Document kDB2jE2pQrdbngLrBZpLxGzzB

VVJ w IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL-CIRCUIT ST, CLAIR COUNTY ILLINOIS FRANCES E* KEMNER, ET AL,; L 'i V*-1Plaintiff * vs. Case No. 80-L-970 MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS July 26,'1985 Before the HbNORABLE RICHARD P, GOLDENHERSH, Circuit Judge APPEARANCES* Mr, Rex Carr and Mr. Jerome Seigfred Attorneys at Law, on Behalf of the Plaintiffs; and Mr. Kenneth Heineman and Mr. Joseph Nassif on Behalf of the Defendant, Monsanto Company. Kathleen Watson Brunsmann Official Court Reporter I INDEX OF WITNESSES 2 Called on behalf of the Plaintiffs: 3 DR. GEORGE ROUSH 4 Cross Examination 5 (By Mr. Carr)..... ................. . 2 6 7 INDEX OF EXHIBITS 8 PLAINTIFF1S EX. N O . MARKED FOR I.D. ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE 9 1520 2 3 10 1521 2 3 11 1520-A 16 16 12 1521-A 13 16 16 1462 14 17 1522 15 18 1523 16 87 88 1524 17 109 109 1524-A 110 110 18 1525 19 130 131 1526 20 1 142 1527 21 142 143 1527-A 144 144 22 1527-B 23 144 144 24 1528 150 1 BE IT REMEMBERED AND CERTIFIED, that heretofore, 2 on to-witi July 26, 1985, the matter as hereinbefore set 3 forth came on for hearing before the Honorable Richard P. 4 Goldenhersh, Circuit Judge in and for the Twentieth Judicial 5 Circuit, and the following was had of record, to-witi 6 7 8 GEORGE ROUSH, 9 having previously been called as a witness under 10 Section 2-1102, having previously been sworn, 11 continued cross examination as follows!) 12 13 RECROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) 14 BY MR CARRi 15 THE COURT? Okay Mr Carr, you were question 16 ing You may proceed 17 18 (Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 1520 and 1521 were 19 marked for identification by the court reporter 20 21 Q (By Mr* Carr) Doctor, I'll hand you what's 22 been marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 1520, which is a letter to 23 Harry Gilmer, dated February 12, 1979, written by Mr. 24 Metcalf; and Plaintiff's Exhibit 1521, which is a memo  i` \ ' It L . , . ** I 1 1 dealing with a telephone conversation Mr. Metcalf had with ' -, i f, 1M 2 Mr, Gilmer, dated February 13, 1979* I ask you if you 3 recognize those* 4 A - Yes, sir. 5 MR. CARRj X offer those exhibits into evidence* 6 MR. HEINEMANs As X understand, 1520 is the 7 letter? 8 THE COURTS Right. 9 MR. HEINEMAN* 1521 is the memo? 10 THE COURTS Right. 11 MR. HEINEMANs No objection, your Honor. 12 THE COURT' Both are admitted without objection, 13 MR. CARRs And for the record, so there won't 14 be any confusion, 1520 has been previously used'by Mr. 15 Heineman and marked as Monsanto's Exhibit 867; 1521 has 16 been previously used by Mr. Heineman and has been marked 17 as Monsanto's Exhibit 875. 18 ' THE COURTS S,o noted. 19 Q (By Mr. Carr) Doctor, you recognize these two 20 exhibits as exhibits that Mr. Heineman had interrogated you 21 about? 22 A Yes, sir* Yes, sir. 23 jQ And you read portions of these exhibits to the 24 jury? 1 A Yes, sir* 2 Q How, the exhibit marked 1520, that is dated 1 3 February the 12th, 1979* The second paragraph tells Mr* 4 . Gilmer that you at Monsanto were not able to distinguish the 5 isomer or isomers involved Do you see that, sir? 6 A Yes, sir* 7 Q 1 But it doesn't tell Mr* Gilmer that your 8 chemist estimated, however, that 90 percent of the tetra 9 .isomers was, in fact, 2,3,7,8, does it, sir? 10 MR. HEINEMAN: Objection, your Honor* That's 11 contrary to Dr* Kaley's testimony. 12 THE COURTi Objection is overruled. 13 THE WITNESSa No, it does not* 14 Q (By Mr. Carr) Dpctbr, the next page of that 15 exhibit, third paragraph, says that Mr* Metcalf was asked 16 by -Mr* Gilmer to explain why Monsanto wouldn't expect it 17 to be there, that is the 2,37,8 isomer, in significant 18 amounts* And he goes on to explain that* And then in the & 19 .second to,last paragraph he says, wIt follows, then, that 20 the 2,3,7,8 tetrachloro dioxin, if present at all, would be 21 only a small fraction of the total tetrachloro dioxins** 22 Do you see that, sir? 23 A Yes, sir* 24 Q And you know, however, that 90 percent of 37 is 1 Q (By Mr* Carr) This McCardle finding. 2 A But.not the same thing. 3 Q Doctor, if you will turn to the third paragraph, 4 if you go down to the third paragraph, the.last sentence -- S A Yes, sir. 6 Q -- they show that this work that was done in 7 1933, and this is an exact quote, is it not, quote, Using 8 this in vivo system, they were able to demonstrate that 9 TCDD is a tumor promoter but not an initiator. Do you see 10 that, sir? 11 A No, sir, I 'm not with you. 12 Q Third paragraph, last sentence, first page* 13 A Yes, sir* 14 Q Now, Long tells -you that theMcCardl'e people, 15 doing an inbred study with these mice, demonstrated that 16 TCDD is a tumor promoter? is he not telling you that, sir? 17 A Yes, sir. 18 Q And is not that, sir, upport for-Marcle Strauss' 19 statements that TCDD, Nitro workers would be at increased 20 risk of developing cancer from one or more of other.cancer 21 causing chemicals? 22 A . NO, sir. 23 Q That doesn't support it, sir? 24 A Yes, it supports it* Yes, sir. , I Q Yes* That's what X asked you 2 A I #m sorry 3 Q So there is scientific support for what she 4 has said here, isn't there, sir? 5 A Yes, sir. 6 Q And you had a copy, the copy of this memo, 7 you are one of the recipients of this memo, you knew that at 8 the time you were testifying, when Mr Heineman was asking 9 these questions, you knew the existence of this statement, 10 did you not, sir? 11 A Yes, sir 12 Q And you knew of the existence of that statement 13 at the time I was asking you about Mrs. Strauss' statement, 14 or Miss Strauss' statement, ahd'you said that she believes 15 it for herself, but not fpr Monsanto. .. 16 A Yes, sir. 17 Q Well, Monsanto- does1believe, it v 18 A No, sir* 19 Q Isn't thisprepared byMonsanto? 20 A Yes,.sir. 21 Q And isn'tthis a statement that TCDD is a 22 promoter of cancer? 23 A No, sir. 24 Q Doctor, doesn't this -- didn't you just say that i 1 this document supports the proposition that TCDD is a 2 promoter of cancer? 3 A Yes, sir. 4 Q Isn't that just what I asked you, sir? 5 A Yes, sir* 9 6 Q Then Miss Strauss is supported by this statement 7 this statement is in Monsanto's possession, and you had 8 knowledge of this statement, dia you not? 9 A / Yes, sir. 10 Q When you were testifying, when Mr* Heineman 11 was asking you these questions about it* 12 A Yes, sir. * v*;- , >` ir 13 Q ^ And you didn't mention this, did.you, sir? 14 A No, sir. 15 Q Doctor, if some of these other questions posed 16 by Miss Strauss here, you *-- she doesn't; detail what the 17 criticisms of epidemiology studies might be, but the 18 epidemiology studies are those that are considered the 19 morbidity studies conducted by Suskind for the Nitro workers 2Q or the Krummrich workers; isn't that correct, sir? 21 s' A That's part of it. 1 22 Q Vihat other epidemiology studies have you had, 23 sir? 24 A The mortality studies. On the mortality studies* I Q On the mortality studies* All right* Those 2 conducted by zack in the TCP accident workers, and the 3 other workers thereafter* 4 A Yes, sir 5 Q And, Doctor, she also -- and we ask you -- X 6 ask you about this statement of hers, "A higher percentage 7 of bladder cancers in the PAS workers who were also 8 exposed to dioxin,11 and she also posed why higher lung 9 cancer rates in those people exposed to dioxin, and what 10 answer did you give to that question, Dr Roush? Why are 11 there higher lung cancer ra;tes,in people exposed to dioxin? 12 A Because they're also'in 'unexposed workers 13 Q Doctor, even that doesn't wash Your-mortality 4 '* * 4' 14 tables show that there .are higher rates in your -- if you 15 will look at the comparison* 'You've got' all those lung r1 1 i" i, ^ j ti 16 cancers in your -- and we went through the Table 10 and 11 17 on that* You saw three lung cancers in your unexposed, 18 in your so-called unexposed group, and ten in your exposed 19 group in your mortablity studies Do you recall that, sir? 20 A Yes, sir* 21 Q And we went through the longprocess of me 22 convincing you that ten is higher ,than three, didn't we, sir 23 A Yes, sir* 24 Q So there is higherlung cancer rates in those 1 .people exposed to dioxin; isn't there, sir? . 2 . , r A*'. ; ,,No,' sir* / / 3 Q What makes you say there's not, sir? 4 A, ' Because rthey*re not statistically different* 5 Q Three is not statistically different than t e n ? / 6 A It.depends on* the denominator# ' 1 ^ ' 7 'Q ,T h e 'denominator was higher in the unexposed :s group than it was in the exposed group, wasn't it, 4)r# Roush 9 A /But. it .wasn't statistically 10 Q , L Excuse .me, Doctor/ you say it depends on-the " . k, t ' i yS J ^ i^"C/'j. /.,i/ / '^ l denominator? ; i''^ r;' 5H/:> - .*r- -- : -.- *it. \si t -v J--vo..., ' .* ./ r - ^f-v -. r \ 12 A * - rYes, sir; *^ : .a> <\ i r-/i .> 1 j 1 *. t-j , ^ j ,. 13 Q, Now I 'm establishing with vyouUn; the company . .Y i, *V' 14 denominator, there were more people in the unexposed group# i is " / v i- l *J ':* "V a V / \ Yes,.sir* 16 Q So if it depends upon the denominator, then it 17 also proves that lung cancer rates are also higher in the 1 i^ . T ~ 1 ,1 * '* ir '' ** 18 ^exposed group. - / *; 19 ** K -; If th. ' statistics' **' * ' ~* j ar^e^ there* 1 20 / ' . Q ^ 'If It,-depends upon the denominatorrthe rates 21 are higher,in the exposed group, isn't it, s i r ? s 22 A I have to see the data, 23 Q ;: Doctor , d you need to see the Table 10 ;% - 24 where there's three -- or Table 11 where there's three in th ' PENGAD C .O. BAYONNE,' K.j/' OJO lO , FORM 1L 148 1 ^2 3 4 =, 5 6 7 8 910 `U 12 - 13 ,, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 , 21 22 ?3 24 unexposed group? We went through that* . .` / A Yes,; sir*- ,v.. *`` ^, ` > 'Q -And the unexposed group, is larger than, the exposed group* We went through that* didn't .we, sir? A ' Yes, sir* Q V So the. denominator is higher for the unexposed group than it is for the exposed group* isn't: it sir? A - " I think t h a t ' s `right. But I'd l i k e t o see that Table# ; * \'ir ; ' Q *A n d Doctor,;.here is-'the1Table:ill , w h i c h has . k. ' ^ -V V- J- * S ' 1 : , . y '-v> - - . . r* the four cancers in it that have been exposed to TCDD. that -4 t ' ,' 3 1 r\ ; i i> ,\ ' 't * we took out'and put in the .other Table' inTabled 10# Do you recall that, sir A . Yes, sir* ' * : ; ,n it-r t- V r f r i y 's, 4 i v* ,Q - Now you want: to look at that Table any closer? ..A . -Yes, sir -c* no, sir, that's fine; Q . And there* are -- there are, we counted one, ,twp'' three --counted three lung cancers, did w e not, sir? A . Yes, sir * Q . in the un4xpped -group. ' .A Yes, sir* . Q . , And we /take -those four that were in that Table and put them here* vThere were four, five, six, seven# ' i} \ ' j. eight, nine, ten lung cancers in that group, don't we# sirl 24 A 1 A No, sir, you can't add those* You can't add 2 those to this group. 3 Q Doctor, those four were exposed, were they i->\ 4 not, sir? 5 A Yes, sir. 6 Q And they have lung cancer, don't they, sir? 7 A Yes, sir* A 8 Q These are exposed, aren't they, sir? 9 A Yes, sir. ; \- ' t .' 1j V '. 10 Q So you can add the two exposed groups, can't 11 you, sir? How many lung cancers were there, Doctor, from 12 people that were exposed to TCDD? 13 A In the exposed group there were ten. 14 Q Yes. And how many were there in the unexposed 15 group. Doctor? 16 A How many I didn't recall* 17 Q Three* ,. 18 A Three. 19 Q Teh is higher than three, isn't it, Doctor? 20 A Yes, sir. 21 Q . The unexposed group is larger than the exposed 22 group, isn't it, Doctor, the denominator? 23 A No, sir. 24 Q No? 1 A I don't know, because you're mixing groups* 2 Q No, Doctor, I'm not mixing groups. 3 A Y e s , you are. 4 Q We've got the groups, we've got one exposed 5 group and we've got one unexposed group. However you look 6 at it the unexposed group is larger than the exposed group. 7 It was 207 or 107 for the unexposed group, and 58 or 60, 8 \ ,i \r :L i*1 something like that, for the exposed group.. Don't you 9 recall that, Doctor? 10 > A Yes, sir. i . ' ' :f t li Q j Now, Doctor,the denominator for the unexposed 12 group is larger than the exposed-group, 'isn't it, sir? 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q Then, Doctor, it depends upon the denominator 15 as you said. The lung cancer rate is higher in the exposed 16 group than it is for the unexposed group, isn't it# sir? . 17 A Yes, sir. 18 Q Yes. Now, Doctor, why? Doctor, why do you have 19 higher lung cancer rates in those people exposed to dioxin? 20 A Because it can occur by chance. 21 Q Well, what you're saying then, chancewould 22 cause it, sir? 23 A Statistics would say that could happen the next 24 time by chance alone 1 Q Doctor, if all of these things can he explained 2 by chance, why do you go to the trouble of preparing these 3 tables? Why did you pay thousands, perhaps millions of 4 dollars tb have these studies to try to show that it's safe 5 to work with dioxin, and then When we come in and show the 6 falsity of your tables and where you padded the figures, and 7 changed the figures, y o u '.then say,' ?Well, it could all happe) r- " 1i v ^ > 8 by chance*" why did you go through the'farce of having 9 these mortality studies, Dr* Roush/ if you can explain away 10 the results by chance? 11 rr i. t , t- * A What's the question?,1 . ' 1) 12 Q Why did you go through the farce of having these 13 studies if all of the results of these studies can be ex 14 plained away by chance. Dr. Roush? 15 A We used standard epidemiologic procedures in tho 16 studies* 17 Q And they can all be explained away by chance, 18 and you knew that when you started, so why go through it, 19 Doctor? Your cohorts are very, very small, aren*t they, sir| 20 A Yes, sir* 21 Q :1 So you knew when you smarted this that your 22 cohorts were vary, very small? 23 A . Yes, sir* 24 Q And you know a chance of proving something ] statistically because You've got such small cohorts* next 2 to nil* You knew that too* didn't you* sir? 3 A No, sir. No, sir. 4 Q What would you have to have, a hundred lung 5 cancers -- 6 A NO, Sir. r , j.. - _, ; 7 Q . -- in the exposed group ,and. one in ,the unexposed 8 group before you would say it was statistically;,significant? 9 What would you have to have? ' 10 MR. HEINEMANi Objection, your Honor* Would 11 he let him answer the question, or does he have t^ have 80 12 questions in a row? 13 -THE COURT Doctw r, you may answer. 14 THE WITNESS The three bladder cancers was 15 sufficient to show that there was an excess. The three 16 bladder cancers showed that there were 800 times expected, 17 800 percent that was expected. So it's three tumors was 18 enough to show it. 19 Q (By Mr. Carr) well, then you're going by the 20 table of what's.expected. Then even on your Table of the 21 six,.Doctor, if that's your criteria, 2ack-Gaffey said the 22 lung cancer rate was higher even for your six, didn't they. 23 sir? 24 A I don't recall. I*d have to see the table. 