binghamton. You knew that at the tima you made this 4 testimony, didn't,you, sir?-.''-, ,- f r 5 A No, X didn't, sir. . s 6 q Sir? ; , ` 7 A No, sir. .j\ '"'': [ ' $. V- `'' 8 Q Dr. Pouschj are you sitting here now and telling us s 9 that you did not know that a broad range of adverse health 10 effects had been found In those people that were in that Bing 11' hamton office fire? 12 A No, sir. 13 Q You're not sitting here and telling us that? 14 A I didn't know that, 15 Q. Doctor, you do know that it's not Dr. Kim and you do * " i* ,t 16 know that it wasn't any health study done, you do know that the 17 source of your statement that there was no health effects is a 18 one line statement in a discussion somebody by the name of Nanc;; 19 Kim had at a meeting and nothing else, nothing more than that? 20 A Yes, air. 21 Q Doctor, this meeting and this article, it was held in 22 October of 1981,. wasn't it, air? 23 . A X don't recall that. 24 (At this time Plaintiff's Exhibit 1533 was marked for 1 identification *) 2 Q I'll hand you now what *s been marked Plaintiff'a Exhli 3 1533 and ask you 1 you recognize that as that article that was 4 given to us by your attorneys in,response to my request for 5 the citation of your statement that a Dr. Kim had said there 6 were no adverse health effects* l Do you recognise that sir? 7 A This isn't mine was almost a one liner. 8 Q Wall It was a one liner I'm giving you more than 9 just one line* 10 A Yes, sir* 11 Q The one line Is included there* It's on Page 25628, 12 but I'm asking you now do you recognize this? 13 A No, I haven't seen this* 14 Q Doctor, did you not read, did you not get the infor* 15 iiiation from some source as to what Kim said? 16 A All I had wasthat onestatement* 17 Q Doctor, you have it there In front of you, the second 18 to last page, Dr* Kim, there were no -- quote "There were no 19 toxic affects observed in the approximately 160 people who were 20 exposed to soma degree in the Binghamton accident" closa quote 21 marks, 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q One line, isn't thatright, air? 24 A Yes, sir* 1 q That's the one line you're referring to* isn't it, 2 sir? - '* r 3 A Yes, sir, 4 Q And that is the;sum total-of the information that you 5 have to support the statement that there were no adverse health 6 effects following that Binghamton fire, isn't that right, sir? 7 A Yes, air, 8 MR. HEIREMAN: Objection, your Honor, the statement 9 taken from the context of the testimony says MI recall reading 10 that a Dr, Kim from the Health Department had an examination of 11 those people and found no evidence of adverse effects on them". 12 That's what the statement Is, not as broad as what Mr, Carr 13 just said, 14 ME, CARR* He just answered the question -- 15 THB COURT: Objection is overruled. I don't think 16 those two points are contradictory. Go ahead, Mr, Carr, 17 MR, CARR: You did give the doctor's answer that yes, 18 it was the sum total of his knowledge. 1 19 Q Doctor, this to put it in context la a -- was a 20 forum held on October the 4th to October the 7th of 1981, wasn'i: 21 it, sir? 22 A Yes, sir, 23 Q And Doctor, that -- the fire at Binghamton was in 24 February of 1981, wasn't it, sir? 1 A X don't recall* 2 q Well, If you look at the document Itself In the fourtl 3 page of the exhibit, Doctor, it was on February the 5th, 1981 4 according to Kim* 5 A Yes, sir* 6 Q And the subject was building reclamation after dioxin 7 contamination, wasn't it, sir? 8 A Yes, sir* 9 Q And Nancy Kim is described as pare of the Bureau of 10 Toxic Substances Management, isn't she, sir? 11 A Yes, sir. 12 Q And she took the position at this meeting that this 13 Binghamton Office Building should be used and it should not be 14 t o m down, didn't she, air? IS A X don't know. 16 Q Doctor, didn't you read what -- 17 A No, sir, X didn't read this* 18 Q Doctor, you read It before you testified unless some 19 body just told you as to what Kim -- this Is the only source 20 of your information you said. 21 A There was e two sentence in an item that X read dis 22 cussing the Binghamton fire in which they quoted Dr* Kim. That' 23 all* 24 Q Doctor, this is the quote. You have testified that I this is the sun total of your information. . 2 A Yes, sir. 3 Q How, in that same paragraph aha takas the position 4 that you shouldn't tear down the building, but that's only an 5 aside. This is a statement by her that a health -- and it 6 doesn't say when or who said whether or not there was an exami 7 nation . Where does it say that these people ware examined by 8 anybody at the time she made the statement? , 9 A It doesn't say. 10 Q Doctor, when you -- and this October, 1981 study 11 would be a half a doz& n months after the fire, wouldn't it, 12 sir? 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q And you had in your possession an article since 15 January of '84, and at the time you made this sworn statement 16 that there were no adverse effects from that fire you had in 17 your possession ample information exactly.to the contrary, did 18 you not, sir? 19 MR. HEINEMAN: Objection to the premise, your Honor. 20 That completely misquotes what he Just said. The statement was 21 X recall reading what a Dr. Kim said. 22 THE COURT: Objection is overruled. 23 Q Doctor, to put It in context you were asked by Mr. 24 Heineman, "Now, there was conversation between you -- this is. 1 on Pag 69 -- "Now, there was conversation between you and Mr. 2 Carr with respect to the Binghamton, Sew York fire* Do you 3 remember that?" 4 Your answer was "Yee, air". 5 Question : Mr. Heineman asked you "And that was a fir4 6 in which he showed you an article which said it had been 7 estimated that there was 2.8 parts per million of 2,3,7,8 TCDD 8 found in the soot that resulted from that fire* Do you recall 9 that?" IO And your answer was "YesV. 11 And then the question was "Mow, do you know, sir, 12 whether there has been a follow-up with respect to the people 13 that were exposed to the cleanup of that fire?" 14 And your answer was "X recall reading that a Dr. Kim 15 from the Health Department had an examination of those people 16 and found no evidence of an adverse affect on them". 17 Question: "Dr. Kim of who?" 18 Answer: "sKe's with the Health Department, I think," 19 Question: "Of the State of Hew York?" 20 Answer": "Yes, sir," 21 How that's what you said at that time, isn't it, sir? 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q And you said then in response to the question whether 24 or not there had* be1en a fol>l*ow-up -- A Ym . 