1 Q Could you got out the Gaffey Report. It's -- 2 X think it's 1465, or thereabouts* 3 According to this, Plaintiff's Exhibit 1465-A, 4 with the 10 deaths, it's 143 percent higher than expected, 5 isn't it, sir? 6 A I don't think that table is right.. ^ 7 Q I understand that, Doctor. Y o u 've said that 8 already. ,; . 9 A Yes, sir. 10 Q But according to this, i t 's*-- 10*deaths is 11 143 percent higher, isn't it, sir? 12 A Yes, sir. 13 Q 1 think i t 's Exhibit 281 is probably the study 14 itself* These tables were all taken from 281. Doctor, 15 if you will look at the lung cancer rates in Table 9 of 16 Exhibit 281, your own people say i t 's 159, don't they, sir? 17 A Yes, sir. 18 Q ,, That's statistically significant then, isn't it? 19 A No, sir. 20 Q Doctor, didn't you just getthrough saying -- 21 now you're shifting again, huh? 22 A No, sir. 23 Q Doctor, does your table --doesyour exhibit 24 there, 281, Table 9, does Zack-Gaffey find a higher than 1 expected rate? 2 A Well, yes, sir 3 G Yes, indeed* Now, Doctor# I 'll ask you the 4 question again* These are words used by your people, not 5 by me -- ' ^* r, H' +, 6 A Yes, sir* ;! - h 7 Q ?-- why higher lung cancer'rates in ;those people 8 exposed to dioxin? ;k < 9 A We have an excess, but' it's hot Statistically 10 significant* n Q Doctor, my question to you is why higher lung i 12 cancer rates? Strauss says they're higher rates, zack- 13 Gaffey says there are higher lung cancer rates. 14 A Yes, sir* 15 Q My question is, sir, whyhigher lung cancer 16 rates in those people exposed to dioxin? , 17 A Because the difference can happen by chance* 18 Q Then we're back- to chance again? ' 19 A Yes, sir. That's -- that's what epidemiology is 20 Q Doctor, eliminatechance, whatelsecould cause 21 higher lung cancer rates in people exposed to dioxin? j 22 MR. HEINEMAN: Objection, your Honor* The 23 Doctor's answer is that -it happens by chance. Now he's 24 being asked to eliminate that chance. 1 M K .CARR: No, He's giving us a possible answer 2 for the one possible answer for the lung cancer rates being 3 higher in people exposed to dioxin 4 Q (By Mr. Carr) Ar e n 1t,you, Doctor?'' - ' 5 A Yes, 3ir* '` ' 6 Q Yes. Now what are some .other possible explana 7 tions for the lung cancer rates being higher in those people 8 exposed to dioxin? i * 9 A Lifestyle 10 Q Lifestyle? 11 A Yes, sir. 12 Q By lifestyle, you mean smoking cigarettes? 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q Doctor, the people that were in the unexposed 15 group were smokers of cigarettes as well? 16 A Yes, sir 17 0 So that* is the same element 18 A. Yes, sir# 19 Q Nov; what else could cause higher lung cancer 2 rates in people exposed t~ dioxin? 21 A This study -- 22 Q What else, Doctor? 23 A .Chance 24 Q You already said chance. 1 A Nothing else. 2 Q Doctor, what about the finding of Dr* Poland 3 and others at the McCardle Institute, and other studies, i* * < i t' * i\ + *f p i- 1 *. f * i '. ir 4 and that is shown in this exhibit that I handed you earlier, t ',, 5 that they demonstrated that TCDD. is a tumor promoter? What 6 about that as a possible"explanation for lung cancer rates 7 being higher to people exposed,to.dioxin? Do you think that i i, . - ' '- i, ; 8 might fit, Doctor? 9 A It's possible* - JO Q Yes, indeed it is^ Doctor, why wouldn't you 11 say that? 12 A Because -- 13 Q Why do you insist -- 14 MR. HEINEMAN % Objection, your Honor* He didn't 15 let him answer the first question* 16 G {By Mr. Carr) All right# I agree# Why do you 17 say that, Doctwr? j 18 A Because we're talking about a difference of one 19 cancer between the difference -- the difference between the 20 observed and the exposed. We e j e c t e d seven cancers -- 21 6,8 cancers in the unexposed, and we expected four cancers 22 in the exposed group, and there's a difference of one 23 cancer between those two -- 24 Oh, but Doctor-, you know already, you've got 1 four too many in the unexposed group in that table* We 2 already took those out* Do you remember that* sir? 3 A No* sir* _ 4 Q Didn't w take those out* Doctor? > r\ ' - - " II f --\ . * - 1 \t - 4 . s .5 a No,sir* - /`V- : , - ,: 6 Q Well, look here, Doctor, see those four* We v - ; . * j.tf L ; ; . , . 7 took those out* They were.exposed, weren't they, sir? Do 8 you recall that, Doctor? 9 A yes, sir* JO Q So we did take them out, didn't we? 11 1 Yes, sir* 12 Q So now look at your table again* Deducting 13 the four,Doctor,from the unexposed group* 14 A You can't dothat* 15 Q Mo, Doctor, what you can't do is put people that 16 have been exposed to dioxin and put them in, a table and aay' 17 that they haven't been exposed* You can't count those lung y 18 cancers in people not exposed to TCDD. But that's exactly t 19 what your study has been trying to dp? isn't that correct, 20 Doctor? 21 A Mo, sir* Mo, sir* 22 Q Aren't those four lung cancers included in 23 that eight, Doctor? 24 A. 'Yes, sir* , B A Y O N N E ; N . J . 07002 F O R M 1L 24 B 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 JO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .2 Wl 21 22 23 24 I Q IP You take those away,.you get four, don't you, sir? ' . '' ? . ' w * A But you can't do.that. i if t \ 11 Q You can't take those four'away. -You have to take those four away. Must you. not, Doctor? - A If you take* that away, you've got to change these. Q Surely, no question about that. You change those. You have to take those away, don't you. Doctor? You cannot have a scientific fact established upon a false** hood, can you, Doctor?. A This is not a falsehood. 0 The four were exposed to dioxin, weren't they, Doctor? A Yes, sir. Q IT's a.falsehood to say that they were not exposed,isn't it, Doctor? A They defined what -- Q Doctor, it's a falsehood to say they were not exposed, isn't it, sir? ,, MR.HEINEMAN: Objection. THE COURT: Objection is overruled. Not respon sive* THE WITNESS: i'm sorry^ would you repeat the 34 1 question? s'/ *` .< V m t` *- \ ` / 2 Q (By Mr* Carr) Is it a falsehood to say that ' * ,k k 3 those people were not exposed to 2,3,7,8 TCDD? 4 A No, sir* 5 Q Doctor, you know they were part of the hundred 6 and twenty-two that,were in the accident in 1949. You know 7 they were working in that production department* You know 8 that* 9 A Yes, sir* 10 Q So it's false to say -- and theywere exposed 11 to TCDD there, were they not, sir? 12 A Yes, sir* 13 Q * So it's false to say they weren't exposed when 14 you know they were exposed* 15 MR* HEINEMANs Objection* That table says 16 2,4, 5 - T * n o t 2,3,7,8, We've gone over this for five days, 17 THE COURT* Objection is overruled. Answer 18 the question, Doctor* 19 THE WITNESS; Your study is different than this 20 study. 21 0 (By Mr* Carr) Doctor, myquestion is simple 22 It's a falsehood to say that these four people who were in 23 that TCP accident were not exposed to 2,3,7,8 TCDD, isn't 24 it, sir? ' '1 Vt . 3; ^ / 1* , " n 1 - > ' >.. . ' i . u 1 t" A ^ ' C i ' v , Ni \ J) ' f i \i ;/ f "1 ' * IF that's `th 'question, 1A y ~ - / '; I`r *! ^ ' _F- , ,L 1 ,, v ; ]<' " yA ' ` ' 1" Q. That is ,the ;questiqn-.-v^So '.please^ anasWwer the 1 Vr V l, r v" v , /. '' * ,: , y v- o C, \ > y . J (>V:, i *, questioni sir* : . 4~ J ,5 ` ^. A- - yNo,, sir*;" v ,_A fi l i A A y( f " ' Q ; ;Were they exposed to 2,3,7,8 TCDD, in the :6i, , 7' '8 accident?/ ^ ^ / . ' 'A"'"'; " ; `v . '; ., * 'h ' , Y e s , ,sir-* .. . ^ ' ...-,j'. ^ ;/ ( " A Q The. truth Ib .they're exposed/ isn't it, sir?'.,/ 9 1 ; A .. 'A /.;Yes, s i r / / / ^ A'*' ,, A ' ' " "'// j/ - / ' y.,^ 10 ,/ : Q / -It's false to say they wer'e n 11 .exposed.to TCDD,, . * * ' 1 r J~ ' ,, ' "( 11 y. isn*t it,: sir?:'%. 'J L ) ' ''' y .. . a. \ i ` ,- . ' *4 " , . , ' 12 `- :^a :A ,Yes, sir*'-;. ` I '.4. . ', ', ' ` , . 1 , \ ; . r\/ ^ - ;A ; a 13 Q ll;right* Thank you, Doctor* ;t`v . } ,, " -' v" '^r i (# . * " r^ k' ^ 'i* ^ sf i' - S '* " ' *.^ 1 , j v i '' , ,r 14 N o w , Doctor, the next question: :qDid.;you have .' .^ , 16 ^ any v/orkers who did not develop chioracna a iter working iris the 2,,4,5-T department for three,.,to six months?" , 1 7 ;' /. A / *1"don't know* ' r ,r vA-r ^ ; 1.8 . Q i; Doctor, you've rsen th Moses-Selikoff Study* 19 , : 20 .You've;seen the chart* We passed it to the jury; Were the v - jI' \ : . ^ . . 4 i _r ,1 <1 |_ - ~ * k'> people ,that were in that^ department,for the Nitro people, 50 ^21 percent didn* t develop chloracne,.in the moderate exposed 22 grpup, 24 percent in the heavily,exposed group; `23 ' , /' : -) m . HEINEMANr ^Objection* ; ii < , 24 ` , ',Q. \ , (by Mr* Carr) So you dp.'know^- there Vs people 36 FORM IL Z4 B P E N G A D C O . . S A V O N N E . N . J . 07002 PENGAD CO.. BATON N E, N.J . OTOOl F O R M I L B2 1 23 A 5/ .6 7 8 9' 10 ' 11. 12 13 14' 15 16 17 18 ' 19 20 21 22 23 24 -- %" ' V - ivr b.. f * '-r ^.Vi /J ?i"-r r* V:-*r- \ i ' $ : -l ,.p ti-/- - ' i ' ; . -< . ` V ' ' \ - --- .ti.r i working in that department that did not develop chloracne,.. '' - ,, . r ' ^ \ j r-- i' \ d o n 1t you, sir? >, * ] Z ' - y . i s > * ? 1 ^ t- MR.' HEINEMAN: Objection, your .Honor. The * ,- ,' . v \, , *c , v . u' - , V ' - -*. u! <i,v/t \ - - - chart says it\s by recall, not by medical records s THE COURT: Objection is overruled', ^1 Q (By Mr. Carr). You do remember -seeing the Moses- Selikoff study? ^ - r 1-1 * ' \C A J Yes, sir-., - \ / >* ;r \ . Q r i Monsanto's'Exhibit. You put it ,-in evidence r - A V Yes, sir." t '4 ^ -- 1 L 'r- .. *. j- t * ' * . v Q ` That .chart did, say*.that; didn' t it, sir? A 1 No, sir. \ \ , - / ' " ^ -,Q ` It :didn't*say that? \ '. A 7 Noy .sir;. ' , *' Q It didn't say that 49 percent pf the people ^ ,had moderate exposure, never did have.chloracne? '; ` A ` No f .sir . ,' s Q ^ D r . Roush;,, d o n 11Jyou rec all'-you `testi fied .to that under* oath yesterday? . A' ^ Yes, .sir,. ... ,^ Q _ And you said .that.yesterday, didn' t .you, sir? .A. What did 1- say? L Q i; That that chart said ,that 49 percent of the, * people who had moderate exposure to TCDD never did get .r 37 1 chloracne That's what you said yesterday# 2 A No, sir. , \; , ;;L 3 Q You didn't say that yesterday? 4 A No, sir. 5 MR. CARRs Your Honor, would you instruct the 6 witness that he did say that yesterday* 7 MR. HEINEMAN: Your Honor, may I object to the 8 request for an instruction on the grounds that Mr. Carr did 9 not let this witness read the paragraph that refers to the 10 chart, and the subscript under the chart where they talk 11 about the difference between what the worker says by recall 12 as opposed to what the figures actually show. And that's 13 what I object to. . I think Mr. Carr is trying to mislead 14 this witness. I object to it. 15 THE COURTj Objection is overruled* That's not 16 misleading* You.have an opportunity to go into that* It 17 goes to the weight* This is a question of something which 18 he, in fact, did so testify to yesterday. Your objection 19 is overruled. 20 Doctor, I am instructing you to assume that you 21 did so testify yesterday, which, in fact, the record shows 22 you did. 23 Mr. Carr, you may proceed. 24 0 (By Mr. Roush) Dr. Roush, the answer to that s 1 question, if the Moses-Selikoff ,graph is correct, and true, 2 assuming that it's correct and true, then you do have 3 workers that were in that department that did not get 4 chloracne, didn't you, sir? 5 A Yes, sir , , 6 Q Wow, Doctor, what about the next question? Why 7 doesn't Monsanto admit that people have died from dioxin 8 exposure, either in industrial accidents, or at Yusho? 9 You do, know'what,. Yusho is, don't you, Doctor? JO A Yes, sir* 11 Q And there were a lot of deaths at Yusho, 12 weren't there, sir? 13 A No, sir*/ 14 Q, There weren't? IS A No, sir 16 Q How many deaths were there? 17 A X don't think there were any deaths 18 Q No deaths from the Japanese eating that poison 19 oil? 20 A No, sir 21 Q Doctor, you haven't read the studies on that? 22 A Yes, sir Yes, sir. 23 Q j And no deaths were reported in your knowledge? V 24 A No, sir , A-" * vfv Q - What about Indus trial^'accidents??* A No, sir# Q 'r How: about' the'case of the worker at BASF that died of pancreatis after being, exposed to dioxin? A Unrelated* , .. J q ' Doctor,, why do you;say it*s unrelated? He was , in an industrial accident, wasn't^he? - - .t iw ,, 'A,. -Yes, sir* v 'Q. "''"A n d the ^coroner ,-fche pathologist said he died from dioxin, didn't-he,, sir? A. "V' ',No, ;sir, v ' Q He didn't,say that? ,A ' \ No, .sir* .Q Doctor, rT remind you you're under, oath* *A - ,, Yes, sir*J ` Q -That's exactly what. the record said* - Now you ` may dispute ^ yod. don't. believe .that that's the-.truth, that ., ,t; v -t t ' . he died from that, but hat's what the official records : Cause of. Death said, isn't it,sir? '. A , I don' t think so* Q * You don't think so? - V.. A v_ - -No; s i r * V - v '/ Q . I don't have that immediately handy, but apparent- _%~r ' > ly Mrs* Strauss ^ - i s it Miss or Mrs*? it' s 1 -2 '3 , 4,-- , 5. , 6 '7 8 _ J 9 10 -^ 11 , 12 13 . 14. 15V 16 ' 17 18 19 20 ; 21 22 ; ; 23 24 v j\ : . , { - ' ' 7v. i'i 'l.:\ Ct V / V ': --V } * - ' J 1J - -> ' ir *` \ f ~ - . *i j* .L V ', Vi vt s.>, *t -I ^i - * * "^ - " ^*j' i* . -*, , * L* *. . * * ' > ^, - J* ;^ -r l,i N **> v*<>r v W ^ t - r *" % ^^Lf ` ,. ' ' V j*' M ' ' ! - 'V ' "' ; ' v"' n : ? 2\ v ,7 - , V ' V v I i \ I v U V r'* ' ' / * . < , / -# - ' * ' " A; " Miss Strauss; Q V And i s s h e a doctor'or riot? PhD or not? A - No, she/ s:.an epidemiologist* , r ' ,' V > '- - rV y Q- Well, you can be a PliD -- ^ yF / , . A. \ * ,,She*s not .aPhD* - v ,/ ' V ,*_ * HV'' Q, -:All right* is; she.a Master's?' . " 3. A ' 1V-_.-Yes, 'sir*:^ ^ 1 , - 1' v / r, .Q v Do you knpW t h e .source o f .h e r .information rr- V \ A ;v*\ No, s i r v * , -, -i ' r'r- ' " v - r v1-' V,-''1 v ./ Q`r'> H-- in posing that question? v V v. J -.- A kv .No, `s i r # / , ' V - * 'v V v ' ` V- - ' : ' 'Q ,,Vr What a b o U t t h e next ohe, .Doctor# 1?Since dioxin ", . ^ i - ^ ' C 'v , ' - ~J * " "` i and benzene are carcinogens, and you did have; leukemia and a soft tissue sarcomai how,do you ^know these cancers are not work^relatedt" A ^ ^ Because'we.only had .one case# ' " / J " '' ' 1 t> j 1' , 11 P L Q / W e l l D o c t o r ^ if y o u 'ye.got one case, and you' had'more; than, that, biit even, one case can be .caused by the chemicals' -to .which;.you 're expos ed, canit it, sir? ; A -NO,sir* V^v " I:'' :.V :- . ,,t; v Q 'V .: Doctor,, why c a n ^ one case be caused by be caused /by these chemicals , dioxin? is there something about dioxin that makes you believe it cannot cause cancer, considering the facfc that. it causes cancer, in all the 41 j vfc , hs ,,1 f A " i f iS. v ' y j , ir-f "V " * ' ^ V ir V " *.r r \ i i^ ^ *; i *. 