2 Q You told yo Cher had been, a Dr. Kim had an exami nation of these people and found no evidence of an adverse 3 4 effect on them. That's what you said then -A Yes, sir. 5 6 Q Nov, there isn't anything in that document to suggest that Dr. Kim had an examination of those people, is there, sir? 7 8 A I don't know how you could say there was no toxic effects if you didn't do an examination. 9 10 Q Well, Doctor, that nay be a fact. 11 A Yes, sir. 12 Q But there is no statement there that she had an examination of those people. First of all, there's no state 13 ment -- no, there's no statement that she had an examination 14 of those people at all, is there, sir? 15 A No, sir, 16 Q And there is no statement that on that examination 17 there was found to be no evidence of an adverse effect. 18 19 A It said there was no toxic effects. That is an 20 observed effect. 21 Q They observed, somebody -- she said that no observe 22 toxic effect was found in hundred -- was seen in 160 people. 23 A Yes, sir. 24 Q She doesn't even say there was an examination, does 1 THE COURT: Sure, go ahead. 2 MR. HEINEMAN: Your Honor, it'a hearsay, and there's 3 no foundation established for It. 4 THE COURT: Objection Is overruled. 5 MR. HEINEKAN: Other than that I don't have any 6 objection. 7 THE COURT: Objection Is overruled. It's admitted 8 over objection. 9 Q Doctor, do you recognise your handwriting on the 10 bottom of that first page? 11 A Yes, sir. 12 Q What did you write on that, sir? 13 A I said It was title page. 14 Q And this was a paper that was delivered to the 15 American Chemical Society, wasn't It, sir? 16 A Yes, sir. 17 Q Did you attend that meeting? 18 A No, sir. 19 Q From whom did you receive this copy, Doctor? 20 A From Dr. Schecter, 21 Q I'm sorry? 22 A From Dr. Schecter. 23 Q You received It from him personally? 24 A Yes, sir. 1 A Yes, sir. 2 MR. CARR: It Is 15340 that ha been passed to the 3 Jury, and I fll offer 1534B into, evidence as well, your Honor. 4 THE COURT: Same objection? 5 MR. HEINEMAN : Yes, may my prior objection be -- 6 THE COURT: Incorporated? 7 MR. HEINEKAN: For A and B. 8 THE COURT: Sure, so noted. Same ruling. 9 Q Doctor, now this is a paper written after the 1981 10 article of Kim, is it not? 11 A When was the paper given, do you know? X can't tellj 12 but think so. 13 Q Well, there are dates in it that refer to 1983, work 14 done in 1983. If you'll turn to Page 16, you'll see it talks r "* 15 about samples that were taken in 1983,' two years after the 16 initial exposure. 17 A Yea, sir. ,,j - t 18 Q So that would be -- obviously this article was 19 written in point of time after the 1981 session was had in 20 which you referred to Dr. Kim's statement, isn't that correct, 21 sir? 22 A Yes, sir* 23 Q And this shows that at an Industrial clinic, an 24 occupational medicine clinic that they noted In a group of 1 patients from this building one case of chloracne, transient 2 erythema, three cases of skin cancer, throe cases of liver 3 pathology, hypertension, one suicide, nervousness, irritability, 4 insomnia, impotence, fatigue, elevated serum chicleecarol, 4* 5 triglyceride levels elevated, pschoneurotlc illness leading to 6 time off from work, psychiatric treatment, headaches, and 7 peripheral nerve impairment and other findings Do you see 8 that, cir? 9 A Yes, sir, 10 Q Now, Doctor, there was only one case of chloracne in ," > 11 that building, wasn't there, sir, according, to this, in this 12 occupational medical group? 13 A Yes, sir, 14 Q And there was a broad range of problems going from y - * *1 i k .* 15 suicide to cancer in these people that were in that building, 16 wasn't there, sir? 17 A Yes, sir, 18 Q Dr, Rousch, whan you testified hare, when tfr. Heinfima:: 19 asked you the question were there -- has there been a follow 20 up with respect to the people that were exposed to that cleanup 21 of that fire -- 22 A Yes, sir, 23 Q You knew and you mentioned only that Dr. Kim one line 24 throw-away statement at an oral -- at a meeting, an oral statji .i vV,. 1 sent, not van a written paper at that but an oral statement 2 you had in your possession at that time and was aware of the 3 fact that on this follow-up there had been all of these things 4 found in those people after that Binghamton fire; you had that 5 information in your knowledge and in your possession, this is 6 your handwriting on the document, Dr. Rousch. 7 A Yes, air. 8 Q Dr. Housch, why in response to the question that Hr. 9 Heineman gave you, why did you want this Court to believe that 10 these -- that their 1 -- they had found no evidence of an 11 adverse effect on these people when you knew and you had in 1 i ', } f' % 12 your possession this document that you sent for that showed 13 the exact opposite, that there had been a number of serious 14 health effects on these people? IS A This states that the etiology findings are not claar. 16 Q Doctor, would you answer my question please, sir. 17 A I didn't recall having read this article, because 18 this was related to levels of dioxin in FCB's and tissues, not 19 this statement here. 20 Q Yes, but. Doctor, the point that I'm making is that 21 Mr. Heineman asked you a specific question -- 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q -- about whether or not had there been a follow-up 24 with respect to the people that were exposed to the cleanup of 1 that fire r- 2 A Yes* sir* 3 Q -- and your response! was a Dr, Kim follow-up, had 4 an examination. First of all, Dr. Kim did not have an exami 5 nation or at least there's not statement in your reference that 6 she did, 7 A That's ,right. * 8 Q And secondly, there has been a follow-up, which this 9 document shows the follow-up.and shows ell kinds of adverse " y. 10 health effects, ky question, Doctor, Is not whether these 11 things are true or false. t, 12 A Yes, sir. 13 Q My question is why did you answer Mr. Heineman's 14 question the way you did without giving this information which 15 you should have given at that time? 16 A I didn't recall this. 17 Q And that's yoursole explanation. Doctor? 18 A Yes, sir* 19 Q You don't recall that there had been all these health 20 effects, Doctor? 