1 laboratory animals? 2 A There have been a number of epidemiologic 3 studies that have been done that have been done that have 4 not demonstrated dioxin to be a carcinogen in man* 5 Q Doctor# what these studies haven't done# because 6 the cohorts are so small in human beings# that, in each case 7 they have said yes# these are cancers# and these people 8 were exposed to this substance# but because the cohorts are 9 so small we can't say definitively or with scientific cer 10 tainty that it was caused* But none of them are saying that 11 it wasn't caused# Doctor. Do you understand that? Don't / 12 you# sir? All these studies no one has said that these 13 cancers were not caused by the dioxin. All they've ever 14 said is that because the cohorts are so small, they can't 15 prove that they were caused by dioxin. Isn't that correct# 16 sir? 17 A No, sir. That isn't -- 18 Q That isn'tcorrect? 19 A No# sir. 20 Q what's wrong with that statement? 21 A If cancer is seen in the exposed group#are the same or less in the unexposed -- Q Doctor -- A -- then there's no evidence of cancer. ^ j -k -i; , ' j' . . . . Z Y r 4^ h ; 'v # / v r >y ; * 14 i v ' 1 *, f t^ -' y i 1: Yi `jV, ' ' 1; ' 2 1 3 .4 ` - J5 6; 7L` -8 . .9 , " 10 r '11 12 13 . 14 , 15 rn 16/ . , '17 , 1 ^ 18 19 20 " ,r 2 X , ' 22 V 23 ''.24 L Q Doctor, you*re talkng;about something else again* Please-address your remarks to. the question that I./ _* 1 '1 1 ,ft J t 1 ' . asked you -,-Y Y Y ' , ./ -k . ." * ' , / - /&-' Y e s , .sir*.;/1;l' Y / / Y t , .. jJ - ;/ " '/MR*.HEINEMANs 'Objection,; ybur Honor . Th" r` ^ ~ t * * *f , ,, * * j' answer was directly responsive to the question/ ,,_ j;Y ' v- THEvCOURT Not in'*the least responsive. The. . objection is overruled / ". - /, 1.-// Y' Y / THE 'WITNESS -Yes^ sir* J , Y *Y' / : `/' Z ' :: : A Y (By Mr../Carr) . Doctor> th`fact.that these. studies A ' Yes,- sir/. Y / Y v, : ., Q' ' ` ^although H a r d e n and others, Honcher -arid others have said that it is. evidence that the; sarcomas .are' . ' - _ ^ *_ -, *, - " 3 , t ' p . ' 'l j L'' ' J j *r t ' 41 "f caused by exposure to dioxin/others have ^said the cohort is too small, that that can,be a definite yes answer; isn't that correct," sir?. i i/ ' . / ; / , ' - " h\.v.1 'No, sir.: Y Y Yv ' '' ' '/ r ' jY i Y ' ,,. ; Y - ` Y' ] .'7 .. " / l Q '// /That ish';t"'eorrect?. , /; '^Y .YY' -' - -`Z Y Z- ; ^ " \ Y Z- , * " " . - / ' '/ Y\ ' . ' Yj - , : , A/''Y.:Nq -/ Sir Z'/V ; .y _*- ' - -, ' -/ Q ' \ N h a t 's wrong with that? ,v" u , " t. ^ ' V d - r LZ. ' ' A ,; T h e study :by. Hardell wr studies of case . iY , L` ^, - * , ** r ,. J fjr control/studies that suggested that by going back and asking .* i \ f / - f i' ,l ' /" "; /-/' / > / ' / . ; / *r / / - those people who. had soft itissue/sarcomas,]!had they been i' . . . .--..-' ... ,- . ' 'r' . 1. ,;i .v 1 ij T fl. , V \1,? v' ^ /- v' ^ - / v *i *>l 1 T . ' j. J J . - : - -1. - it *v J iM 1 "'i -Vs Y v f^1-,.' ,t 1 I a .. : .*"*; r i' T- * * > -t> i r'"' '] - ; ^ r j V ? p -' <i. . i f j. . . 43 PENGAD Or. BAYONNE.. NiJ,' OTOOI FORM IL Z* B " - 1 exposed to 2,4,5-T and other herbicides And these two 2 case control studies said that there was an excess of soft '3 tissue sarcomas. 4 Q All right. So I was right up to that point? 5 A Yes, sir* 6 Q Okay. 7 h A study in Finland, that was a study of exactly 8 the same group, same case control type study, came to a 9 conclusin that there was no association. There was also 10 the study in New Zealand that duplicated the study of 11 Hardell, but even more so* The level of exposure in Sweden 12 was for only a few months out of the year,, because they 13 have such,short growing season. Xn New Zealand the exposure 14 time was almost the whole year around. So the exposure was 15 much higher, and in New Zealand study found no association. 16 Then in addition, when you talk about the Honcher study* 17 the Honcher study was based upon taking the data from the 18 four epidimiologic studies by Monsanto, and DoW and finding 19 excess soft tissue sarcomas in there because it was related 20 to two or three soft tissue sarcomas* They then followed 21 that up, and added four more soft tissue sarcomas, and then 22 said y o u 9ve got an excess of, what is it, 36 times, or some 23 number. 24 1J :. . ' : '' l : 1 u, , . , t _ G That*s correct. A ' All -right* They subsequently went a ^ t h e data ,, to find out what was the cause of' death -- * *,r Q" .The data'was given to them by Monsanto* Do you recall that,'Doctor?-. .Then go on in your explanation* A'1 ' What data was given to them?. Q The data was given,to NIOSH, by* Monsanto, Do you recall that you testified to that earlier? `A r Yes, sir* . .\ 1 r, 0 Go ahead*. ' -lV * - `-'i;! \ * - V i;\' A ' ,They had the seven soft tissue,sarcomas, apparently coming from these four studies*.* They subsequently have found that two of those soft tissue sarcomas were not soft tissue^ sarcomas*. ^ . ' -- - .j . . Q .: Again, Doctor that*s based upon data given by. Monsanto?'- - W v ` ;. * , .y ` No,'-sir, '' / : ` '*- . r ^ Q *'/ *. No? .," ' * - '' - "f-. V ' *''" , , '* A - No,* sir* ! r .' -- "L \ . .. <' 1, * ; Q Based upon, what data, - . , A . Tb CDC on their own -r- I take that back* -NIOSH on their own .went out and got the death certificates on thesa people, and then went out. ori their own .and got tthhe histology ; *- .. i' y y ' ' on those* - r\y VV * ; . .*W h e r e d p y o u - ; g e 't t h a t , ; ' D o c t o r ? Where*s that been. j ' ` -i V' ? i -f i LVit i 'p pv . fr Ji 'PEMG*D CO.. B M O N N E , ,N.J. 07001 FORM.IL I4B '1 ,, / 'I- 3 ,' 4 5 r' 6; 7 .8 -I ^, 9 , 10. > i t 12 . ' 13:' 'I 14 is ; 16 J ; I7 *, 18 ll? 20 21 , r 22 . `L-23. 11 24 published?; >- f 1 ' r* ^ \ : *' * -* - .*J:i , ' * .- A,\ , , !Phai:,s :in *' -,, * J the y--that `V , - ,T r -1 * - ",, Rookefellet statement# r 't1 well as* other .places';; V . ^ / / > / > ,y \ \\ O ' TheRockefelier statement.says. that? yLJ A J ;fes# sir*y. *. Q/ Do you have* that statement# Doctor? / " A - rVes 1 sir*' . y . - tJ .v _ - "./> y y_'; . . .Q Would you mind bringing :it in-when you--*- `* ;-Ys> .sir*/ V' ' 'v & " V ^ f /* , , V " *. _ F. ' J " ` V Q- W h e n 1you find.it? / . / /" y 1 I*-* \ i. > - "^ yyY w rJ; A /y,-s# sir/ ./ : y / '/ y > / '' ' \ ' Ll ^ - P,, ^ " J + /" - - '. `^ V, '"r , ( rL 1 .. J - f * ' .1 * 4 ' ' ' * " ^ ,- *r> ; v,/ Q v y Aside f r o mthat, Doctor, that isn't" addressing;, my .question*J.what you're saying' is these,, studies, according tp your'interpretation#, have not firmly established .that thse'cancers vre.caused' by dioxin* Wow, my question is# , * * *. .'*** ^* r - ,t r^ r *' v `p \ Fr v * , j . g m1 has there been any studies saying that they w r e ^ t caused by dioxin? Have they ever been able to prove that they /, weren11 caused.by dioxin? ./Thab^s the question# .Doctor# .' ; - ;; A ;/ No# sir# J don*t have anything. \ Q / That1s what i .asked you, to start with; Doctor * -And n th N e w "Zealand #, aren- t you aware o the fact that a " v /- '\'fr |\ T; r' r later -- a .1985 study came rom'New; Zealand? "Are you aware ? i ' " ' * 't m! `V. *\ i.i s--.-!i-V'--'/ /-/ f< of that-'fact#Doctor? . './ 11r* t.* n .v,,, Ai*, . 'a 'n o , -six*; ; -, 1 , fr.v. ;;-/:<u.*-1'w;-, v */ -V J ^ l li;, r p^ 1# -if- 'n /( ^ ^ . L , - j! * J.r \ ,C ->i 5.i1 f .ij.1. .1ij' iV-li*1 'i/ y fv $ ,fV*;^Ml ,, 46 ] Q That said there was a relationship* You're not 2 aware of that? 3 A No, sir. 4 I'll bring a copyback ,at noon for you. 5 A All right* 6 Q, Now again, Doctor, is your answer to question 7 number five that they are not work related because no one 8 has yet been'able to , prove, to your satisfaction that they 9 are work related? 10 A - And others. Say the same thing that they're 11 not related* 12 Q Well, my question vas no one has been able to 13 prove to your satisfaction that they're not work related# 14 A J Yes, sir* 15 Q Now, Doctor, no one as I've asked you, no one ha 16 proved that they are not work related either, have they, sir 17 A. No, sir* 18 0 So, therefore,they may be work related,and just 19 simply cannot be proven? isn't that correct, sir, because 20 the cohort is so small? 21 A NO, Sir. : ' ;. :'- ' j* H JL - ' V N* ' *, 22 Q. That isn'tcorrect? 23 A L. No, sir* : . * ' "V- f *; 24 Q How can you prove that these cancers are caused BAYONNE, N.J. 1 2 3, 4 5 - 6 .7 1 8 9 JO ... 11 12. 1 13 14. 15, 16 i7 18 19 . 20 21 J 22 23 24 this leukemia was caused by dioxin# Doctor? A How can you prove'it is?., ' Q 1 A Y e s . ` v* ' 1 \ * . - '' - v * By having an excess in leukemia in that group* Q - Doctor/;you can.have one case of leukemia caused by a chemical, and never' have.an excess of leukemias It's all according to how.many people are exposed.-,It?s all according to th size of your cohort* - / No, sir. /' ^ - Q . ,' It isn't? . . . ' A ' - No> sir> .//'' - /.. a ,"L /'/ , ^ Q Then, Doctor# why do you use cohorts?... Why. do you use the p.ra.r.? Why do you use the expected? I t 's all tied in with th number of people, that y o u 're studying. 'i f A , / -Yes ,..sir. y ", ' Q A-\ VI y o u s t u d y just, five people, the,odds of you getting .deaths from lung cancer# .and leukemia-.and prostate cancer, and bladder,'cancer wpuid be. thousands to one against], wouidn't it, air? If y o u 're just.studying.five people. " ' '/., ' es, sir. (f; i`/'| r't /-V. 1?-r. . . . ; r . ' . 1 ..'if*Ais i';1'yy-* -<^- ; _-v>*" >'V J v $ You c a n 't get the wide range" of diseases that' human beings are subject to if y o u *just have a small popula;v v-`-! / 3 /, - * ; ; / - tion, can-yo, sir? ^ .. - -j ' y *'- ^ ' ; f\ v c- A.' -'"No, flit-.1', " 'Y' ' ' ; . : ` 4 i V'. /. k ' ;% > 1 48 1 Q So the larger the study group, the more you are 2 able to say there is or is not a relationship* isn't that 3 correct, sir? 4 A Yes, sir* 5 Q So it does.depend upon the size of the study 6 group, doesn't it, sir? 7 A Partially,# 8 Q Yes# Wow, Doctor, the next question there, do 9 "Do you believe that a healthier and safer work place and 10 the products of industry have contributed to this longevity 11 k improvement#" 12 A Yes, sir. 13 Q . Do you also believe that diseases that we have 14 today are caused by chemical accidents? 15 A No, sir# 16 Q Doctorf you know of the -- from 1900 on the 17 number of deaths that have been caused by chemicals and, 18 for that matter drugs, unsafe drugs, you know that, don't 19 you, Doctor? ,. v 20 A No, sir. * ''/ ' 21 Q Doctor, gust one little"example of a modern day 22 drug,the Thalidomide drug# 23 A. Yes, sir* ; : ' ' 24 Q, - Now there were, perhaps, no deaths, but there I\ 1 2' 3 4 5 6 7 8 9' 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 were a lot of deformed babies from Thalidomide. . A/, f' Q Yes, sir; ** 4 1 v ,* ^, That Thalidomide is a product of modern 1 civilization, isn't it, sir? L A Yes, :sir.,, '' : q l And it was never in existence before the drug or "chemical industry made, it>. was it, sir? ; A "" V No, sir.*;' . t ; 0 : So,1 therefore, the chemical industry Or th e drug industry made that Thalidomide which made these deformed babies) isn't that correct, \ ' T` J* | lm m ^ t> ' JJ A" : Yes, sir* Yes, sir. ` ' sir? ; '> ^' VV J `' J -S' . ,' " ^ ' ' Q .. And that goes along with the chemical and drug1 industry, doesn't-it, sir? . r : f 'A, Yes, sir ' .. ' J ,v . : . /, *' . ' Q - .'There are hazards- that go with it;- " c, * '1 , ' ,v " " / A ` In some cases. ' 1 Q Yes. Now, Doctor, because an .industry has - ` ^ ;'>Mr A .* v \ .* / - r J,( ^ ^ 1 k' -v/ i;J* -^ J; j* ^i v/ 1 ,' k contributed to safety, it,:ddeshrt :mean;that 'they should not be held^responsible for their/> mistakes',. does, it,-sir? . v:-1 fti''V i\ h; 1/ , r v -1 1 . .. s\ `V . r.j ' r- l i '- , _ ,MR. HBINEMAN* " Objection, y o u r r H o n o r T h i s Witness' impression of that statement isrirrelevant to the ; . , <i-* ; v i; '* . issues in this lawsuit. 1*. . MR, CARR; Well, your Honor, it may be* I t 's a 50 PENGAO CO.. BAYONNE. N.J. '07001 FOBM IL 14B -.1 1 question, though. I didn't want to skip it. I wanted -- 2 ,r THE COURTS The objection is sustained* 3 MR.' CARR* I 1XI agree that it is irrelevant 4 what this witness believes. . 5 Q (By Mr. Carr) All right. What about question 6 number seven then, Doctor? Miss Strauss says affirmatively, 7 as I have suggested to you, that these people that were 8 terminated before 1955 were the people with the highest 9 exposure 10 A Are you reading seven or eight? Talking about 11 seven or .eight? 12 Q I'm sorry. X did skip it. Yes, Number seven. 13 Why weren't the TCD incident employees included in the zack- 14 Gaffey study? IS A Because they're different studies* 16 Q Well, Doctor, you can say that of every study 17 on earth. They are different studies. They're studying 18 the same thing* The subject^is t h e s a m a . M o r t a l i t y 19 associated with dioxin. * Exactly the same -- ,. ' i* r 20 A Yes, sir* ' 21 Q -- subject. 22 A Yes, sir# 23 Q And people died that were exposed to the TCP 24 and people died after that and before that, didn't they, sir 1 A yes, sir.s 2 Q So the question -- the fact that they were 3 different studies doesn't answer the question, does it, sir? 4 why weren't they included? 5 A Because they were different studies* 6 Q Well, Doctor, X can see I'll not get anywhere 7 with that, if you repeat your same answer. 8 Doctor, the employees were included, some of the 9 employees were included in the Zack-Gaffey Study that were 10 in the TCP accident, weren't they, sir? 11 A Yes, sir 12 Q And others werenot? 13 A -Yes, sir* 14 Q Why weren't they all included, Doctor? They 15 were all exposed to 2,3,7,8 TCDD. 16 A It was a study of 2,4#5-T exposure* 1 h' * rr,,> H 17 Q . Doctor, we went through that before* The study 18 says TCP and 2,4,5-T or 2,4,5rT*1 ,. ', I i ' - '' j ,,L 19 A Yes, sir. * - :'..v :J / 20 Q .it just doesn't say 2,4,5 So; let's not get -' 1 ; i '- *<, -- 'v > 21 in that ouldesac again* All right? 22 A Yes, sir. . 23 Q Wow my question, Doctor, why weren't they 24 .included? 1 A It wasn't the design of the study* 2 Q Well# I will agree with that# Doctor* It wasn't 3 the design of the study. But ray question is why wasn't it 4 the design of the study? 5 A It could be* 6 Q Yes* My question is it could be* My question 7 was why wasn't it# Doctor. Let me suggest an answer. It 8 wasn't because if you did combine# if.you did study every 9 body that was exposed to dioxin# either in the production 10 or in the accident# or in the work place# that it would 11 have shown a high death rate# that it was your hope that 12 by separating these two studies it wouldn't show a high 13 death rate* Let me suggest that' as an answer* Would.you 14 comment on that# sir? 15 A Yes# sir* It wouldn't show it* If you combined 16 them# you do not get an: excess death rate*. You.do not get j A} * , ' "i 1* , r 'j '' * 17 an excess cancer rate* /If you d o combine them as you sugges IS - Q Doctor# has anyone combined, them? 19 A I have. 20 Q That's that study'yourpushed the button in? 21 A Yes, sir. 22 Q You didn't dp that# someoneelse did'that# 23 Doctor m 24 A Yes# sir# you're right, 1 0 And, Doctor, Question Humber 8* Why weren't the i 2 people who were terminated before *55, why weren't they 3 included? 