21 A I don't recall having read this* 22 Q Doctor, that's not what I'm even asking you* My 23 question is you don't recall that there has been a lot of heeltl 24 effects that have been reported subsequent to this Binghamton 1 fire, there have been a number of studies, end I'm not bringing 2 those up, Doctor, to show you that there have been other health 3 affects I'm bringing this up to ask you specifically this la 4 information that you had in your possession 5 A Yes, sir* 6 Q -- at the time you ware answering -- I can't prove 7 that you know of the other articles dealing with the health 8 affects, but X can and have proven chat you knew of these 9 health affects, you knew of this follow-up exam, and so I'm 10 asking you why did you give the answer that you did to Mr* 11 Hainetaan whan you knew ,that it wasn't true? Oh, it might be 12 technically correct -- 13 MR* HEIHEMANi It's been asked and answered, answered 14 twice* 15 ^, - THE COURT; Objection is overruled* That was not 16 answered, 17 A I didn't recall this* X remember this article only 18 by virtue of the fact they were measuring residues of dioxin 19 and furans and PCB's in adipose tissue. That's what X remember. 20 That's what the substance of this article is about, 21 Q Doctor, the substance of the article that you referrec 22 to, the Rim article, deals with whether or not to tear the 23 building down* There is absolutely no other mention in that 24 document about health effects associated with Binghamton other I than that one lina throw-away that cm* line statement nothing 2 ala, 3 A Yes, sir. 4 Q You remembered that you tell us and you could not 5 remember & suicide three cases of skin cancers three casce of 6 liver pathology psychiatric treatment headaches psychoneurot:. ! 7 illnesses peripheral nerve impairment; you couldn't remember 8 those things but you could remember the one line throw-away of 9 Kim? 10 A 11 . .' ^: ' , r *i Z had read that in preparation for this trial. tt MR. CARR: I have no further questions your Honor. 12 THE COURT: Ladles and gentlemen we'll take a short i' f 13 break at this time and then we will resume testimony. The 14 admonishments that X have given you earlier will apply during 15 this break also. Court's in a short recess. 16 (At this time a short recess was taken.) 17 DR. GEORGE RODSCH. 18 resuming the witness stand having been previously sworn testi 19 fied further as follows: 20 21 BY MR, HEINEMAN: RECLARIFXCATION 22 Q Dr. Rousch I'd like you to pick up in front of you, 23 if you would there please Plaintiff's Exhibit 1533. Do you 24 have it there sir? -- JL I A Yes, sir. 2 Q Would you read to the Jury -- turn to Page 3 where it says Page 188, 4 MR, CARR: What page, Counsel? 5 MR. HEINEMAN: 188. 6 Q Isd like you to direct your attention to th remarks 7 attributed to Dr. Jtlm there, okay?.. 8 A YQ&i air.^ 9 Q Would-you read that first sentence aloud, 10 A "There war no toxic effects observed in the approxi 11 mately 160 people who were exposed, to some degree in the Bing 12 hamton accident,11 13 Q All right. Mow, sir, she uses the term observed, doer 14 she not? 15 A Yes, sir. 16 MR, CARR: Objection to the loading form of the quest! 17 TI-1E COURT: Objection sustained. Rephrase It please. 18 Q Does she use the term observed, sir? 19 A Yes, sir. 20 Q Mow, could one reach the conclusion based upon the usti 21 of that term that someone had looked at these people? 22 A Yes, sir, 23 Q Why did you say in your testimony, sir, that there had 24 been an examination? 1 A I know of no other way that we can say that there ere 2 no toxic effects unless a history, a physical examination and 3 laboratory studios were done 4 Q Was that an assumption on your part, sir? 5 A Yes. '*( . s 6 Q Based' upon what,1the language made In chat statement? 7 HR. CARR: Object to the, loading form of the question, 8 THE COURT: Objection sustained. 9 Q Was that assumption based!"upon -10 A Yes, sir. 11 Q that statement? How, if you look at Plaintiff's 12 Exhibit 1534, sir, you sea that? 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q This is -- how many pages are in that exhibit, sir? 15 A 38. 16 Q And what is the title of that paper? 17 A Biological Markers after Exposure to Polychlorinated 18 Dibenzo Dioxins, XCDD's, Polychlorinated Dibcnzo Parana, PCDF's, 19 Polychlorinated Biphenols, PCB's, Part X, Residues of TCDD's, 20 PCDF's, and PCB's in Adipose of Humans Exposed to a Transformer 21 Fire. 22 Q Now, sir, other than Page 8, which Hr. Carr showed you 23 and which X think is Exhibit 1534B, that was passed to the jury, 24 what does the majority of this paper deal with &e bast you can 1 tfill? 2 A The presence of dioxin, furans, and FCB's, both in th< 3 environment as well, as in these people exposed to these three 4 families of chemicals, , / 5 Q Does it contain figures and levels? 6 A Yes, sir, 7 Q Does It ' contain (i pages11 with chromatographic graphs? 8 A Yes, sir, 9 Q Photographs taken at the time of the fire, cleanup? 10 A ' Yes, sir, 11 Q Three pages of references? 12 A Yes, sir, 13 Q Tables of measurements? 14 A Yes, sir, 15 Q So that how would you characterise the gist of what 16 this document is about, 1534? 17 A It's a study to determine what levels of these familii 18 of chemicals are found in the fat of man and apparently related 19 to the fact that they ware Involved in this transformer fire, 20 Q Mow, with respaot to Plaintiff*s Exhibit 1534A that 21 begins with this sentence; you see that, air? 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q If you look at Plaintiff's Exhibit 15345; do you have 24 that before you, sir? 1 A Ye, sir. 2 i> t ** j % Q Is that thefdocument from which this extract is taken? 3 A Yea, air. 4 Q What ia the sentence immediately before the one where 5 this extract begin? 6 A It atacee the etiology of these medical findings la 7 not always clear. 8 Q . What does etiology mean, air? 9, A Etiology haa to do with the cause of the abnormality 10 that are found when these people were examined. In other words, 11 if a man has a sore throat, and if we culture hia throat and 12 find he's got streptococcus in It, the etiology of that sore 13 throat was the streptococcus. 14 Q What you'd call a strep throat? 15 A Strep throat. And o the etiology of these things ar<i 16 listed here he says is not always clear. 17 Q Sir, I'd like to take you back, if I may, to the 18 Suskind morbidity study. Let's look at -- I'd like to find 19 some of the exhibits though that you had at the time when we 20 were going through this before, (Pause) Let me hand you, air, 21 what's been previously marked as Defendant's Exhibit 922 and 22 923 and Plaintiffs:' Exhibits 1513 and 1514. Do you recognise 23 those, sir? 24 A Yes, sir. ii1- I Q And what are those? 2 A Those*- were the, notes X mad when X want through these 3 records. 4 Q The records being Plaintiffs * Exhibit 1468? 5 A Is that -- I can't tell. 6 Q I-think that's right* Let's look at Plaintiffs' 7 Exhibit 1473C in connection with what wo went through once be< 8 MR, HEItlEMAN: Your Honor, X neglected to mark these 9 pages. 10 THE COURT; Which pages are those? 11 MR, HEINEMANi That Dr, Rousch and I wont through the 12 other day with a defendant's number* 13 THE COURT: Why don't you put a number on it. Wa'll 14 make it a group exhibit then* 15 (At this time Defendant's Exhibit 924 was marked for 16 identification) 17 Q Dr. Rousch -** 18 THE COURT: What number is that? 19 HR. HEIHEKAHs Xt's 924, your Honor. 20 Q Would you agree with me that Defendant's Exhibit 924, 21 a group exhibit P consists of six pages done in ^green marker 22 that wore the results of clarification examination that you and 23 X did the other day on the Suskind morbidity study? 24 A Yes, sir. 1 Q Now, one of the ones chat: Mr. Carr Just asked you * i j* _ y 4 2 about was Hr. MeDado. You remember that, sir Edward KcDade? 3 A Yea* sir. 4 Q And when we went through this the last time how did 5 you characterize Mr. HeDade as being exposed or unexposed? 6 A Exposed. 7 Q And how did you characterize whether or not he should 8 be included in Table 1 as an exposed person? 9 A X said you need more information. 10 Q And vhst was the basis for that conclusion sir? 11 A The doctor had said that he had a tumor of the skin, 12 but he didn't say any more than that, and so X said that he 13 hasn't established that he's -- that he has a cancer, and X 14 wanted to get from the doctor what he thought about that, 15 Q Now, sir, if X am not mistaken, in reference to a 16 prior exhibit, I think a memorandum by Tim Long of your depart- 17 ment, you and Hr. Carr discussed the meaning of the term tumor. 18 Do you remember that? 19 A Yes, sir. 20 Q And whether or not a tumor could either be malignant 21 or whether it could be benign. Do you remember that, sir? 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q What terra did the doctor use who did the history and 24 physical examination on Hr. McDade on Hr. -- on Dr, Suskind's I behalf? 2 A I don't recall from this, but from chat causa ha said 3 it was a tumor without furthar daflnltlon. 4 Q All right* Now, why Is It, sir -- strlka that -5 whan you summarise on Paga 6 of Group Exhibit 924 what should 6 ba dona with Hr. KcDada, what did you say? 7 A 1 said X wanted to gat more Information. 8 Q Did you say ha should ba strlckan from tha tabla? 9 A No, sir. 10 Q So you didn't taka him off, did you? 11 A No, sir. 12 Q You said you wanted more Information? 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q And that's what you said back hare, didn't you, sir? 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Q Now, tha Interview on Mr. KcDada, what does It say 17 with respect to a skin cancer? 18 A On Page 13 ha said yes, ha had a cancer, and It was of 19 tha skin. 20 Q All right. Now, do you have tha McDade record In 21 front of you there, sir? 22 A No, sir. 23 MR. HEINEMAN; What number Is It, Joe, can you tall me 24 HR. CARRi 32. 1 MR. HEINEMAN: 32? 2 MR. CARRi I'm not Jo*, but that* the number. 3 Q Now, would you look at what tha physician said and 4 look at all tha things th* physician said. 5 A It says h* had had removal of stvaral skin tumors vitl 6 out further definition on history, and on examination he did not 7 find a cancer or anything else other than some hyperkeratotlc 8 lesions that would go with the fact, and the fact that he had 9 actinic changes would be consistent with the fact that he had 10 had skin tumors. Now, then they summarized this, and he left 11 it out and didn't talk anything about tumors here, so ~12 Q Now, when they -- when you say summarize, what are 13 you referring to, sir? 14 A The dermatologist who said he had removal of skin 15 tumors without further definition, when he then wrote down his 16 diagnosis he was talking about the changes in the skin and made 17 no further mention about the skin tumors. 18 Q What is that page, is it Page 25, sir? 19 A The first page is on Page 21. 20 Q And that* where they start the history, la that 21 right? 22 A That's right. 23 Q Now, Mr. Carr was referring to the statement on this 24 form that says additional history, is that right? m 155 i .A'"-; Yes* sir.. * ;' ,2 Q . How* sir, 'wheh'wa discussed this before* did these ` '3 examinations ;and interviews all begin at the sarae stage or did/ ' 4 s o m of; them occur simuitaheouslyt , /, : * 5 A They.were taking place simultaneously J J \ 6 Q So that while ;-- how many interviewers, were there? 1 7. / 'A-. X Just know there were at least two;. I don't know - 8' whether there was more or not. / .. vi ' '' J- j 'i; ^ rj , r `/( ^ * 9 ,/j Q / All right / How many physicians war;there7 10 A \ Thar wore a number of -theta/ There war general . 1 I t internists* several dermatologists* and X think there was a - V12 neurologist as well at least/ ^ 13 Q How* did it occur that a physician.could be taking a ; 14 history and physical exam'from/someone who had not previously 15, been interviewed by the Interviewer? 16 . A . , Yosit/sir.:. : /,< < '/ 1.7' 18" Q ^Ahd could it occur that the,interviewer was inter- ' ,,. 'c,, ' <, r .--............ ; >. 1 ,. , , - '' viewing someone'' /*//. , r^ /. , /19J MR. CARR? Object unless the witness, has first stated '20 .M-' .^-21... . 22> , 23 ' 24 that he was there and he knows that, to be the fact. Otherwise it's pure speculation/ / * ^ ' , JTH,1EfT.fCOURT: foVbj.jJ2ecV,,tiJoJ}n- sHusVta*i-ne.id. ' */: j v ;; / ^ i ,' :V I v ^ ' r : ,; Q - Co/you know it, to be a fact, sir? 1 '> *'& / ;>>/:!//' Jj '` '* *, '- ' A 'Ho , sir/;'' / J r ; /:/ ;/3v / / / l VV J 1' - . . t: j r .1 Vvt PENGADC .O.(BAYONN,E .NJ. 07002 I Q You do not? All right. Do you have a sourea of your 2 underatending? 3 MR. CARR: Your Honor I objacc to any sourea of 4 undaratending. It has to ba hie knowledge. 5 THE COURT: Objection sustained. 6 MR. HEINEMAH: Wall your Honor ha can certainly say 7 what his source is. I may not ba able to gat him to say what 8 the toan told him but -- 9 MR. CARR: Your Honor counsel knows that's doing by 10 indirection that which ha may not do by direction. 11 THE COURT: Objection is sustained. 12 Q Dr. Rousch if you were to assume sir that the 13 physician -- that a man want in for his physical exam and had 14 not yet bean interviewed 15 MR. CARR: Object your Honor unless there is evidenc 16 that that's in fact what occurred and that this witness knows 17 that that occurred. I object to it. 18 THE COURT: Objection is sustained. 19 Q Wall sir the phyalelan in thls case would take a 20 hi.Cory, doesn't Chat appear from the record, sir? 21 A Yes sir. 22 Q Does lt appear from the records -- other than the 23 word additional history does it appear from the records wh 24 or not the physician knew that that person had already been I interviewed? 