4 A We couldn't identify them* 5 Q Well, Doctor, you could identify a lot of them* 6 A You could identify those under TCP UNit, yes* 7 Q You could have identified more than that* Easy 8 to find out who was working for you# You don't have to just 9 go to your computerised records, all kinds of records, 10 showing who these people were*- 11 A That is -- everything that can be done -- 12 Q There are all kinds of ways to identify these 13 people. 14 MR, HEINEMAN* Objection, cut him off again* 15 Won't let him answer the question.` 16 THE COURTS Objection vis' overruled* ' 17 THE WITNESS* }If it';s possible for this to be 18 done, it has been done* All of that information has been 19 given to NIOSH -- \- *.U ;, - 20 Q (By Mr* Carr) No, Doctor. You specifically -- 21 MR, HEINEMAN* Objection, cut him off again, 22 Judge. 23 MR* CARR* I'm not asking him about NIOSH* 24 THE COURT* He was answering a question where 1 I had overruled your objection,' first of all* 1 don't thinl 2 he had been cut off. Mr* Carr, go ahead, 3 Q (By Mr* Carr) We're not talking about the NIOSH 4 Study* We're talking about the Monsanto Study* Monsanto 5 specifically designed their morbidity study to exclude those 6 people who were terminated before 1955, knowing that those 7 people would be th Sickest, knowing that those people had 8 the greatest exposure* 9 A . No, sir* 10 Q The longest time exposure. 11 A No. 12 Q 1 The highest exposure according fcu Marcio Strauss 13 A No, sir* 14 Q You don't think-it's true that these, were the *, T - .- ,'j , rF ' '. i '; 15 people with the highest exposure?, , , ;'r , ; 16 A I don't know that* 17 Q Well, she says it is;' She says that it is a 18 fact, and you don't know that it's-not.a fact* .* * 1 -* \ *\ 19 A . She doesn't know it's a fact* 20 Q She says it's a fact, does she not? 21 A That's what she says* 22 - Q Yes* I see that it's 12:00, your Honor* 23 THE COURTi Okay* Ladies and gentlemen, we will 24 break for. lunch at this time* We'll resume again at 1:00* V* i' 1 The admonishments that I normally give you at breaks apply 2 to this one also. The Court is in recess. 3 4 (Lunch recess*} 5 6 (The following proceedings were had in the 7 presence and hearing'of the jury;) 8 9 THE COURTS, Mr. Carr* 10 Q (By Mr. Carr) Doctor* with regard to Plaintiff" 11 Exhibit 1482* there are a number of statements in there by 12 Miss Strauss that to the effect that dioxin is harmful 13 and causes various troubles* and Monsanto,hasn't done 14 anything about it* Now*r if .I were'to ask you.vabout each 15 of those statements by Mrs* Strauss -- .Miss Strauss* is it L 1t i , v r* ` r 16 fair to say that you would disagree with each statement 17 where it has the effect of-, i n'd i' c a r t i 1 n g*r,t- hat',[ dioxin tT. causes 18 cancer* promotes cancer* or has caused cancer in the Kanawha 19 Valley* or is an injurious substance? Is this a fair 20 statement? Or would you disagree with those statements in 21 here? 22 A I Don't know* I haven't gone through the 23 questions as you've asked them* 24 Q Doctor* I'm trying to save us sometime in this - 1 A I Understand 2 Q -- regard. This'has been in existence, this 3 exhibit has been in existence, in.your possession, Miss 4 Strauss worked for you, and this has been in existence for 5 at least a year, if not longer, and you haven't attempted 6 to answer these questions? 7 A I haven't attempted to generalize them. 8 Q Well, Doctor, look at Question Number 10, has 9 Monsanto ever done anything to warn and compensate employees 10 who have this excess of CHD -- ; what is CHD, by the way? 11 A Coronary heart disease. 12 Q And she says there seems to be an excess of that 13 j ** - and she says that Monsanto, in effect, was trying to hide 14 that fact, and she asked -did you ever do anything to try 15 to warn your employees. Would'you agree t h a t ,if there is 16 an excess of coronary heart, disease in, exposed employees? 17 A Yes, sir. - 18 Q And would you agree that you were, trying to 19 hide the fact? 20 A No, sir. 21 Q What did you do to make it apparent? 22 A, ' We published the article in the Referee Journal. 23 Q And what article is that, Doctor? 24 *- '1 1\ * A The -- both the Zack-Suskind and the zack- 1 Gaffey Study. The Zack-Gaffey w a s n 't in a Referee Journal* j 2 but was in an EPA and Veteran's Administration Symposium. 3 Q Doctorf y o u 're saying that there is no excess 4 of coronary heart -- you said in this court that there is no excess of coronary heart disease in these exposed employ 5 that they have the same kind of heart disease* have no 6 7 connection with exposure at all? 8 A yes, sir. 9 Q Haven'.t you? 10 A yes, sir. 11 Q So you are hiding the fact that these exposed 12 employees have this excess 'rate* aren't.you, sir?' , : 1 ' Jj > 13 A I t 's not excess -- ^ ; 14 Q y o u 're not saying that.it has anything to do 15 with their exposure? 16 A That's right.'. ; i \ \ ; ;V \'t 17 Q you're saying that it has to do withtheir 'i 18 lifestyle? 19 a yes, sir. 20 Q Just like y o u 're saying that everybody in this 21 Valley has this problem because of their lifestyle? 22 A J yes, sir* 23 Q Miss Strauss is suggesting inthisstatement 24 that your exposed employees have gothigherdisease rate I because of their exposure, is she not? 2 A That's what the'question implies* 3 Q Yes. And you d o n 't agree with that? 4 A No, sir* 5 Q And you haven't -- and you've enver stated -- 6 you've always stated in public, "Well, that's because of 7 their lifestyle,.it's got nothing to doywith their exposure* 8 A Yes, sir* 9. Q So you are not warning the workers that exposure 10 to dioxin may cause them to have heart disease, are you. 11 ,A It would be'improper to warn them* , / 12 Q Well, then what she is saying is that you didn't 13 do anything to warn these employees* She's .saying these -^ ' ' " * 'f 1 - H^ - 14 employees have got excess heart disease because of their 15 exposure to dioxin? ` W_ < 16 A No, she isn't* 17 Q She's saying -- sir? 18 A No, sir* 19 Q You just got through -- 20 A I said that's what the sentence -- 21 Q -- reading, Dr. Roush, that that's what she is 22 saying * 23 A That's what the sentence is saying* 24 Q That's what T just got through asking you.- fi;/'. 1 A That isn't what she says. 2 Q I'm sorry? 3 A She doesn't say that. 4 Q Isn't this her document? 5 A Yes, sir. But these are questions for the 6 Nitro lawsuit. 7 Q These are things that she put on this paper, is 8 it not, Doctor? 9 A Yes, sir. 10 Q She said these thi'n?gs,Hi.nr1th,isdtocument/, didn?t 11 she, sir? i T t* 't i 12 A Yes, she did;.' - - i 1? 1 13 Q But, Doctor, you don't' agree with what she has 14 said in this document, do*you, sir? 15 A No, sir. 16 Q And you have not been telling your employees 17 that they have this risk, do you, sir? 18 A They don't have a risk. 19 Q Doctor, she is saying in this document that they 20 do have a risk, isn't she? 21 A She says there seems to be an excess. 22 Q Yes. 23 A She didn't say there is. 24 Q Now assume that that's true for the moment. All 1 right? 2 A Yes, sir*' 3 Q Assume that all the evidence that we have 4 supports the thesis that what she says there is correct* Yo S haven't publicized that in any way, have you, sir? 6 A Yes,sir* / 7 Q How have you -- who have you. said, in what 8 document have you said that your exposed employees have a 9 higher heart disease rate? 10 A In the Referee Journal when we published the 1" . i ,\ , I* 11 Zack-Suskind Study* And United Steel Workers doctor has 12 seen that, and he's an adviser to them.' . . 13 Q Doctor, the Un; i*ted r Ste%el 1 wo * rkers< people are the 14 ones that helped write theMoses-Selikoff Study. 15 A Ho. 16 Q They usedtheZack-GaffeyMortality Study and 17 suggested that it was a rate similar to what was in the 18 Kanawha Valley. 19 A Yes, sir. 20 Q Now you have not agreed, as I understand it, 21 that this coronary heart disease in the Kanawha Valley has g 22 anything to do with these chemicals, or anything to do with 23 exposure to these chemical, or anything to do with exposure 24 to dioxin -- 1 A t Yes, sir* 2 Q -- is that right, sir? 3 A Yes, sir, 4 Q Now you haven't said anywhere in the world, 5 anything other than what y o u 're saying here, have you, sir? 6 A That's right, 7 Q All right* Now that is not telling the world 8 what Miss Strauss saysJris the fact here, is if, sir? * -'. '; \i' - i . r ` : '; 9 A X d o n 't believe t h a t s h e ' s established that 10 fact* . - II Q Doctor, X d o n 't want to go through that again, 12 Y o u 've already agreed that that is. what she has said here* 13 W e 're not saying that that's an established fact* It is 14 what she is saying as a fact* 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Q Whether you agree with itor not, 17 A Yes, sir* 18 Q The point that I 'm trying to make, sir, is that 19 you haven't told your workers that there is a risk of 20 heart disease by being exposed to these chemicals, have you, 21 sir? 22 A NO, sir, 23 Q And you Haven't made any attempt to compensate 24 them for this heart disease that they may be getting because I of their exposure to these chemicals, including dioxin; 2 isn't that correct? 3 A We compensate every person who has disabilities 4 from cardial vascular disease. 5 Q Doctor, how on earth do you do that? 6 A We have a disability program to take care of 7 people who are disabled. 8 Q Doctor, this is -insurance .that they* pay as part 9 of their employment benefits1that their union negotiated. 10 It's not got anything to do with compensation because of 11 their exposure. They would get that whether they had the he 12 attack at home, or connected with anything, or lifestyle. 13 That's got nothing to do with compensating them for their 14 heart disease that they get because of dioxin. It's what 15 they earn. That's what they work for. That's what they 16 work with their sweat for, that insurance. That's part of 17 their pay, Doctor. Don't you understand that? you're not 18 giving them anything. They're earning that. Don't you 19 understand that, Doctor? 20 A yes, sir. 21 Q Now, the question ishave youdoneanything to 22 compensate these employeesbecause of this heart disease 23 risk when they're exposed to chemicals? 24 A I don't think there's a risk.' 1 Q Doctor, assume that there is a risk as Miss 2 Strauss said there is. 3 A Yes, sir* 4 G Let's not go through that again. 5 A All right. 6 Q 1 have asked you to assume this. , .v V. "V'-v " ; 7 A All right.:. : k. S Q Nov; have you' done anything to compensate them? 9 A No, sir. v "; .J1 . ' ^ 10 Q _ The next question, Doctor, do you agree that 11 PAB and dioxin acting together make matters worse? 12 A No, sir. 13 Q You don't agreewith that? 14 A Well, we just talked about it yesterday. It 15 says it doesn't. As a matter of fact -- 16 Q You and Mr. Heineman talked about that. And 17 the clear statement in your -- that we went through earlier, 18 Dr. Roush, if you'll recall, was that these people who have 19 bladder cancer get more of it if they're exposed to dioxin. 20 Don't you recall that in the Zack-Gaffey Study? 21 A No, sir. 22 Q You don't recall that? 23 A Yes, sir, I recall. But, no, sir, I don't think 24 that's what we agreed. 1 Q You don't agree that the Zack-Gaffey Study 2 showed that they had a- higher rate of bladder cancer when 3 they were exposed than the people who were unexposed? 4 A Yes, sir, Zack-Gaffey did Yes, sir. 5 Q Doctor, hold that in your mind -- 6 A Right* * / ? 11 ,, ' 'L j r 7 Q -- that Zack-rGaffey tshowed that./ 8 A , Right. , v* ', - r t v , - i j"3 . ^ r >. 9 Q All r i g h t . - Now' that shows that dioxin and PAB 10 working together can causemorefbladder'cancer-than PAB' 11 alone, doesn't it? , 12 A No, sir. 13 Q Doctor, didn't you,'just say that Zack-Gaffey 14 Study showed that? Am 1 ribt hearing the words that you're 15 saying? Didn't you just say that, Doctor? 16 A I said in that study they showed an excess of 17 bladder cancer, that's right. 18 Q Now, Doctor, that study shows that the ones that 19 were exposed to dioxin and PAB have more bladder cancer 20 than those that are not exposed to1dioxin; correct? 21 A No, sir, I don'tknow that. 22 Q isn't that whatthe study showed, Doctor? 23 A No, sir* 24 G . Do you have an exhibit in front of you, Doctor? 1 A No, sir 2 MR.HEINEMAN: Page 582? 3 MR* CARRi Page 586., I think is the proper one 4 Q- (By Mr* Carr) Is it not, Doctor? 5 MR. HEINEMAN: Bottom.Of page 582* 6 THE WITNESS! Table 9?; 7 MR* CARRi'582? Table 9. Mot 582. 8 Q (By Mr. Carr) Doctor,-in each instance there is 9 a high rate of bladder cancer, is there not, sir? 10 A yes, sir. 11 Q And according to Zack-Gaffey it's 809 percent 12 higher than expected for the people exposed to dioxin, is it 13 not, sir? 14 A yes, sir* 15 Q Doctor, doesn 't that indicate that there is a 16 connection between dioxin and bladder cancer? 17 A No, sir* 18 Q It doesn't indicate that? 19 A NO, sir* 20 Q Doctor, the group of people at the Monsanto 21 Plant that we've established all have some exposure to 22 dioxin, don't they, sir? 23 A Theoretically, yes* 24 Q Well, not just theoretically* We know, in fact, 1 that they have some exposure'to dioxin 2 A NO, sir. 3 Q You don't know that? 4 A No, sir Absolutely not. S Q Didn't you*just agree ,to that, Doctor? 6 * 1, - A Pardon? 7 Q Didn't you agre'-- haven't you agreed to that 8 a half a dozen times? ; . r - ' . - *i . 1_ . 9 A Theoretically each time 10 Q It's not theory, Doctor The chemical is there 11 The department takes one'whole block of the Nitro Plant* 12 The railroad, where-it's carried right through to the other- 13 end of the plant. There's a building at the one end of the 14 plant that was used to create the stuff, and package the 15 stuff. There's buildings all over the plant. You can't 16 go in that plant at Nitro without being next to someplace 17 v/here they have done something with 2,4,5-T, or TCP; isn't 18 that correct? They've excavated -- as late as 1983, Doctor, 19 the BPA required you to excavate soil because it was dioxin 20 contaminated. Many years after you quit doing it. After 21 you quit making the stuff. 22 A No, sir, I don't think that's correct. 23 Q You don't think that's right? 24 A J No, sir. Q' YOu d o n 11 recall excavating the soil along the south fence in 1983? You don't recall paving over areas of yodr plant to prevent people from being exposed to thJ dioxin? You don't recall the wipe samples being' -- the dioxin being found years later, many years later in that plant? You don't recall any of those ;things, Doctor? A Yes, sir* Yes, sir* Q You do recall those things? k ` Yes* Yes, sir, Q Now? Doctor, they quit making the dioxin, the 2,4,5-T in 1969 and 1970 in that building, other people have worked in that building since that time on -other processes, havn't they, sir? In all those buildings. A No, sir. Q Those buildings have been abandoned? A Yes* Q They haven't been used since *69? A I think there's one that's still in use* Q Yes, Doctor, And the people that work in that building are exposed to dioxin everyday, aren't they? Your wipe samples showed that, didn't it, sir? A That doesn't meanthey've been exposed everyday* Q Doctor, the dioxin was there, and they're workin? there, they're exposed to it, aren't they? BAYONNE, N.J, -I '2 3 4` 5 67, 8, 9 10 .11 12 13 14 15- 16' 17 18. J9 20 21 22 23 24 and places like .that to see:/i there's any evidence of it ^ ,,,, 1 j ^t i ~ * in-the plant* fVfr , _ .... J r V; ^ lU^vvN?\ Q'. . wtiat were fchey.getti.hg lof the rafters# Doctor? Dust, weren't they?-. -* tm a . yes, sir. ; iS; / *r '* ; ii / * h\ L` i ;Q ' r' , s 't -V And; Doctor,/does dust \.Sj c j HV have "you "ever seen a train come along -- along next to the plant? Have you ever seen the dust come put^ of rafters when the building shakes? Have you ever seen that,"Doctor?, -Have you never been in the plant when there^ s/vibrations/going on? , - A The .trains, don't-run. passedcther;/ < ,,1 > ./ ,, ^ Q ' , ,,A truck runs passed there. r r ,*r ^ , Wind* A storm . comes along, the building shakes* Haven't you seen things1 come from'the rafters* from those overhead beams, Doctor? A No, sir*' \ k `,v ' ; o *. A1 you haven't seen'that? \ . ' ,. - _ No, sir. ` ' ' *, j ' 1 Q Are you'suggesting that it doesn't'happen? A * ,No,Jsir* . Q, t/ Haven' t you been -- - A,.;/ No, .sir* ^ *r , " Q . .You kribw.it happens* .You-know that dust comes down from those rafters; you know, that,, don't,you, Doctor? A - NO,. -I, don't* ; . 70 BAYONNE. .J. 07002 1 -2 3 4 5 16 7 8' '9 10 11 ' 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1? 20 21 22 23 24 ' Q 1 Well, Doctor,'does,your scientific mind tell ' '-. ' ' . {\ \l , .' ; '< 'i \. J } \t K> it ^ :'>v ' 'I'il ' ' you that, there are occasions-since 19697when somebody in that building that-dust^ that dioxin on those rafters could' *. > > ::v-y\ v /y >. have fallen on. those pebpie?v 7 " ' 1 ''v !n" : A . Yes; sir.'/' p f \ z>`y -M r i r ;:v.vJ' _ \ y k - \ ` v > ? I v f. - Q ; . Your mind will permit that deduction, won't it,/, sir? j >'7'^.' 7.7 ; A ' -Yes, 'sir.. ' L'; ' ' Q * . Then you do know that it does occur, don't you, , sir? J . '': ` ; : .'' `J:V . ' A , '"1 don Vt knowvthat. '^ 'V ,, q : " Why don*t you know it, .Doctor? i- * "7 1l 4 r -* A . -Because I can't measure it. ' Q .Doctor, they measured -r- we went through that o n c e T h e y measured, they found it in the rafters, in that building#' \ '`J' > V .- A . Yes,** sir# 'X 7 t Q ' They took wipe samples, they found it there 1' T* ' t m r * 1 1 ' ,r in the dust* " , r- - A , Yes, sir. \ ./ y.' Q r .vHad been there for years and years# . ' - A7Vv ' Yes, sir. ' ` ^ ;j Q So they did measure it> didn't they, sir? , A\ y. y e s , .sir# '' . 71 1 / 21 3 A' 5 6 7 8 r9 10y ii . ' 12 13 , 14, is L > r 16 17 ' 18.. 1? 20 22 23 24 ' ' , ' `. * - v,/ '* . ' ' Q f So you do ^ - -rev -j'.ria.- , .. j.-j-,---. V r t \ ? i `U V.A*. Jjv , V ' t' know it, t h e n ,/don't you,:sir? , W ' A 1 NO,;sir. <' f--i JJ. 'V/,. V - * -* J '' .; 1 .^ ^ ' --i 11 M ^ \^ 1 >,'y\ -1 > ~ * t j[ ^ ^ Q ' ,^ I thought you "said 'you, 'dldn11 'know It' because you .couldn't measure, it* ; ^V^"- t-H U ) r ^ f L A 'y r;-;Yes/ir<*^ ." . \ ;% '- Q y r,' isn't t h a t why you " ,J~ 'J - . saidyou r ' "" d i * d l nr't1 khow' it?? - > \ '1 ^ j . ,, tr * A l t/' I said, I'd o n 't know that the man has been getting -that exposure.' ' J y V ; / 'y-\ V - 1/ -"-l. ' . * *" -t \ 1j ' ;k. " . ', * . ,j ^ ; Q No , Doctor f you getdifferentreasons atdifferent, .times#."You said once'that you/ddn't know that it ever gets rr .-_;v ; j-; yr y t v. t ;; , 1 there* We ^demonstrated- It logically that dust would fall- on them from time to time. -We demonstrated that, and you; . ." * \^ 'J ,F * " r* -? * " mi* ' /agreed with/that, that logically you would agree*- Then you said ypu-don't know it because it's.not been measured#` But it has-been measured* / . :r ` , . / ... A `; ; Not in men* Not by personal exposure.; , .y JQ ; . Doc tor >r.thd dust `ha s' been measu red in tho se buildings^ by you, and.by ,the EPA, was it not, sir? i ' 'A V ' Y e s , s i r * ; ^ " ,/ - * 1, Q And -the dust was found to con tain-dioxin, didn't] - it, s_ir? * ;/ ,v -^ r'^ .'t - ! A v> -- :- Y e s i - e i r 4 f - , , ^ ^ ."q ;r; ; Doctor, th o s e people in those buildings were exposed to that .dioxin, weren't they,.sir?.* I 72 'i n r- ` ^ .V' i 'i\ Vi 1'''V -" , \ *1 . '. r v>- :f* j i, - n ** v t "i * * y * " "` ,, 1 .A I D o n 't know, t`t" '/% ' ' 2 ,Q , Why ,is it ly o) u1 ,, 3on*Vt %;knS,q- w>poc` vti..o1' r1?-v? V*.\^ 3 Because I don't know whether that exposure has ' ' ' Vi t\ < T i\ J ;** f.-1< ;V - ` " - ` t. 1 i v v ' , ; i ' 4 taken place -r-if .you c a n 't measure it, you can'tsay,,it's 5 there. 6 Q Doctori we went" through;-- we're going in 7 'circles,. You agreed that it was "measured, *^ ,,> * l ' -l j*-lr ' "* 'r 8 A ' I 'm/talking about in the air. . 9' Q ' Doctor^ when it getskoff of the rafters,'it L 10 settles,. It's.heavier than air, is n 't it, sir?' . 1L ; A ,, ..'Yes, sir '* : \ ` 12, . Q ' And it will settle on anybody that's there. . 13 It will *settle on the; flqor, it will settle on the workmen, 14 .won't it, sir? > ' . / > ' 15 A If it. does settle out, yes, sir. J 16 Q So you donft have to measure it in.the air to 17 know they're exposed, to it, do you, sir? /' 18 -,r ' <A .No, sir.' ; . ; j *' V 19 ' ' G ' . D o c t o r , ; d o y o u n o w agree that men working in 20 _ * that plant, not making 2,4,5-rT,. are exposed to dioxin? 21 A- ,, Possibly some of.,them, y e s , .sir * 22 All right, r Now they suggest here, Miss Strauss 23 suggests that these two matters acting together would m a k e . * jr . * -j r 24 matters worse. Do you agree" with that? * A ' NO, sir., :, / ,<u' `.x'j *,: ' y V r , ;>'/ , V, - - - Q , All-right* I won/t get anymore arguments; with ' . ; '; " - Sx:.i | i `.'iiv \ j. : you* But that's what she suggests, isn't it, sir? A Yes, sir. -Q r Now she also.says,;the next question, since it causes multiple tumor types in experimental animals ;at"very ,low levels of exposure, why do you feel that it may not also cause cancer in the-exposed Nitro workers* Do you agree with'her Suggestion, first of all, that it.cahses cancer in, - experimental'animals? / / ,-A 'Yes,sir/ ' ' * _ - ` ' Q " 'And tumors, by the, way, when you say tumor, you mean either a malignant or benign-tumor, don't you, sir? That's a broad word, includes both kinds? A* ' No, we're.talking about malignant, tumors,. Q . Yes. But the word, just using the "word tumor-by itself, doesn't tell youiwhether it's benign or malignant, ' ' * does -it? " J . ; ; - ^ ir r .' ` ,F ' ' A i. That's f i g h t s ' t. Q j Tumor is the word that encompasses both benign, -r-o malignant and. benign growth? , A .Yes, sir. ' Q , But-she is talking ,in.this: instance,,because - c '-tl *' * - .. r` ja i ^ ^ j: -* of the context, you know that she's talking about cancer. PENGAO CO ., BAYONNE, N.J. 1. .2 3 4 .5 ' 6 7' 8 9' IQ 11 12 13 14 15 16 : 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 * , * ^ "" " '^ * , ^l,,L ; v / V j >rv - \ i ,V r J "V k V `*-i ' 1**! ^ Ji *\ ' ^ 'V . ;V; ^ ^ -* f:.* A v yes,, sir. t 1 hH"J^mi ,; v h' r r i ^ i^ 11^*.* ^ 1'^ 1 .^ Q And, Doctor, do `you Jagree, :her- next suggestion- that it may also cause1cancer in exposed Nitro workers?; I can answer:it for 'you, Doctor, you don't agree to that, do you? . ' J' " A That's right# ' V " - -* s j^ ' \' Q 1 .And we'ye' already got';into 13, so, we can skip ' over. that. How about Number 14?,. Do you agree that-you ,' ` * ^ ^ I * .'k L *t ' should wbrr^ J-- first of all, synergistic action between. chemicals1means that one acts upon the other,to make some thing occur that w o u l d 'not have.,occurred, without the two. .chemicals" being together. \ ,> A- . That isn't what is meant. But that's part.of:*J it. j . L ' - ' ;! - Q W e l l , the sum of the .two is .greater than each * one 'by itself. You will get vmore than two.. One and one -- ' . two chemicals put together wiil give you more than, two* :A Yes^ sir*- That's, w h a t it means. Q That's what it means. Nov; what about that? <- " f*- , ,, You didn't worry about\ihaty did you. Doctor? A ^ Y e s , si r (; . 1 ' '.You di d worry about it? -- ^ ' A v -Yes, sir. \ Q Do you: agree that therre is -- that you did 75 I permit exposure to people that had 2,4,5-T, hydrogen sulfide 2 I suppose that is, and PAB? 3 A Yes, sir* 4 Q And you didn't worry about it, or did you worry 5 about it? A We monitored.for them to see what was in the 6 7 affect* ^ 8 Q What did you find? 9 A We didn't find anyevidence ofaffect. 10 Q Well, then you didn't worry about it anymore? 11 A Now if I find out that there's no synergistic 12 action, I don't. . > 13 Q You don't believe that dioxin and PAB work 14 together, y o u 're back on that thesis again, to promote IS cancer? 16 A This study here that you asked me to read said 17 it doesn't. 18 Q I'm sorry? 19 A This document you just gave me.to read says it 20 doesn't. 21 Q Doctor, all that document is, as you well.know, 22 is a study of people exposed to dioxin. 23 A No, sir. 24 Q ,That document created by Zack-Gaffey put in. PENGAO. C O ,, BAYONNE. N .J. 07002 FORM I L , 2 4 B. 1 _2 L-. '3 4 S' - .6 7 -8 r9 10 II \2 13 14 15 16 . 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 made no distinction between people that/were exposed to . the dioxin,JTCP a n d ,the people that were exposed to just , 2,4,'3-T, and Table 11 is fine evidence of that, isn't it, sir? . ./A \ V- a ' -7. . 'V JYes. -But that also;took out many other causes Of death too*. ../:v'7 V- Q ' Well, Doctor* .'that's not the question,,that I'm 1 asking you* This Zack-Gaffey study"is no a. study of people' who were exposed to TCDD', is it, sir? Even though it purports, to be that. ; / ; - .^ _/ h L ': Y $ s r.sir,.it is.";v \ ' 7 ( . '' ' ' .They have'mixed the groups, have they not, ' 1 * Doctor? ' *- . .: 'j i* ,, ._ ;* `-' , v. ..I, , . , _A('. v.Yes sir.-'V - . ^ . / ^ ^-V . *Q . ..'Then you cannot compare the groups if you mik- the#,-can you, sir?'7 ,, A - /. Yes, sir.'. '"r q ; Hov; can ybu.compare it, Doctor? 7/7_ A,- By comparing the way they did. ;- Q s i .Well, .Doctor,'you see .here,they put four people that they knew were exposed to dioxin,;they put it in the . unexpbsed group. , n^. y-M. 4,, -.....* .\J.iV.. ... ^ ' ifS* , ,- ' - -* '> . i . .A' ' , -Yes, sir* L' * *^ -L - 1 sJ i- / iii `ih.* ' r - i * Doctor; wte-,dpn't ,needLto go through'that again j 1.' ' " >rt i ui v 'j .ivr'i\ ; \y. . . .. . - ' -- -v- -r 7r .i,\!r .IP- . - .y: i.-*y xre\ ,, ? ' . )1 1 J* V <i', :? .J ii; 1 V>J> i ., .v 77 1 do we? Well, Doctor, I w o n 't go through it again, I'm 2 going to pass to the next question here. C I 2 has got 3 nothing to do with the case. So.we can pass by that. What 4 about 16, do you agree that TCDD has been reported to cause 5 toxic effects upon multiple organ systems? 6 A Yes, sir. 7 Q And do you agree that it would potentiate the 8 toxic effects due to other toxic.agents in the plant 9 environment? 10 A There's no evidence.that it does. 11 Q Then you do n 't agree? 12 A No, sir. 13 Q You have to have absolutely evidence that it 14 does before you would agree to this statement; is that right 15 sir? 16 A There's no evidence that they do. 17 Q Excuse me. Do you agree with it or not, Doctor? 18 A I d o n 't agree that it potentiates* 19 Q All right* Th a t 's what I expected* How the 20 next question, "What role do Monsanto wastes play in the 21 increased cancer rate in the Kanawha,; Valley?- i ," 22 A -None* ' 'r 23 Q Just like Monsanto plays no:role In the increase 24 heart disease rate? ' i t' - i k.` 1 N,, 1 '2 , A Yes, sir. .^ " '*i. .u ; - ' V jr ' v Q , . How much are. the>-- how-much is .the cancer rat 3 increased in Kanawha Valley /overthe rest of/the population? 4 A. I don11/know what/total cancer is. I don't *5' .have that data. \ ` \. 6. '7'. Q Have there/been studies done? v A ' / Yes, sir. /vV 1-\ --/:Y ^/ " -// / 8/ Q ,: ' And you do know that they do have higher cancer > rates? .'/\ , 'Y \ ! 1 ' '>-A;**''' Yes., . ; . '\ . ' Y / n . vV ` `Q \ ` If I asked you all those questions,about this v . 12 / increased cancer ratej the,same .questions I asked you about . 13 . > the increased cardio vascular rate,' .would your answer, be . 14 /- that it's the lifestyle .that's,causing the cancer rates 15' .to be higher? ,/ \ ; 1 J 16 : 17 - ' .Yes, si^r\.- s ^ " ,r i-Y' '. /'j".',.Yl' ,, Q' ; And if I-asked you the questions whether or not 18 . you investigated'th lifestyle of these people ,in the 19 ./Kanawha Valley to.find/out whether or not they1re doing 20 /something that could/cause^them/to be .afflicted with more, // r' // , Y//Y i -,(Y U ,/?'v ;Y-Y/Y' /._, /. 21 cancer, 'would your answers^ be,th/sarae,7that ;yo,u'haWn't 22 done any uch study?, -v, / -^ ^ 23 * ; 24 ' A ''' We`did'a sudyl'.on*our"'pbpui"atidnr -of all of our - ( ,y *'*" j f- " " tj lung cancer was smokers,/ail; but one. > , - /. _ . ' ..... / ;v: ,,*Yi/ , R E N G A D ' co.. B A Y O N N E * FO , Q , All that proves, Doctor, is the point..that I'm trying to prove, that this, causesjlung cancer in people who, .would not otherwise\get it, even" though they smoke*,. That's the point, Doctor, of the study*;;. Aren It you aware of that^ 1 sir? 4 ..* j \ ; \ ;;. A -' Yes, s i r . ; r ... - `Q> ,Doctor r what it means .is that absent dioxin, a smoker might not get cancer. Absent exposure to the'1 chemicals put out by. Monsanto,. and. by others, the smoker might be able to smoke, if he,weren't exposed to the dioxin* If he weren't exposed ?to the chemicals* Do,you see that, P!, r . V :' '* ,* ` W rv > ' v- t. * Doctor i '1as- the affect-of these1studies? .Did the fact, that there are 10. lung-cancer .deaths in smokers, now you know-you .got a lot more smokers, there is no distinction between , s m . m ~, t 1t ., exposed and 'unexposed as far as smokers is concerned, is. : there; sir? .You-don't know'any difference between whether *r - t f__ P L ` _ or not people smoke.or d o n 't smoke* and being exposed or t '*l r 'V ` not exposed?