2 A iso, air, 3 Q Now, the physician took a history, as is rsflacted in 4 the record -- 5 A Yes, air, 6 Q And la there -- there is -- 7 HR. CARR: Your Honor, to keep the record straight 8 it's additional history the physician cook, and it's clear from 9 these records. 10 THE COURT: Could you rephrase the question please? 11 HR. HEINEMAN t Am 1 to understand, your Honor, 12 I'm not sure I understand. 13 THE COURT: The point of clarification for additional 14 history. 15 MR. HEINEHAN: I have to use Che word additional? 16 THE COURT: I believe that it as so noted, and the 17 witness agreed a number of times that it was additional history, 18 I'm ordering chat you clarify the question in that respect. 19 MR. HEINEMAN: All right, sir. 20 Q Now in this additional history as it's listed on the 21 form there, sir, the -- there was one of those histories taker 22 by a dermatologist? 23 A Yes, sir. 24 Q And according to the record wae one of thoee historial 1 taken by another type of doctor? 2 A Yes, sir. 3 Q And who -- what kind of doctor was that? 4 A A general internist, 5 Q So there were two -6 MR, CARRi Your Honor, I object unless this history, 7 this record that we have here shows that, I'd hate to go throuj 8 cross examining this witness again, but the exhibit that I have 9 on McDade does not have the name of the physician. It has a 10 nurse ID, and I'd hate to have to go through all this again, II MR, HEINEMAN: I don't understand what the objection 12 is, 13 MR, CARR; My objection is is that the witness is 14 speculating and that this record does not support what he is 15 saying as to your suggestion. 16 THE COURT: Genclsmen, I'd like you to approach the 17 bench with a copy of that record. I don't have a copy of it, 18 (The following proceedings were had at the bench out 19 of the hearing of the jury.) 20 MR, CARR:? Here's the additional history. There's a 21 nurse*8 ID, but no doctor's name. 22 MR. HEINEMAN: Your Honor -- 23 THE COURT: That's blood pressure, I assume? Yeah, 24 that is. 1 MR. HE1NEMAN t There is an identification of the 2 physician by naae and number on the document here 3 MR. CARR: WheraT 4 MR. HEINEMAN: I've seen it. 5 THE COURT: I don't see it 6 MR. CARR: It's not there. 7 MR. HEINEMAN: I thought I'd seen one. I've seen it 8 on the others. 9 MR. CARR: It is on some, it's not on others, Counsel 10 That's my point. 11 THE COURT: I don't see one, It's about four pages, 12 and I don't think there is one. There's a point, there's a 13 place for it, but there's nothing in it, an ID or name, 14 MR. HEINEMAN: Well, in any event, your Honor, my 15 point is this. If you look at Page 25 ~~ 16 THE COURT: Umhm. 17 MR. HEINEMAN: Where the physician's diagnosis is 18 given you've got - 19 MR. CARR: Hold it. It doesn't say physician's / 20 diagnosis -- 21 THE COURT: That's not ~ 22 MR. CARR: It says diagnosis impression. 23 THE COURT: Thet's not the point. The point is you 24 were talking about this additional history and different 1 taking it. 2 MR* KEXNEKAN: That's right* 3 THE COURT; And that doesn't have anything to do with 4 the diagnosis, number one, Number two, the diagnosis doesn't 5 tell us who wrote it either, 6 MR, HEXMEMAN; X you'd look at It, sir, here's the 7 way it appears to me. You've got -- 8 .MR. CARR; My objection is that there's no doctor 9 identified here. You said -* he said there was, and X eay 10 there is not. I object to your -- ^ 4* V1 Zr r >, \ 11 MRi^HEXKEMANiy.i Mayv,I point; something out hare, Mr. 12 Carr? 13 HR. CARR. Sure if. 14 MR, KEINEKAN: . The first throe diagnoses, your Honor, 15 heart disease, ulcer disease, and hiatal hernia would hardly 16 be chat which would b diagnosed by a dermatologist, whereas 17 Item 4, 5, and 6 ara clearly items that would be reported by 18 a dermatologist, solar elastosis, actinic keratosis and soma- 19 thing which X think is an athlete's foot condition, Now, it 20 also appears that the handwriting is different, that a different 21 pen was used, that you've got somebody that did .th^ first three 22 and somebody els that did the last three, 23 MR, CARR; Nobody's quarreling with that, Counsel, 24 THE COURT; First of all, that's not -- that is pur I -- that la more speculation than you're asking number one. 2 Number two you're telling me that an internist or a dermatologi 3 who is in either of those positions is not capable from any kind 4 of training of making those same diagnoses and impressions, 5 which I'm not so sure of. Number three, the whole point is 6 about the additional history part and not the diagnosis or 7 impressions and there is nothing that that relates to that. 8 There is a point and place for a physician's name and/or 9 physician's ID number, neither of them is in there. The objec* 10 tlon is well placed as far as this document is concerned, and 11 the objection is sustained. 12 (The following proceedings were had in the hearing 13 and presence of the Jury.) 14 Q Dr. Rousch, insofar as your conclusion about Edward 15 heDade is concerned, the basis upon -- would you tell us the 16 basis upon which you said you need more information? 17 A We have an opinion by the doctor of a skin tumor not 18 otherwise identified. 19 Q In reviewing these records, sir, did you attribute 20 any different importance between what was reported to the inter 21 viewer and what was seen from the portion of the exam filled in 22 by the physician? 23 A I look at both of them, and when in doubt, is I took 24 the opinion of the doctor who was examining the man. 1 Q Did you consider the history taken by the doctor in 2 reaching the decisions you made which are reflected in Defendant 3 Exhibit 924? 4 A Yes, sir, the physician who does an examination alway^ 5 asks history related to what examination he does. 6 Q And does a history appear? 7 A Yes, sir. 8 Q Under the termadditionalhistory? 9 A Yes, sir. 10 Q Now, with respect to Harry Reynolds, Hr. Reynolds, 11 how did you characterise Hr. Reynolds with respect to exposure, 12 sir? 13 A Not exposed, 14 Q All right, sir. Now, if I recall correctly, when you 15 were examined by Hr. Carr a few moments ago, you gave the opinio 16 that he could possibly be exposed, is that right? 17 A Yes, sir, but 1 would call him minimally exposed at 18 best. 19 Q Now when you went through the records you characterisei 20 him, how did you characterize him? 21 A 1 called him not exposed when I went through it. 22 Q All right. So that if as Mr, Carr represents in 23 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1473C, Dr. Suskind characterized Harry 24 Reynolds as unexposed, would you find any fault with that? A No, air. 1 Q Now, air, Mr. Carr asked you about Ed Volz. Now, let 2 me move on to Ed Volz here for a moment. As I recall, air -- 3 oh, I'm sorry, do you want to get It first? Do you have It then 4 A Yes, sir. 5 Q Now,for Mr. Volz what did he tell the interviewer with 6 respect to his cancer history? 7 A He said he had a cancer and it was a bladder cancer. 8 Q All right. So he said yes to bladder? 9 A Yes, sir. 10 Q But he did not say he had a skin cancer, correct? 11 A That's right. 12 Q All right. Now let me direct your attention to 13 Exhibit 1472, which is the computer printout here. If you look 14 down for Mr. Volz, would he be No. 101 there, sir? 15 A Yes, sir, he would be listed really as 52. 16 Q All right. Now V701 is what, sir? 17 A It says other. 18 Q V702 says what? 19 A It says miss, and I think that means there's no other 20 lesion. 21 Q V703 says what, sir? 22 A It 8ays also miss, which moans nothing else. 23 Q All right. So V701 there's a positive for other, but 24 1 a miss for V702 and a miss for V703, correct? 2 A Yes, sir. 3 Q What does the doctor's record show with respect to Mr. 4 Volz? 5 MR. CARR: Counsel, for the record are you talking 6 about the additional history, are you talking about medical 7 records, are you talking about the interviewer, which are you 8 talking about? 9 MR. KEINEMAN: The physician portion of the record 10 that's before him. 11 MR. CARR: The additional history portion? % 12 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. 13 MR. HEINEMAN: And the entire record. Additional 14 history, physical exam, whatever, the physician portion of it. 15 Q What does it say, sir? 16 A The physician said he had a basal cell carcinoma of 17 his back ten or twelve years ago. 18 Q So the physician says basal cell cancer of the skin? 19 A Yes. 20 Q What does the physician say about the bladder? 21 A It says that in 1931 he had a bladder tumor removed 22 that was benign, and there had been no recurrence since 1931. 23 Q Now, what does the fact that the interview is yes for 24 bladder, no for skin, but the doctor's portion of it says no I for bladder and yes for skin tell you about what V701 and V702 2 and V703 mean on this printout? 3 A That comes under the classification of other and calls 4 it a bladder cancer, and nothing -- 5 Q The only place in the record where there is a yea on 6 bladder is where, sir? 7 A There it says yes, that's what the history says. 8 Q Which history? 9 A The history as recorded on Page 15. 10 Q By whom? H A By the interviewer. 12 Q All right. So if Che interview is yes for bladder 13 V701 is positive for other type of cancer, correct? 14 A Yes. 15 Q But the doctor is no for bladder, correct? 16 A Benign bladder. 17 Q And yes for skin? 18 A fes. 19 Q But the interview is no for skin, correct? 20 A Yes. 21 Q And there's no skin listed for Mr. Vols in either 22 V701, 702 or 703, correct? 23 A That's right. 24 Q So what does that tell you what V701 and V702 are 1 re p o rtin g ? 2 A What the history says, and that's all. 3 Q To whom? 4 A To the interviewer. 5 Q And nothing else? 6 A That's right. 7 Q Now, as a result of this record, sir, would you 8 include Ed Volz in Table 1 as an exposed person? 9 A Yes. 10 Q For skin cancer? 11 A Yes. 12 Q Even though he did not report it to the interviewer? 13 A That's right. 14 Q And you put him as a what for bladder? 15 A I would take the bladder off, because it's benign and 16 it's not a cancer. 17 Q Even though he said yes to the Interviewer? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q Because of what the doctor said about him? 20 A Yes, sir. 21 Q Now, with respect to Harry Honaker, sir, do you 22 included him, did you not? 23 A Yas, sir. 24 Q On the basis, as I recall, that either one -- 1 MR. CARR: Object to the leading form of Che question 2 if it please the Court. 3 THE COURT: Objection sustained. 4 Q Okay. On what basis was he included? 5 A Because he had -- he was exposed and he had leukemia 6 and he had a prostate cancer. 7 Q And he's -- how many times is he on the list in Che 8 Suskind morbidity study? 9 A You can only be on the list once. 10 Q So he's on it once? 11 A Yes. 12 Q All right. Now with respect to John Selby, sir, if 13 I recall, Mr. Carr asked you about Mr. Selby. Do you recall 14 Mr. Carr asking you about Mr. Selby, sir? 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Q All right, 17 MR. CARR: Your Honor, I've been waiting, and so far 18 all this reclarification is is a rehash of his first clariflcati 19 examination, and there's nothing new that he is bringing out at 20 this point in time. All he's doing is repeating exactly what 21 he did earlier, and I object to his repetition. 22 MR. HEINEMAN: Your Honor, we are indeed clarifying 23 those people that Mr. Carr went through with respect to Mr. 24 Carr's claiming or thinks -- suggesting to the witness that I Chey should be es he had originally classified them, and whac 2 I'm doing is showing that this witness* original classification 3 as sat forth here was correct. 4 MR. CARR: Your Honor, I went through only the ones 5 that Mr. Heineman had some questions and the doctor had a 6 question about in their clarification examination. I have that 7 right to do that. There wasn*t anything new that I brought out 8 in my examination that would warrant this rehash of the same 9 subject. If we continue this way, then I would have the right 10 to ask the questions about the same thing that Mr. Haincman just 11 calked about and then he would have the right to talk about. 12 Reclarification examination I thought was for the sake of 13 explaining something new that I may have brought out in my 14 examination and not for the purpose of rehashing material that 15 he's already hashed once, and I object to It. It's repetition. 16 THE COURT: Objection is sustained. 17 MR. HEINEMAN: Your Honor, I'm only going over the 18 ones that he covered. 19 THE COURT: The objection is well placed. It's sus 20 tained. 21 Q Sir, Mr. Carr asked you about Mr. Scarberry, did he 22 not, sir? 23 A Yes, sir. 24 Q Now, he reviewed with you, did he not, sir, the 1472 1 A Yes, sir. 2 Q V701 and V702? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Now, what does the doctor say about Homer Scarberry? 5 MR. CARR: Your Honor, that's repetition. We've gone 6 through that already. 7 MR. HEINEMANi Well, your Honor -- 8 THE COURT: Objection sustained. It is repetition. 9 MR. HEINEMAN: May I speak to it, speak to the object! 