^ ^ ", / ' A, We didn't do it like we did oh those 10, - ^fV'V : f\ -* .r;T--:.V:;-. i\ ^ ` ` Q.yy , All righ^t;, v Doctor rlwhat iybu'do "know, this' population of smokersV if they're not exposed;to dioxin, " . - ,' V ' i,' l*- -t . ,, ,v ,u-*- '* . :' ; you only get three cases of l u n g 'cancer, but if they are , exposed' to, dioxin you get .ten .in. a,.smaller denominator, in / \ 1 v* *' : ? H 4 :.*j 4 : >v ;*; a smaller' group* , . > / -\ B A Y O N N E , N,J. '0 70 01 F O R M , IL 2 4 0 1; 2 '3 '4 5 .. 6 , 1. .8 ; 9 10 U . 12 ' 13 14 . IS -16 17 r 18 ; 19 20 .O Z w, 21 22 23 J 24 A /, n o , .sic* * y L- kr - - r . -_ ^ - . Q , Doctor, I 'm not going toJgo through that again* But we did `establish those numbers this morning, did we not? The.ten and the three* Remember that^ Doctor?.. *1 A Yes, sir* . y * *K ' -' QV;. rJust this\morning* -h y 1` ,/ \ 'A .- Yes, sir*/ ' , ' ` ' > * -' , " : ^ ; ` Q 'y We, did establish the denominator was- greater . in the unexposed g r o u p ,than it.was^in the exposed-group. Remember that, Doctor?,' ;v ' ^ y ' ^ , . , A ` Y e s , 'sir*, v y / V-. \ y ' ' Q . Just this .morning? y . r rJ , S ` t '' t - A -r ` Yes, ,sir. r 'V -* , - ;- 1` 1, ^ /' , ' . , . Q V y *We didJestablish the denominator ws greater in the'unexposed group than it was in .the exposed group* Remember-that, Doctor? *. r * * _ - ' ,j - ^ iy ^ 1' '* % - A. Yes, sir. , *, 1^.- * *. r s ` * * .Wt N 4.-A '' ; . 0 ,,-j: ; -l :\: ;l /.- J -y ,i y Q ' * And w established;that there/are; 10 lung cancer i' * . . r> i;. / . J , '^ j L . S ,. ~f` " / >' '' ' ^ in th smaller 'group is a higher/rate than three lung cancer 1 y -,t ; . * - y y y y y \ ? \ % y-, * ',, : in the larger group*";l y \i%'[ * V y y -j-3 SL-i i v ^ ' * A * I?nf sorry/ I d o n 1tHaccept that. ;I'm riot sure . ' - /' .i*1 !i'1/j ,^ `1/ '' ):"'i ^ - -, . ' .*.V'. ^ \ iv.. j; v *> , . w e rve got the. data -r I have' to look, at the data before I 4- can say- that. .. \ *4. r " ... ; k y>. 81 1. -Jrj* - Q Doctor, w.e established this morning, and I'a not 2.'' going to establish it again,;that the exposed group, was .. ' ; y smaller than th unexposed group; didn't w, sir? /L 1' * . J ^ ^J '4 *4 .A Yes, sir.; ''^ , 5- Q -, Arid the smaller ..exposed group had 10 lung cancer e 6 -didn't it, sir? r 1 'r 7 . A . Yes, sir*; I think that's right* I'd like to "^ tii-* ' * " \ _ >' - 8 look at it* . ': ^ - -* - " ' i - ' V :. . ' * - .A ,9 Q .-v The larger ;tho u'nexposed. -- the unexposed group 10 was larger, we established,that, didn't we. Doctor? 11 : v. .. ; ' 12 Yes, -sir ?; v ' r ;L - 'v'-' :'" ' *-v' " V ' * '*' V 'Q\ \ There was-only three lung cancers* in'.that larger 13 14 ' 15 group, we established that this morning, didn't.w, Doctor? , S' --r .+*'* > ` * , ` ' `1 J > ^ ' 1 -, -V i ," ' , '`'. J ,A rr ` I have;to .look at the data. That doesn't help.1' .i F * t. ^ * me* I have to lookVafc .the-reports. B i V O N N E . N.J. O T O O F O R M IL 1 4 8 16 Q Doctori -this is the .report* Thisv^tble is taken 17 18 . 19 20 , .from- t h e report. `A ".ma Yes, v J'ij-t*iV f- >',yu>i ; f. .- . . ,- v`;, `r!\ J - V V 7' W W t-- O* 7 ; 1 . Q -. You have the report right here in front of you* - 'A; '.Xes, sir.fc, j U/Y 21 * 22 23 24 ' . Q .; :Threa lung cancers, in the tinexposecl group to *. . ,, *-'j ; v yf-j>- j.*' \ '* i. - . . - - - E 1- ^ ; < f ' TCDD; correct, Doctor? It might help you to .look" at Table It there. Doctor* ^Have. you got. Table 11? . You want me to find it .for you?^ , - 82 1 A I've got it, sir* 2 Q Okay. Look at Table 11 and eliminate the four 3 with the underline, and count the lung dancers after 4 eliminating those four* 5 A X have to see what it does to the study. 6 Q Doctor, I'm not asking you to do that. I'm 7 not attempting for you to analyze the study. I'm attempting 8 to establish a point that we established this morning. I'm 9 not asking for a critique of the study. 10 A Yes, sir. 11 Q Now, according to Table 11, there are only three 12 lung cancers in the unexposed group deaths, aren't there? 13 .A Yes, sir. 14 Q And now are we agreed that according to Table 15 11 and according to Table 10, Table 10 is the exposed group 16 A Yes, sir. 17 Q -- we add "those four*to the ten, to Table 10? 18 A Yes,Wsir. -V * ' 19 Q And we'vegot tenand ,three, haven't we, sir? 20 A Yes, sir. 21 G Now, is itpossible. Doctor, that'-- well, 22 haven't we now established, Doctor, that It's the dioxin 23 has a greater affect on having luiig cancer than the cigarett 24 *smoking? 1 A No, sir* 2 Q Doctor, we've got only threedeaths in a larger 3 group, haven't we, sir? 4 A Yes, sir* 5 Q Much larger group? 6 A Yes, sir* 7 Q - And we've got ten deaths in a much smaller 8 group, haven't we, sir? 9 A Y e s fsir. 10 Q Doesn't that have just alittle hit of II convincing you, Doctor* that a person could, perhaps, smoke 12 and the list wouldn't he near as great -- we could get away 13 with smoking. I smoked for 20 years, Doctor, and I finally 14 quit. My wife still smokes. 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Q Isn't it possible that if, we weren't exposed 17 to dioxin and other chemicals that can do the same thing, 18 that would promote cancer, isn't it-possible that smokers sj ', ,, 19 who smoke and have -a much lower risk of having -- it 20 wouldn't be eliminated, I'm hot suggesting that it would. 21 But isn't'it possible, based upon just this study alone, 22 just this one -- 23 A NO, sir* 24 Q -- it's not possible? 1 Q Doctor, what other reason could there be for 2 increased cancer rate in the Kanawha Valley# except the 3 chemicals to which those people are exposed? 4 A That they smoke* 5 Q Doctor, we've already gone through that* People 6 all over the country smoke, 7 A Yes, sir, 8 Q Is there anyevidence that the people in the 9 Kanawha Valley are more -- smoke more than the people in 10 Belleville? 11 A X don't know that* 12 Q Then you have absolutely no evidence to suggest 13 that it's because -- that the higher rate is because they 14 smoke? IS A Yes, sir*':- / ' * ' 16 Q What do youhave, sir? 17 A Because when people go in.therhospital and they 18 operate them for lung cancer, the ones who get lung cancer 19 are the ones who are heavy smokers* - 20 Q There's no doubt about that. Doctor* I'm not 21 quarreling with that* That's got nothing to do with the 22 question' that I'm asking you. 23 A I think it does* 24 Q. Doctor, what I'm asking you is there any reason 1 for the smokers in Belleville to have a less risk of lung 2 cancer than the smokers in Kanawha Valley? 3 A Yes, sir. They don't smoke as much* 4 Q* No, Doctor. You don't know that at all. 5 A No. I don't have a fact, no, sir. 6 Q You don't have the slightest idea that that's 7 the case. Do you. Doctor? 8 A Medical evidence would say it is. 9 ..Q The only, medical evidence you've got is that 10 they got lung cancer. II A Yes, sir. 12 Q So what we've got in KAnawha Valley is smoker, 13 lung cancer* plus dioxin* What we have in Belleville is 14 smoker and less lung dancer . ' . J 15 A Yes, sir. ; j r 16 Q The only difference is the dioxin, or the other 17 chemicals. I don't want to blame it all on dioxin. The 18 other chemicals in the Kanawha Valley. That's the only 19 difference in the hypothetical that I've given you, and you 20 don't know of any other difference, do you, Doctor? 21 A No, sir. / 22 Q Doctor, I promised you at the lunch hour that I 23 would give you a copy of the most recent New Zealand Study 24 Would you mark this as Plaintiff's Exhibit. > 1 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1523 was marked 2 for identification by the court reporter.) 3 4 Q (By Mr. Carr) Doctor, is the American 5 Journal of Epidemiology a recognized, authoritative medical publication? 6 1' A It's a Referee Journal, yes, sir. 8 Q You recognise Plaintiff's Exhibit 1523 as being 9 an article published in the American Journal of Epidemio 10 logy in 1985? 11 A Yes, sir. 12 MR. CARR: X offer that exhibit into evidence, 13 if it please the Court. V' 14 MR, HEXNEMANx No foundation laid for it, IS your Honor. I have to object o n :that basis.* It's hearsay. 16 There's no foundation for it. 17 Q (By Mri Carr). Well,,let me ask him. Do you 18 accept this article published in the American Journal of 19 Epidemiology as an authoritative publication? 20 A No, sir. 21 Q Why wouldn't you,Doctor? | 22 A It doesn'tmean -- these are their findings. rI I 23 That doesn't mean it's authoritative. 24 Q Doctor, you don't understand the meaning of the 1 word -- this article -- this is a peer reviewed article, 2 is it not? . 3 A Yes, sir. 4 Q And other scientists in the community read 5 this arid accept it as peer reviewed^ They.may not agree 6 with its conclusions, mind you. Nobody is suggesting 7 that But it is in a recognized authoritative publication. 8 A Yes, sir. Absolutely. 9 Q Yes, And it is peer reviewed, isn't it, sir? 10 A Yes, sir. 11 MR. CARR* I offer it again, your Honor. 12 MR. HEINEMAN: *Same objection, your Honor. 13 Hearsay, no foundation. 14 - THE COURT:1. Overruled; Foundation is adequate. ' -T 41 t , hJ 1 15 Admitted over objection. 16 0 {3y Mr. Carr), Doctor, is this the first time 17 y o u 've seen this particular article? 18 A Yes, sir.-. 19 Q I w o n 't cross examine you at length about it. 20 But it deals with cancer in aggricultural occupations. 21 You can see that from the summary at the very first -- at 22 the top of it, can you not? 23 A And forestry. 24 Q I 'm sorry. And forestry, yes. 07002, I ,2 J3 4 5 '6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 oe o 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 & But they're saying -- you re right. It's aggr icu1tura1 r 0 I 'm sorry? A You're right, it's agricultural. Q" Doctor, the,last sentence of it, and I do not want to Suggest to you that the authors of this article say that exposure to herbicides is the only possible cause of this .increase* They pose three possible causes in the'; aggricultural workers* And I don't want to get into detail with it, because it's a lengthy article.and you haven't read it* But just directing your attention to the very last sentence in that abstract, it says, does it not, sir, "Mortality from malignant lymphoma and multiple myeloma increased significantly during the period 1955-1979?" A Yes, sir. ' 0 All right. Doctor; I'd like to direct your attention to the Monsanto Exhibit 55, the Missouri Division of Health Study. It was what Mr* Heineman questioned you about* MR. USIKEMAN: Excuse me, your Honor. May counsel approach the bench? THE COURT: Sure. {The following proceedings were had at the b e n c h , o u t of the hearing of the*jury:) ' \ \ 89 V" S 4' F- ,2 MR. HEINEMAN: Could I be" mistaken, or :does it look like there1s a/portion .of that abstract that1s missing? , , v''// MR. CARRij,V Y o u 're'mistaken, because these.are '- .key words. That's all that;is. ' 6 7 ' V ` MR. HEINEMANt Is that what, that is? ' / iri h1 ' -K/i-F' t- r^ ' - ^ J k, \ f ' MR. CARRi Sure; that*s.the way-it's "listed . 8 under. - - . '* 9 ` ` . 10 : ' .THE COURT:" You; mean for reference; to-find, it? :* \ * 1 \ i .. / -y ; MR. CARR: _ Rightv " /` J P E N G A D CO., B A Y O N N E , N.J. 07 00 1. F O B * li.' Z * B . \ 11 1 12 . 13. 14 15, J, LJV , / f16' .v "17 18 19 20 1.21 r -'22/ 23 ' 24 , : J;:' MR. 'HEINEMAN i -All right. ,Sp that-doesn't -- , there's nothing missing in here? . /MR.rCARR: To my knowledge, this is the way I received it, Counsel* ' J / ..MR. HEIN^MAN: JNot from me.. r , / / ' MR. CA^(. No.. V *" ' `. ;r .MR. HEINEMAN: Okay.t' , 1 V v " . (The following proceedings .were'had in the' 1 presence and hearing/of,the jury:) . \v/ < MR. CARR: / Do you have the Monsanto Exhibit 55, or do you have it, ,Counsel?. .Does the Clerk :have it,or .do / r l ^ * t * * 11 i ^ -j 4 you have" it? . 1 " , ' .' ;|v !V;m r .?kEINEMAN:" ytoehayerit r i ght here,-.if I'm ' . j/, ;. . f' -"'V j ^:*r <'*m*.j/ v-/ '- ".t I T'* ; ' not mistaken. Careful, that first page you're about to ^-v- ;V' 'vs- 1 */.& :. ` s.^ v- i U-. 90 '1' :` i' 2 -3 '' 4 * .S 6/ 7 :, [8 t `9 10 .11 if .1-2 - 13 14, 15 ; J Jt 16 - if"-' 18 19 20 - 21 u; 22".. 23. 24 lose. r- yp n. \ ' 9 , .V-, ` ^ ;Q"\,, ` ( B y M r ...Carr) Doctor / 'handing' you. Defendant* s ' Exhibit 55. . Do yo recall M r . Heineman questioned you about \that?, ^ r *>r- r '' ' y - \\. ' < ` ' [ &-' ; y s r sir.\-`' ''J.. v `> LV 1 ^ . " * f Q First of ,all f to start-with, you re aware of V rt <1- " . i"1 m ' J * f ' i_ * j `F * t ^ 1 ^ M r V V-i i'J ' J 'li` ' f ^ V* ft j 1< .t h e f act /> while Mr..Heineman d i d n 1t.bring -it "out,. you *re: ; -aware-of the fact that this was study' based upon ques- ,' . `*; r*''',.f r,J ,!, - *- -1 ' "-t' `' -J1' r' - ' > ,r '1- ' , --- Ll,"--[ \ " `.` -.. tiohnairs;sent to people,who live "inrthe contaminated - r .",r': ' ''* ,r .-13', '-f '/ ' . r V, ' r - . areas'round'St. Louis;. - Y o u k n o w that, don't you? - \jk. Yes, s i r w > - `' -T ' Q /' And they]divided;into;two groups, 'the people they call high ri s k r'.the..ones that answered that they. ,;f? ;; wer,e most exposed; to, dioxin, and low, risk *groups, the ones; that would have ,the ;essr exposure to dioxin.: . " > *- 1 ,h j' ; Yes,^ sir., ;iv ` v`:1 ^t J- >, 5 . . ' "t , ^ " f' *' r ' -.r y . - * * j; ( ^ .' '^ y . , u" , 1 rl ' r* 1- I * -rJ. : Q You know that, d o n 't you? -.1 V : ' ;J p. j F * t. ^ . f.*1 ^fc# - ^ ' . ^.r - ' r,1 ^ '`l " ' l 1 * . - L # ^ i ' - p :;a v Yes;,sir. . ' ' ' JjS _ - f 'h ,, '' ^ i, - J '' i ^ '"5- . Q\;; So it Was not ;a; study of comparing people who : were exposed to dioxin to. people who were not.'exposed to '." v.. , , : ; ( ^ r / - ' .` V ^ ,- di4 on x. vi4n|.. was ' It,4 l a .nsi4 r? ;a- 4 1 - . . "t r `_. , . . . . - *' " XM i MR HEXNEMAN Objection, your Honor. We've ' .,, ' f 1 - ; " * Ij ^ j1" ~t' '<** ` '"vSv_i"' -v . ' . r e a d 'into -evidence- Wh a t 'the definitions of high a n d :low risk exposure w e r e ;rightfrom the paper. -Is he implying .-\ \ 1/-^ ^:.>*. eL p'-.* ^* -4.f. . '' ..n' r (V L , aj " p* * 1 ,r "^ ^ f V( fL'J.E''-.4VJlt ^f V'l i\' V"'c',^'f \ fC- " Vi k.-. 1 that we were suggesting that we left that out? 1f2 MR. CARR: What I'm trying to make clear, Mr. 3 Heineman, is that this study, just like the Zack-Gaffey 4 Study, just like the Moses-Selikoff Study, just like the 5 Zack-Suskind Study is not a study that compares unexposed 6 people to exposed peopled 7' THE WITNESS No, sir, 8 MR. CARR: It is the same sort of thing that 9 compares people with higher exposure to people with lower; 10 exposure. ^ 11 T H E .COURT: Objection is overruled. You may 12 continu. '` 13 Q (By Mr. Carr) Doctor,,to direct your attention 14 to the Page 49, first of all, if you would, called IS "Appendix A . " Do you see that, sir. 16 A \ Yes, sir. 17 Q Do you see there something that's called 18 "Distribution of. Porphyrins and Total Porphyrins in 19 Chronic Hepatic Porphyria?" 20 .r A 1 Yes, sir, r 21 Q // And, Doctor, -there, is a ratio set out there ; -,r' ;. v 11. -. ! ,t .''* *v 22, that's, for Coprb/Urp-ratio that,they call normal, that 23 this study conducted by St. Louis University Hospital, 24 St. Joseph Hospital, the Centers for Disease Control, and 1 1 Missouri Division of Healths They put a Table there for 2 a normal Copro/Uro ratio, did they not, sir? 3 A Yes, sir, 4 Q What is the normal ratio according to this 5 document? 6 A Two to six, 7 Q Doctor, are you aware of the faat that people 8 of Sturgeon, many of the people of Sturgeon have Copro-Uro 9 ratios- that are outside this normal ratio tv?o to six? 10 A No, sir. ii Q Are you familiar at all with Dr. Carnow1s 12 testimony, long involved testimony, as to the significance 13 of Copro-Uro ratios? 14 A No ,l sir- 15 0 Nobody has told you that Monsanto has taken 16 the position that the Copro/Uro ratio* there is no such 17 thing as a normal one, and that the two to six ratio 18 testified to by Dr. Carnow is hot the normal ratio? 19 A No, sir, but I don't believe in that ratio. 20 Q Well, X didn't ask you if you believed in it -- - 21 A J I understand. - 22 Q -- Dr. Roush. I know what your answer would be 23 in advance, if I asked' you 1 to* bSe*lrieve it. ' ,t--All- I'm asking l , * 1 ^^ . r,v 24 you is do you see that that' is tiie ratio used by the V PENGAD c o . . BAYONNE, N.J, 0 70 02 FORM IL HB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 I 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Missouri Division of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, St. Joseph Hospital, Kirkwood and St. Louis University Hospital, for urinary analysis of the porphyrins, A It's certainly cited. Q And they use the word HNormal two to six," d o n 't they, sir? A Yes, sir Q And they're talking about trying to find chronic hepatic porphyria, aren't they, sir? A Yes, sir. Q And, Doctor, they also show here that 1 Coproporphyrinuria is when the ratio is greater than six, don't they, sir? A Yes, sir. - Q And type A of the Chronic Hepatic Porphyria is when the ratio is greater than one* correct, sir? A Yes, sir. Q Type B is where it's less than one? A Yes, sir. Q And both Latent and Overt Porphyria Cutania Tarda also has ratios of less than one, do they not, sir? - A Yes, sir. - *, r\ , >- ; " f .' ,, , '* Q An inverted ratio that is. A Yes, sir 94 1 Q Now, Doctor, I'd like for .you now to turn to 2 Roman Number IV of this study, and to the bottom of the !' 3 page. 4- A Yes, sir, . I 5 Q They point out in this study that, "Finally 6 public health policy in situations such as this environ mental contamination with TCDD must continue to be focused 7'. t/ /8 on the prevention of any potential health effects even i f L / / such effects were not demonstrated in a small pilot study. ' i9 10 X Yes, sir. i 'll 0 It does say that, doesn't it? r\ 12 A Yes, sir. 13 Q It goes on to say that "Health effects could 14 occur with a latency period exceeding the time from initial, 15 exposure to examination in this study." %i 1 * 16 A- Ye?, sir. V 17 Q "For this reason, all appropriate efforts need 18 to he made to prevent human exposure." 19 A Yes, sir. ' . 20 Q . Do you agree with-that, Doctor? 21 A No, sir. They don't mean it either. r 22 Q They're*saying it there, but you're saying they 23 don't mean it? '.A Yes, sir. V BAYONNE. N ./: 0 T0 0 I FORM IL 24 B 8 9 10 11 , 12 13 ; i4 J* / is 16 ' J 17 1-8 1.9- 20 21 }r 2223 i 24 Q' Doctor, these people from St.`Louis University, -_ " f ` i. * - * from th Centers for-Disease Control, .and the Missouri Division of Health, -theyre responsible people, aren't they, sir? . v 4- A Yes,'sir; " /' ,, ` v '- f , , ir ' Q Huh? `` -r - * 4 ' . r * *. . ' 1 (- d /r ' ?. ; JV ` ,. ` Jt '- ' \ J* * 'j r ' 1 'A \ Yes, sir., `. , " ' - '- ' . Q , .And they're. not given to make'irresponsible and rash statements, are they, sir? . . . r v; A Not rash at that time. / - \Q Sir?- - r-, , 'V;' ,r V *.A Not rash at that time. ' :J - 0 . All right. And they meant what they said,.1r' di d n 't;;they, sir? ' A, *i -Q In 1983i yes, sir. \ '' . >4 i ,^ v Well, you said they didn't,mean it. ' " A They meant what they said in 19,83. iQ"': Yeah. And they meant in 1983 that 11 appropriate' efforts need to be made to prevent, human exposure, d i d n 't they^ sir?.^;- : ` i-1 ` ' . ' v **"j ; \* t i . * A"',- Ye s , vsir. \ w ' ; -. *' 'r. V ` jQ" .rirr But you at Monsanto/don' t agree' with, that, :* ' .., * f ' r \( \ . . ; 1 , i ' ` T ' iw Jx.. v 1v 'v* do you, sir? Never-have agreed with it, have you? NO. .. 1 ii t \ , *r r ' J * :. '!'t.r,<V M ^ .! - < , " 96 Q. And: for that reason,' because you don't agree' with that statement", you at Monsanto have done nothing with regard to the .'situation at Sturgeon, to prevent human exposure, have you, sir? r ' l,,t L A n o , sir. / A ' - e "J . ; _/ r* Q Now, Doctor, if you* 11 turn to;page.;14, if you would, of this styidy# ' A '.' \ A . J Table 2 there.- . . ;} o,. Do you see that, sir? -- , '. \ V A.`. 'Yes, sir, > ', Q And Table 2 talks, about"Relative Carcinogenic ^; Potencies Among Selected Chemicals Evaluated by thie - Carcinogen Assessment Group as Suspect Human Carcinogens," 1ir T n* Do you see that, sir? ,'L 1 r 1 p :,V '.1 ' - A 'r`Yes, sir.\ r* '. ;j; ' ' Q And do y o u `see TCDD listed as one of those? ./ A Yes, sir, ' `- ` Q ' And they list Aflatoxin.B^, Benzo(a)Pyrene, Beryllium, Carbon Tetrachloride, DDT, Epichlorhydrin, ,. ` , i ` H ^ (' ," ^ /V \i ; . >1--* i ; *, jl' r ' v i 1 ; Tehylene Dibromide/ vPCBs, TCDD. and .Vinyl Chloride; do they not, sir? . `` A Yes, sir,.^ \ ,, l''\ A*/-1 \A-". `A A '>' '' A-- C A ; i* ^ <-A , ` rA ! o ' Do you see that? '.They-list-, all of .those, do AV, they notf, sir? 1 A V@s f 2 Q Now, sir, turn your eyes towards the last 3 column, where it says "Order of Magnitude," 4 A Yes, sir. 5 Q Which of those carcinogens, which of those 6 chemicals selected as being suspect human carcinogens, 7 which of those has the highest number in the order of 8 magnitude? 9 A TCDD. 10 ' Q Yes, indeed. But you don't agree with that 11 either, do you? 12 A Yes, sir. 13 Q You do agree with that? 14 A Yes, sir. 15 Q That TCDD does have the highest order of 16 magnitude among all these carcinogens? 17 A By comparison of those, yes, sir. 18 Q Do you agree that these others are carcinogens? 19 A No, sir. Not in man. 20 Q None of these are carcinogens in man? 21 A Yes, sir. 22 Q By yes, sir, you mean'some of :them are and 23 some of them aren't? 24 A Some of them are and some of them are not r Q Which ones are and which ones, are not? 2 A Aflatoxin is what's found in peanut butter, 3 and the levels found in peanut butter -- 4 Q I'm just asking you, Doctor, to answer my 5 question. 6 A Right. 7 0 Is it or is it not a carcinogen in humans? 8 A ' Aflatoxin is a liver carcinogen in man. Benzo 9 (a)Pyrene is known to cause skin cancer. 10 Q All right. n A Whether it causes lung cancer isn't clear. 12 Beryllium has never been shown to be a human carcinogen. 13 Carbon Tetrachloride has never been shown to be a human 14 carcinogen. DDT has never been shown to be a human 15 carcinogen. I don't know what Epichlorhydrin is. Ethyleni 16 Dibromide has not been shown to be a human carcinogen. 17 PO yhas not been shown, to.be a human carcinogen, and 18 Vinyl Chloride is clearly a human carcinogen. 19 Q It is clearly? - ' 20 A Yes, sir. 21 Q And, Doctor, of- all those that are .-- that you 22 say are carcinogens, the TCDD is the one with the greatest 23 test order of magnitude? 24 A Yes, sir. 1 Q Doctor, if you would, turn to page 16 in the '2 second paragraph there, in the middle of that paragraph* 3 That paragraph talks about this being a pilot study to 4 assess the current health effects in the highly exposed 5 group, doesn't it, sir? 6 A Yes, sir* 7 Q And it also says it is too early since first 8 exposures at these sites to adequately assess long-term 9 risks for cancer or other effects by direct study of this 10 exposed population* You see that, don't you, sir? 11 A Yes, sir* 12 Q That's because the latency periods for seme 13 cancer is as much as 20 and 30 and 40 years; i s n 't that 14 correct, sir? 15 A No, sir* 16 0 There are not .latency periods for some cancer 17 of 20, 30, 40 years? 18 A The longest maybe, 20 years, but not t h e short 19 est, for any one of the carcinogens* 20 Q Doctor, my question .was that .there are some 21 cancers that have a latency period of 40 years, isn't 22 there, sir? 23 A As long as 40 years? 24 Q As long as 40 years* 1 A . Yes,sir. 2 Q And they can have a latency p e r i o d , ! suppose, 3 that's as short as -- 4 A Five years. 5 Q -- five years. And the first exposure at 6 Times Beach was 197 7 A '71* 8 Q '75. 9 A 71, 1 think. 10 Q So we've got 14 years there, haven't we, sir? 11 A Yes, sir. 12 Q And most cancers have a longer latency period 13 than tha^t, haven't they, sir? 14 A Not mean. 15 Q Sir? 16 A Not the mean of latency. The mean of tlatency -' ,, f ji 17 is something less than 15 years. * `" , * / - -* 18 Q How much less than^15 years?'. * . 19 A Not much. It's something right around 15 years, * Jr r , ^ ` t* 20 Q Well, what you're saying is that from 15 years 21 on you can possibly see. some cancers; is that what you're 22 saying? 23 A If you see them -- you can have them as long 24 as 40, but if you have a population there will be cancers 1 before 40 years in a l l `of them.1 I d o n 't know of any which 2 you find as late as 40 years, without having cancers 3 occurring early as well. I'm saying the mean for all of 4 them is 15 to 20 years. 5 Q I won't quarrel with that. That goes according 6 to various human susceptability, with variances again in 7 human beings. 8. A Yes, sir. 9 Q. Some people are more apt to fight off the 10 cancer, their systems, they have an immune system that's 11 functioning properly, or functioning differently than some 12 others* 13 A; I don't know why. 14 Q Sir? -' iT ^ I * ,' IS A X don't know why. - 16 Q We know for some reason that there is a variance 17 isn't there, sir? . 18 A Yes, sir* i.- ;1 v . r ;V 19 Q How, do you also see the statement there on 20 page -- I 'm sorry, turn to Page 35, if you would. You see 21 there is on Table 2 a trend of increased -- 22 A . Pardon me,.sir? I 'm sorry? 23 Q Page 35, . 24 A T h a t 's hot a table. Are you talking about a 1 table? 2 Q DoctorV turn to Page 35. 3 A l Yes, sir. 4 Q It 3*5ys "As presented in Table 2." 5 A I'm sorry. I'm sorry. 6 Q "-- there appeared to be a trend of increased 7 urinary tract problems among the high risk cohort as 8 reported from the medical history." . Do you see that, sir? 9 A Yes, sir. 10 Q And they repeat the same thing, if you turn to 11 Page 43, don't they, sir? 12 A Page 43? 13 Q , Yes. The 6th line from the top, where it says , b .r *v Xk 14 "Of greater interest is the apparent trend', indicative 15 of urinary tract abnormalities among the high risk 16 individuals." Do you see that, s i r ? 17 A Yes, sir. 18 Q And on the next page they talk about the 19 individuals that had the high liver on percussion, and 20 they're concerned about that because of the extensive 21 animal and high-dose human data suggesting hepatotoxic 22 effects of TCDD exposure. Do you see that, sir? Do you 23 see that, sir? 24 A Yes, sir. 1 Q And again that has to do with the porphyrins 2 and the importance of watching and measuring those 3 porphyrins; isn't that correct, sir? 4 A No, sir. 5 Q Doctor, when they talk about a chronic hepatic 6 problem, what are they talking about? 7 A They're talking about something that causes 8 pathology in the liver. 9 Q And, Doctor, isn't that caused -- i s n 't 10 porphyria a chronic hepatic disease? 11 A No, sir. 12 0 Would you,turn to Page 49 again, Doctor. 13 A Yes, sir. \ 1 , -1 ' i 14 Q Do.you see that Table there? 15 A Yes, sir. * ./ ' 16 Q what does it say? It says "Chronic Hepatic 17 Porphyria*n 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q Sir? 20 A Yes, sir* 21 Q And i s n 't that a form of liver disease? 22 A No, sir. 23 Q V?hat is it, Doctor? 24 A I t 's an enzymatic disease. I t 's genetic. This is all genetic related disease. 1 Q You don't think there was any industrially 2 acquired porphyria? 3 4 A Yes, sir. 5 Q Do you think there's such a thing ras an intoxication porphyria? 6 7 A Yes, sir. S Q That's not genetic, is it? 9 A No, sir* 10 Q , Doctor, isn't hepatic porphyria a liver disease A No, sir. 11 12 Q What is it, Doctor?-/ 13 A ' It's an ensymatic defect. 14 Q And associated with* what organ? : IS A With the liver. . 16 0 Doctor, that's what I'm talking about. 17 A Xf you look at that liver under a microscope 18 you won't see any damage* 19 Q Doctor, there doesn't have to be damage to 20 have a disease process associated with hepatic. What does 21 it mean when you say hepatic? 22 MR. HElNEMANs Objection, your Honor. He just 23 made a scientific statement and did not ask the doctor 24 whether he agreed with it, or disagreed with it. X move P E N G A Q rC O .. B A Y O N N E . N.J. 0 7 0 0 1 f O B M I L ^ 4 B -I r\ ' ^;i: 4 '5 6 :7 yP " I *" *. 8 '- .^9 ,-io V/ ` 'll . 12 < 13 14 " 15 16 ' j.?r 18 -1?\ 20. ; J 21 22 . 23 `.24' r. i - V j, , , !. t"' *-- ,i a'* A 4 ' *' / V '> r. L yV i* 1 -/ V*'".*-` ;i , V;j-VV ;V * * u ...........................' * r that it be stricken.' 1 ' . ; THE COURT: ;I, think you M l - have to ,include it ;h- * , _ v---' \ , in "the question. , ";/*- .1 r" ' r r^ \ , . - J f 1 f,v _ , 'r ' "* _ .*r v v m r ; CARR: ..I don't know, the scientific statement that I made, your Honor. rn j >p l e a s e .a THE COURT? Could you read back that question9 " r ' j' ', - J* _ i-i j > r (Question read*.) ;;-.. / ,,v . THE^COURT:v( xould you restate, that question; `for me?*-, ' ; , J \ 'y ;. ; ...'>v > ; ^ -/. ' fr (By Mr. Carr)- No. Your lawyer,objected to v. ' 1 /- \ \ 1 it; -'-V ' ' ^ '* K \ <* * ^ ' \J 'r'r * ` ` - // ,' ^ ^ . MR.HEINEMAN: VThe Court; ordered . 'f M R . .CA R R : W e l l *,X 111 restate it., . * J , 'v :q *. (By Mr; Carr) Doctor> what is a hepatic , disease?;, - , '1/' , ' , L L ; ,,, tR...HEINEMAN?. Well; objection/, your .Honor. That ,leaves out -- , \"v & MR. CARRY Then.: read the, question again'to him. . . (Question read.) , "A .` ~J `.v-1'.1 ,r*vV i. - 'r'^/, ,J- .<%'<':{<-Jr3- s <;>:' , .1 ' ; -' J'h .. ` V:" ,* 1 l i. J > r r .1 106 1 THE WITNESS! In order to have a disease, you 2 have to have some pathology, associated with it- But it's 3 also true that geneticrdisease, such as hepatic porphyria, 4 and it is genetic, and it also can be environmentally 5 related, doesn't have, to have pathology to have genetic -- 6 to have an ensymatic, block. ,` > 7 Q - (By Mr* Carr) And It is a malfunctioning 8 liver, isn't it, sir? 9 A , Yes, sir. 4 L , "K ` P 10 Q ' That's exactly what we're talking about, isn't 11 it, sir,,chronic hepatic porphyria? 12 "A Yes, sir* 13 . Q, Is a liver disease, isn't It, sir? - 14. A Yes, sir. 15 Q Doctor, you said it wasn't. You understand 16 that it is, Isn't it, Doctor? 