10 The implication that Mr. Carr was making, your Honor, in the 11 reexamination of the witness was that Dr. Susklnd had reached 12 the conclusion vis-a-vis what he heard from Vicki Hertsberger, 13 that Dr. Susklnd had reached the conclusion that indeed Homer 14 Scarberry had cancer, and what I'm seeking to demonstrate is 15 chat all these V701 and V702 reports are what's been told the 16 Interviewer, and they don't reflect the conclusion of Dr. Susklt 17 with respect to whether or not that man had cancer and should, 18 therefore, be included in Table 1. That's what I'm seeking to 19 do, because that's the implication that Mr. Carr was trying to 20 raise. 21 THE COURT: Mr. Carr, do you have any statement to the 22 objection? 23 MR. CARR: Your Honor, the questions that he has asked 24 at this time are questions that he asked when he rehashed it. There isn't anything nav that ha's bringing out. Thara is no 1 disputa about tha fact that ha gava a history of lung and 2 bladdar cancer, thara is not disputa about tha fact that it's 3 listed in 1472 under those V numbers as that* All this matter 4 has bean gone into by both sides, and this would make it tha 5 second time Mr. Heineman has gone into it. 6 THE COURTt Objection is sustained. Move on please. 7 It has bean covered. 8 Q Would you, based upon what you sea in tha records 9 thara put Chaster Gorrell as an exposed parson or leave him as 10 unexposed? 11 MR. CARR: Your Honor, that's repetition. The questic 12 was asked and answered. Mr. Heineman asked it originally in 13 clarification. 14 THE COURTt Objection is sustained. It is repetition 15 Q Based upon your examination by Mr. Carr just a few 16 moments ago with respect to Curtis Postlethwaite, do you rememb* 17 that, sir? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 20 Q Would you reclassify him as belonging in Table 1? A No. 21 22 Q And why not? A Because the skin cancer mentioned by the doctor is 23 not -- I mean by the Interviewer -- is not mentioned by the 24 d o cto r. 2 Q And what if tha reason, fir, that you would giva that 3 diffaranca in weight? 4 HR. CARRi Your Honor, that'f baan gone into aa wall. 5 I objact to this repetition. 6 THE COURT) Objection if fUftained. 7 Q Keith Hill, do you have tha Hill record there, fir, 8 please. 9 A Yea. 10 Q Hr. Carr aeked you to refer to tha firet three pagaa 11 of that record. Do you recall that, air? 12 A Yea, air. 13 Q And ha asked you to read to tha jury from tha second 14 page at tha top. Do you recall that? 15 A Yea, air. 16 Q Tha second page at tha top cites what, air? 17 A Tha preoperative diagnosis is what they're referring 18 to, and it says that there is a history of carcinoma of the 19 bladder, and the examination was to rule out recurrence. 20 Q So the history of carcinoma of the bladder la stated 21 on Page 2? 22 MR. CARR: Object to the leading form of the question 23 THE COURT: Objection sustained. Please rephrase it. 24 Q Is there a history of bladder cancer stated on Page 2' 1 MR. CARR* Repetition, your Honor. The witness has 2 already stated what's stated on Page 2. 3 THE COURT: Objection sustained. 4 Q What's the date on Page 2? 5 A March 22nd, 1976. 6 Q What's the date on Page IT 7 A May 21st, 1971. 8 Q What Is the bladder statement made In 1971 on Page 1? 9 A Transitional cell papilloma of the bladder neck. 10 Q What Is a transitional cell papilloma? 11 A Well, first of all. Is a papilloma Is an outgrowth 12 where a lesion or we call It -- It can be called a tumor of 13 the bladder neck, and the transitional cell just means that the 14 same kind of cells that are found In the bladder epithelium. 15 Q All right. Is a papilloma a malignant or benign tutaoi 16 A It's a benign tumor. 17 Q So In 1971 It's benign? 18 A Tea, sir. 19 MR. CARR: Object to the leading form of the question. 20 THE COURT: Objection sustained. 21 Q How, what does the physician say In the record In Dr. 22 Susklnd's examination with respect to Keith Hill? 23 A The history says negative history and the normal 24 examination 1 Q What does the physician aay about the bladder? 2 A In hla -- in hia summary of the history the state* 3 ment is made benign bladder neck tumor, surgical treatment, 4 non-recurrence. 5 Q How does that relate, sir, to the 1971 record? 6 A They're talking about the same thing. 7 Q And how does that relate to the 1976 record? 8 A When Dr. Dean or Dr. Sellus were planning to do this 9 cystoscopy, they said that there was a history of cancer of the 10 bladder, and I'm not sure on what they made that -- that stats 11 ment of history. 12 Q But the '71 record demonstrates is it cancerous or is 13 it not? 14 A No, sir, it's not, it's a benign lesion, 15 Q And so would you list Mr. Hill for a bladder cancer? 16 A No, sir. 17 Q Would you list him for a skin cancer? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Why is that? 20 A The history by the dermatologist said that he had a 21 malignant mole on his back which was removed surgically. 22 Q Now with respect to Mr. Rogers, sir, do you believe a 23 you sit there now he should be Included in the list as exposed 24 or not? 1 A No, sir, I thought ho wasn't exposed. 2 Q Do you still fool that way? 3 A Yes. 4 Q With roapoet to Mr. Waldorf's records, sir -- 5 A Yes, sir. 6 Q Was that the one -- could you road that one? 7 A No, 1 could not. 8 Q And did you taka Mr. Waldorf off? 9 A No, sir. 10 Q What did you say about him? 11 A I said I'd like to know what that physician said when 12 ho examined him and took his history. 13 Q So you put a question mark? 14 A Yes, sir. 15 Q And you said need more information? 16 A Yes, sir. 17 Q So you didn't take him off, did you? 18 A No, sir. 19 Q If I can direct your attention for just a moment agaiiji 20 to Keith Hill and Exhibit 1472 -- 21 A Yes, sir. 22 Q What does 1472 say with respect to V701 for Keith Hil 23 A Nothing 24 Q V702? 1 A Nothing* 2 Q V703t 3 A Nothing* 4 Q And lndaad on tha form what did Hr. Hill tall tha 5 intarviawar about cancar? 6 A I can't raad it. 7 Q Wall, do you hava tha form thara in front of you7 8 Hara wa go. 9 A On 15 it taya ha had no cancar. 10 Q And V701, 2, and 3 ara all nagativat 11 A Yaa, air. 12 Q And tha doctor diagnoaad malignancy of tha akin? 13 A Yaa, air* 14 Q Sir, doaa that ralnforca your viaw aa to what V701, 2,, 15 and 3 on 1472 purport to do? 16 A Yaa, air. 17 Q Now, air, thara cama a time in your examination by 18 Mr. Carr whan you talkad about tha quaation of whather or not 19 tha -- what Dr. Suaklnd aant you on Septambar 29th of 1980 20 waa tha final raport. Do you ramambar that, alrt 21 A What data vaa that? 22 Q Saptambar 29th, 1980. 23 A Yaa, air. 24 Q And do you ramambar hia dlacuaalng that with you, airl I in connection with your former testimony? 2 A Yes, sir, 3 Q Do you recall that? And he asked you, as 1 recall, 4 whether at Page 66 of your testimony you were telling the truth; 5 do you remember that? 6 A Yes, sir, 7 Q 1 think that was May 31st, If I'm not mistaken. Let 8 me show you that testimony, sir, May 31st of 1983, Page 66, Do 9 you remember Mr, Carr showing you that? 10 A Yes, 11 Q All right, sir. Now, he asked you, do you recall ~~ 12 let me ask you, do you recall whether he asked you whether you 13 were telling the truth at that point, do you recall that? 14 A No, sir. 15 Q Well, do you recall, sir your telling him that you 16 didn't know whether or not you were telling the truth at that 17 point? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q All right. What did you mean by that? 20 A When I read the report was I reading the final report. 21 The definition of the final report has only to do with when Dr. 22 Susklnd says that the final report, so I had read the report, 23 but I'm not sure when I read It. We're talking about was I 24 reading It as the final draft or Just a preliminary report, so I the question la only that in my opinion what I was balng asked. 2 Q Now, tha taatimony you gave there was on the 31at of 3 May, air, la that right? 4 A Yea, air, 5 Q At that time or aa you alt here now do you have a 6 specific fix on the firat time you diacusaed with Dr. Suaklnd 7 the question of whether the September 29th, 1980 report should 8 be considered final? 9 A That was not Che final report in 1980. 10 Q My question, air, la do you have a fix on the first 11 time you discussed with Dr. Suaklnd when the September 29th, 12 1980 report should be considered the final report? 13 A It was about tha end of May or early in June. 14 Q Now, the facta, air, -- let me hand, air, what's 15 been marked aa Defendant's Exhibit 917. Can you identify that 16 for me please? 17 A This is a letter or a memo from tha Superintendent 18 for Health and Safety at the Kruomrlch Plant, and he is writing 19 a letter to the union committee on June 14th, 1983, and the 20 subject was Dr. Susklnd's Krumxnrich study. 21 Q And what does the memo say, air? 22 MR. CARR* Your Honor, that's repetition. Counsel 23 got into that once already. 24 THE COURTt Objection sustained. It has been read 1 already. 2 Q Would you turn to the next page. Would you identify 3 that document for me? 4 HR. CARR; The next page hae been read to the Jury as 5 veil, your Honor. 6 MR. HEINEMAN: I'm juet asking his to identify what 7 it is. 8 MR, CARR; He's already identified it, Counsel. 9 THE COURT; Objection is sustained. Please get onto IO something that's not repetitious. 11 Q Doctor, as you sit there now, sir, is there any quest 12 in your mind as to whether or not the report that Dr. Susklnd 13 sent to you on September 29th, 1980 was a preliminary report? 14 A The 1980 report sent to me was a preliminary report, 15 Q Thank you, sir. Now, sir, were the results of the 16 Susklnd examination given to the Krummrlch workers at any time 17 by Dr. Susklnd? 18 A Each individual man had a report of his findings. 19 MR. CARR; Your Honor, that's all repetition, too. 20 Counsel has gone into that. 21 MR. HEINEMANt Your Honor, there's a -- Mr, Carr 22 asked this witness as to whether or not the results of the repo: 23 were given to the workers on -- when he came back with him, 24 and I want to clarify that Indeed they were. 1 MR. CARR: I asked whether or not this report wee 2 given to them. 3 THE COURT: I didn't hear the last part of what you 4 aid, I'm sorry. 5 MR. CARR: Z asked whether or not this report had ever 6 been given to the workers. 7 MR. HEINEMAN: That's not my recollection. The resultj 8 of the examination were given to the workers. 9 MR. CARR: Counsel, It's been In the record for a long 10 time that Dr. Suskind sent letters to different workers from 11 time to time based upon hie Krummrlch plant study. That's an 12 exhibit In the record. There's no contest on that point. The 13 contest Is whether or not they were ever told of this final 14 report of this September 29th, 1930, that's the contest. 15 THE COURT: Objection is sustained. 16 Q Doctor, Exhibit 9 -- what does Exhibit 917 tell us 17 on that point? 18 MR. CARR: Your Honor, that's repetition. Counsel 19 has gone Into that. 20 THE COURT: Objection Is sustained. It has been gone 21 Into already. 22 MR, HEINEMAN: Your Honor, I see It's four o'clock. 23 THE COURT: Do you have any further questions? 24 MR, HEINEMAN: I beg your pardon? 1 THE COURT: Do you have any furthar questions? 2 MR. HEINEMANt Yes, sir, I do. 3 THE COURT: Okay. Wa'll adjourn for tha day at this 4 point. Ladies and gentleman, I would remind you on an over* 5 night break that you're not to discuss this, you're not to 6 read, listen to, or watch anything about this case in particuL 7 or tha subject matter in general as well as not discussing it 8 among yourselves or with anyone else outside the jury. I'd 9 also remind you that we're not in session tomorrow. We'll 10 start on Wednesday morning at nine o'clock. Court's adjourned 11 for the day. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 STATE OF ILLINOIS 2 COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR ) ) SS ) 3 4 I, MARSKA SCHNIPPER, on of th Official Court Repor 5 ters in end for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit of the State of 6 Illinois, and the Official Court Reporter who reported the pro 7 ceedings had at the hearing of Frances E. Renner, et el. vs. 8 Monsanto Company, No. 80-L-970, on the 29th of July, 1985, do 9 hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and 10 correct transcript of the proceedings had at said hearing, 11 which proceedings were reported by me in shorthand and by me 12 correctly transcribed. 13 Dated this 5 ^ day of August, 1985. 14 15 16 % 17 y ft O i 18 o t i tiicial Court: Rdeportaer 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) 2 TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT ) 3 COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR ) ) 4 SS 5 I, RICHARD P. GOLDENHERSH, Circuit Judge in end for 6 che Twentieth Judicial Circuit of the State of Illinois and 7 the sole presiding Judge in the aforesaid cause on the 29th day 8 of July, 1985, do hereby certify that I have examined the afore 9 said transcript of the proceedings and further certify that the 10 same is a true and correct transcript of said proceedings had 11 in said cause. 12 Dated this________ day of August, 1985. 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24