17 A I was talking about pathology versus genetic lS , disease, yes, sir. 19 Q Doctor, I'm not talking about genetic disease 20 . either. I'm talking about intoxication porphyria* 21 A - Yes, sir* 22 Q And you do know that that can occur, don't you, 23 Doctor?';/ t'r" : vv 24 A ' ':YesJ, sifi ; ' P E N G A D CO,; B A Y O N N E . ,N.j. 0 7 0 0 2 , F O R M ' IL 74 B I; , 1 -; '2/ :3 4 ' .5 6, 'lr ^ si '1 9 10 r 'L-r':1-!'?; ll ; l/ 12 13 14 / ;is rj t * , 16 ' 11 ' / '.18 19 20 21 22 ... 23 i .' 24 .A i . * r>!. 7 *: , "* *r i l o .- " ^ > ^ V ^ ,, ky ^ - J 'l * *- - *h . I, \r Qp And that* s what they are* talking; about here,. ..jarenvtvthey>/air? '* n; ; ' " ** ' . f, V J ' 'r - * - 1 > `' r, r A Yes, sir/ / v" * - j, A ; r/ t J ; 1 ** ' r *- - \ - l, 4 Q / Sir? i,. . \ , . *. - - \t A ` -Yes,-sir; sV'- *'T , `^ .' . -, - - '_ ' " 'S Q . And they sayit is important that hepatic ,function continue to*:be examined'in further studies don't they, sir? , . ; V V . . ;' " ^ .-* k ; Y e s / But that's unrelated to th porphyria*/ ' Q .. Doctor, porphyria is a hepatic toxic result, is ; it^not/^or can b'e?L/ ;; / ; \. \ A - Yes/ sir*-" .V . - - ' .'*-o / v . 1, 1 -Then they are talking about porphyria/ path J, \r. . - . * , "*( j -I f L- ` .'r G J"-* ' " Vi <i ` ' - . L^ 1 ,, to'toxic effect can be porphyria, can it not ,"sir?' _ v-.' ` .A ^ 'Yes,--sir/'/ / * /v' L. '> , Ti' . . . : . *- 1 ' '; < - V r * .-1 ; H - r,-1: (. . ; i, - '^t , ' - .'' i , -V -- . % . Q-. Then they are talking possibly about porphyria, ar h 11 'they, sir? y. r 1 ' *i ^ , ` ' v a ; - it's ppsi ' Q And they put that table in there-showing the normal Copro/Uro ratio in reporting o n :chronic hepatic porphyria. ' ; y.itftSc Yjwyiir.ji i.F ?/(?'} -n;iv,; ` ; - ( - " i . ' t 'i1! ** 4 * A r } Li- / 4 4 *,k* - ',1'm ; V 'jr-`'-i'trV - n ' In liver disease? . " - - .~ ; : Yes, ':s i /*/ K '/ : '. 'J V *v.y ;-/ -v... 103 : ^ ` :(ji ? { & !;!)>/V / > $ i.-:' ' ^ 2- `'1 , "'JJ ,,` i , 1.'/' 1 3 t Ma - jA * 2. - ; ( ;t ?rr . '-V,< Q: Aren! t hyy sir? V r- .A , v K .. ^ Jj* A^-_, * * j " L" A .Yes/-sir ;- \ '.-'v a ? *r-, -i a 3.* -4, v -A> , " -Q ;". ,And `they, are, `suggesting that, this liver disease* ' V,, , ' * ' ,, * i 1- r " *v -* -ir P ' , L n X 1.. I. v \ ' J ' 1 ,^ *- J V4 -* * f > r - J V' ' - "1L 1- ' * - \* m* ,* > %_ r ' * 'r j J' b. . - h 7, ^- _. ' chronic hepaticporphyria, can possibly be caused by TCDD, '"',,5- - 'A , aren't they,' sir?'/ a / / - A a * A,--' 'A^.--"r- A-- " - ' V. --`A : ] A- ' - .'/,* .A;J' * / '/ 6> ,7; V- l. J j A-.-V' A '* ' vJkr\ Yes, --sir*';'1/ -'V *\A'A A A X A ` / r " --A A' *' ' A '',j/ v '. 'r ..A J . r"` r rA1 - ' - A-' f ; All ''f ` < > '' 'r ; v . ,;. Q ; Now, Doctor; you have exhibits Monsanto, - \ ' i- ra Exhibit 909 there, or does Counsel have them? .Would you : ' .*y ,y ^ - put; a Plaintiff'* s ,sticker ,on Monsanto Exhibit. 909 please / /; 10 . ii^ *v ; ; j-' A , ; (Plaintiff *s Exhibit 1524 was; marked , ' ://r 12. r r \ /. A '^ ^ -.--A V* \ for identification by. the^court reporter*) V; 13 r, ' - : -V-A. A J \ \/VV *" ;; .*'joA :- ' ' /*-.\ v 1f' j. ''. f..v '*1. * *" 'v -.`"A1 ' ,14 - ; ; ., ^ 1 M R . .CARR:.;Y o u r H o n o r , 'I'll offer into evidence 15 Zv : ;,Plaintiff1s Exhibit !524, which;has -been previously markeds *- * v-'J ' 16 , A - ,v-,'Defendant s _Exhibit 909. > 1 ' ,,- 1 ;s / ' " . ' / a ;. ' 'A-a t" As'r ' ` ,v",v ,^ 17 ' A ' /. THE COURT:- Any objection? . v :' ` 18. c -A /*,;;;;/a 'a / M r . .h e i n e &UP: \Nb, weihave no objection, Youir"^: 19 .^ > 20 ^ `V'V L '-A \A > , - ' Honor / . A'- A .. r ,, V'V-'r ' '* ' ? - 4- >. , ` : '.V " S- . 'V. "A. " -A -a ,' I l F A. ^ - rTHE; COURT: r'So- admitted.A V'r . L , - 1- ' 4 - ' ' . r/ A-.. """A ! -.IrlWr' ::A ytl ^ -3?:ir.>7 "r1 '21,A' y,; `-r ./A , 'MR. CARR: ` So that' we; Ban recognize v;hat I 'm ; r*'4 * .r . >P- . I 1 L ! - U' - 1 v 1 'i rJ` :j f^~v ir'i -`V \f` 'Vv ;-7` , " . ' j,. v 22 v , *passing to'the jury ,!?w6uld you /mark this Exhibit 1524-A , V;- ^ ^ `V Jyh s\ AV ^ 23 ; A- A please;; . ;A-A;'v.a .: --v, .A-"\; Aj _ A" . j-;' > r f 1. - ' ' - 1 ' ^ rj,. - 24 \"V; A - L- r V S, J. -" t ,- * ' ,? .u- 4i''-i'j ? i*vj vi-r' 'A;,:.A;;i4;TA 4f)v k'lj A J- A, //A . ' a -; * , r ' ' j 109 P E N G A O CO,, B A Y O N N E , N.J. 0 7 0 0 2 F O R M IL 2 4 8 J, v * r J ; . --1 . . < r \ ** -* 'i .2 . : ,-,r (Plaintiff'.s'Exhibit 524-A was marked .for identification b y jth court reporter. ) / :' 34 \^ 5 ;6 L" *7 18 ` .9 x? ' io n . 12' 13 - k _ " -- S + J "'Vb " jj " * r, * `p p - * ' 1 -r ' j ." - < T -r ** .Q: _ (By .Mr ., Carr) Doctor,frandingyou 1524-A, if you would compare that _tol524,,and acknowledge that it ` represents certain pages taken from':1524,, k X- ; : ';;Yes, . " MR, GARB x `; i offer ,1524-A '.-as well, your -Honor;;: , And, permission to pass it.-to the;,jury. ; ; .XX THE COURT: . Okay. It's part of an admitted exhibit, Y o u may- pass it. to' the jury;' 1 1 .^ ;" V rv'^ ' mR. HEINEMANs' Y o u r 1Honor, my. copy doesn't have - /v v . .f' . J ,1 1. -.*\ ' ;a, number'on the third .page. - Are those consecutively, u .'numbered? ' - \- ", ' J5. i ; >. 'r 17- .. 18- ' 19 20 : 21 ^.P 22 * X' ^ MR; CARR:. ;I don't know, counsel. -* s" ' r-^ , ' ; - *- l - '^ 1' ^ *' L _ . r * * I think: tfiyj..arv, Yes.;,' That's. 228. -/ I'll compare x ** - t * - . -* ^ 4 ^; ' THE COURTs : Mr., Carr, before you1get. into this :article", is this'a good point: for short break? ' -*' - 1 ;` ` , 1. - i v , MR.-CARRs;,Sure, your.Honor. > x *' * \ ; \ m - j ;.* ; X,> X X . :. i f 7, : ' r i ' . THE .COURT:.,. Ladies.and/gentleinn, we'll V ; ' - - - , ,L " V . V " - " * :-> v i,J . . . . ^ : take a` ; short- break at'this, time. And,.!, would remind" you that thd ' - ' ;-r....* - i ivT* c'..Aai .y*- vnv Vs-\ - n! i:,V-- X -- , .. admonishments that I *ve given- ybu^ earlier will apply during- 23 . 24 ' this b r e a k ;also.-f The; Court is fin recess'. .. j _ . , . x y- ^ *.s.' i -y X (Short recess,,),, . . ' \ , i a. ,r -. ' 110 f;ENG AD CO.'. BA Y O N N E ." N.J, j -,, [ ri*1 **;, ~ J, y ;- 1 . ' ;y 4 (Th .ollpwing proceedings were -had in the \,*?i* ?, 3 ' t -S 4 presenceZand.hearing of the jury:) - / - -Z , / THE COURT: Okay.,, Mr, Carr. /-/'" ; , I; > .. yj* ; t i' ** Y 'r ` L *1 ' ; O' >; /(By MrV arr) Doctor^, before I. get. into that ... i ,5; p \ yr- 'r ,; / / 8 ." f -- 9 IQ Z ii./ y exhibit. I just .handed' y o u I 'd; like; `to ask you one addi tloi Z. " al question about -the:Missouri Health' Study from Exhibit ,, y 55* Directing your, atteiV ion again to Page' Roman. Numberl' ' IV of ithat-Exhibits /yJ\j; y Vy;/;/- y . ;.v / -: r Yes, sir ;;/.y v . -'/;/ '/ -'/" '/ ';* y y -- ,r; , . -, v' . c i _ l ,(. !.( . d> ; - - f* . r- .Q ^ y 'You: said: -that when / T r e a d t h e statements, to ' * C; y J;; y - -v y r y \r`-v r ^y y y /'you th a t 1 all .appropriate effprts need'be raade t o prevent ' .12 v" / 13 , : / 14 ;s:v, V V *j 4 i6 . 1 huinan exposurey you said in pssing that they no longer. ; ^.y . k:;.:,/ ,,,/;,y,y / y . ;y-;yv:\; y / y , y. believed that.. ;They',said that; in '83 ,, but that-,it:wasn' t ,r ' ;` L- ' l -. ` ,/ ' `\-o '- '7 *r ,, , ."'r .- " ;true today;. Did you hot,-sir?/ -. - y . ' ,:.r :'J ' , / ^- r ' ,r -J.r S ` I.1V, r-' ' lf 1 *''t\r, ' . ' y"'-. '/ v /.. -, * -1 / `r' -'' -^ "A- -^Ys;, siry' / // r?" ;'/ ,/ "-/;,' f ' vr r, ;y . Q:/ -f H a s .the ;Missouri Division .of, Health- and centers 17 ^ > V` "-%18.'` I? : 20 ` L 21,v 22. :f . " 23 'j J for Disease Control^ published another study, 'in,which they .. Z have retraCted.that>statement',and /sid^tht.that i s n 't 'the . - . ' i ( V ,T , S l t l 't - r . f f j 1 L ,< I , 'JL ' J' ^ -jF ; . - ., ; erutti:- -. ' ir y . y / / i* /\,t I - J- .1 / ' ^' / ' A CDC has.i ?>/ -rh r/\ - T./" - , ;/. : - / y S y / ^ i y y - - y, / *.v -' ..`Q .`v What have they ^published; sir; to say that trit le ' F - J t/ V -r . i- * ^ ` , , - - fc< - ^ . J H -i *J f j--,!; ^ iy, 1 ' / ' ' /^ -i 'l ' ' " \ j'' -* . ^ ^ 7 ' -p ' .^ efforts need --- do'5hot needjtp/bevriiade/td1 prevent human ' ' Jj 24- /-CA; The say/if .th amOunt f dioxin .in the soil 111 y/ t . It - P E N G A D C O . . B A Y O N N E . N . J . . 0 7 0 0 1 ' F O R M IL A B Ki/.i * 'J-'*^'4h *'^ ' "**** Vl^-V.''p-ib. u/V ^i-*'_v ' ,' -^ ri i'- rL ^.** 1rfJ1 L*-*T*. iil b is less -hah;bne --;..if; 2/3,7, 8 tetrachlorodiben2 0 --para1 dioxin ;in~ the .soil'isless ^than?_one part -per/'billion/ tthen 2_, ' _3 .' 4 /; "V - > there is no hazard.-/ '-Jv, .' VQ/ Doctor, that Study/that y o u 1 re talking .about,/' ' 'T^,'V" `v *;*J'v* ';r \ ,'r'.f --L '--. ., . s the"CDC-statement that .was,,published before-1983, hot::4/*/ JVL *' - / J-\ V -> since. / " - . . .1 / v-/ - / - V.-1 , h :,, . ^ 4 . ' *\ 1 . - . -f-, t, -J<v- r :y' . '' - - : , v ,.,v, 1 `*j\%.J"t:- ' -A I thought . i t w a s in i?84, 'J;;; ; . . Doctor ,jithe statement is!contained in this ,' ' J 9; .10.1. document ^that. the' exposure, that i t 1 s not -safe ,to b e ;' M V'-1-.S' ^ - r'\r ,, , , r-.v"- r.-,^;v->V-' 'l ; -' i >: 1- v . . rr'j' expbsedut a anything ^that's 'equal to or g r e a t e r t h a n o n e ' . .-> ' -v,* J'' 1 ^ , *' -- ^ : , > l- .part per* billion;''v r `.' `:. 'I'-'- \ ;,'V. :V ' ; ;r1 2 [ `- i ; '.u-/ .',-.`>1^ ;"rV.' -, ., a _ Y e s ,94,*.s*riYri"r"pv,rv-iV-' 1> 'L114"jf'"i ' " J i-i '* Q V; Tht^VCpVs statement " .V A 7- 1'`Yes,:sir",''1'' v '! . 14 V i*r-` h .>', r. t Q[.' /Doctor, that statement 11 L i y 'v* ,to, saying Lthat appropriate" effortsneed t ;he:made to 4 ; J 6 ', 17./.- i tt::- -P E W G A D -C O .-* B A Y O N N E , N.-J. ^ \l:$- / '.. 19 ; 'v T 20 - '21-. 22 - --r. 23 24, / J <. -``Ar" .;Ko, sir*' I'.-*, r - - . ;- V*-../'---rj '-"'t^ * I' r r-H\ :,,`a- " * ' tv 1 iVi' > > * (, --, f`'\v*-j:; -,-*ti.:".-.1(">*-' r-,, 1> `>j - ; ^ i- " . ' ;;:Q . .'-r-.sji^ifsir;? .-j-'-V/-",?, , .. ^ '. A n o , sir. ^ - " ',,, ;.i% _- rt J , _ -f\C> :*.-- v i / ' f j- . - f - - { > ! ' j i.. ;lr.^tf .>/KiV 'f v ,1^ 1>: , _ -- L - . . ' t-,-v L -' > . Q l " And, Doctor, this .statement that'i read to you that health, effects,could, occur with a latency period r .exceeding the timevfroia initial;exjposure"to examination - ** > '-r^ ' rf,r - r "f. - rr 1 >, \' > r1 , v , - * v `r ` .j 1 -J r 1 2, ^- LJ" 112 1 in this study, for this reason all appropriate efforts 2 need to be*made to prevent human exposure.' That statement 3 has never been re tracted or contridicted by the CDC, has r 4 it, sir, or by the Missouri Division of Health? 5 A No, sir, '' . 6 Q ' Thank you, sir. And when you made, that earlier, 7 statement, you were confused about what I was asking you, 8 I take it? 1 , 9 A No, sir. . I just think^it's inconsistent. 10 Q Doctor, but you d i d n 't say that. You said 11 that they-no longer believed that. You told this jury 12 that the CDC and the Missouri Division of Health no longer 13 believed-that thisJstatement was true, that efforts need 14 to be made to prevent human exposure. Now that's what 15 you told us, sir. 16 A Yes, sir. 1' '" - r** -J/ yC ',, ->* Ir ' s ` V f 1 r '* `; ; ' 17 Q But t h a t Jstatement w a s n 't;correct, sirV 18 A 1 I think it was correct. 19 Q Well, .Doctor, you "just got through saying theyr 20 have never contridicted.or retracted .this statement, '> ! i 'j - : <* - .. .'*l< * 21 d i d n 't you? 22 A T h a t 's right. 23 Q And you knew at the time you made the statement 24 that they had never contridicted or retracted that stateme! 1 A Yes, sir. " 2 `Q You knew that, didn't you? 3 A Yes, sir. / 4 Q Now, Doctor, as you remember saying that at 5 this point in time, is that .an effort on your part or is 6 this, accidental on your part to mislead us. as to what the 7 Missouri Division of Health and the CDC has said on that 8 point? '9 MR. HEINEMAN:' Objection# your Honor.- The 10 witness just said that he thought the CDC paper was 11 published in 1984.- ' r ; 'r- * * -v i. ' * 12 MR. CARR: It wouldn't make any difference if 13 it w a s npublished in 1985. The witness said that they no 14 longer believed this.' The witness has read this. They're 15 talking about one part per billion greater than.or less 16 than in the soil .throughout^ this^document.f/,it ruses the ' J , *' ^ \ #*1' '*rrj- ' i" , r '`' / 17 statement -- 18 THE COURT,: The pbjecftion^ is. overruled. Answer 19 the question, please; Doctor. . , ., Vi1' i i! 1 *I 11 , ^-l , 20 THE WITNESS: .1 thought it vrasn't a part of 21 ' this. : 22 Q (By Mr. Carr) Well, Doctor, that would make 23 no difference whether it was a part of this, or not a partJ 24 of this. You have absolutely no knowledge of any statement F1 r t' J -V ' iV ^ ' ^^ ', 1. ^ ' j j., , . F- 1**, * t., * "* 1 l'i^ J J '' r ' ' l j 1 that the Missouri Division-of Health, or the CDC has ever 2,/ . V->7 said where they retracted a statement where appropriate - ,. '"? '4 - efforts need to b- made "to prevent human exposure to TCDD because of a. possible Health effects in a latency 5 ` . period.^; '/ r;-` ^ .' ' /' : &' ' t A * No/ sir;.' -, 7 'J'\ '7\ - 8`, 1,Q - :;Now/.Doctor ;Jwas your statement that ,,-- well, nevermind. Doctor, from .your viewpoint, just suppos 9 ; ;, hypothetically that only one scientist1has .ever said; ,jo that there could be any possible latency period-or any 11 : "' .possible harm frcm being exposed to 2,3,7,8 T C D D . Just 0 ` - ` M 1 " . - h ~ V4^ ^\ ,"r 1- - *'J*:tKl ^^,,^HA .^ `7\ ` 12 'K suppose^.,that. W don't have'the.,body of evidence that we 'jr 13 k 14 , ;: hav.e, and all these: studies have .been, going on /for- all ' these.years, no -animal studies. ''Wouldn*t it be wise if ,7 15 '!ryou could avoid i t wouldn 't! it;,b e 1wise':, *and 'wouldn ' t i t - *[**^*. - l * ' - -, ., 1 : 'v*>[\i \1 i 1:*1-< `l - k j'*V'-: -, f-, A.*.t ., - J * -V;I 16 ; be healthy.'and "safe"'to "avoid.exposure^to' 2/3,7,8 TCDD y -` ' Y~i\ i*1% >l *\ "'i'V. '1 -, - 17 , .4 ; r * -wherever-you-could ' l, t t^ avoidvit?. Vouldn't ' 1 'tK i i' that be wise? *',b1p*' ' ' t1 -A P-. ^ t ^ *V < ", i'-+*"^"/rr * %* ,J ^ 18..'';J ' , Yes,; sir.-;'. - ` '. * * V " v H - 1 -c t' n v ; i.-r % 1 19 - J/ : Q Sven if there ,was only-:one .person that said 20 /it could be dangerous? - ; . - > 21 , 22- . A ` -Without other information?" . r "^ ... " iv "1-- / . - -""1. 'v _/ , .Q -, Yes. ; Wouldn.?t ;it'be.,;wise?:-. 1 -. ` \ * -- . 123 : 'A. . That's the only information you have? A 24 - *"% Q ,, '-Yes..-A'/- ' V'-- '. - 1 , ,v sim \ -f * PENGAD CO.; BAYONNE. N.J. 1. .A / 'Yes, sir-' - ;r , ` ,.7 2 `^ r 0 Now,, boctor,;directing your, attention to. 1 * >F 3 ,. Monsanto Exhibit-909 and Plaintiff'sExhibit 1524-A, '4 which we have giveityou.now, that is the, exhibit that you,' 5r brought u p ,-- by y o u ,_',T`.mean you and M r 'Heineman.:-- to 6, y' . show the source of Exhibit!267-A, is.,it not, sir? ' . A\ Yes* sir.- " K t. 8 0 ` And.that Table is contained in.this exhibit, ; 9 but omn. the last page of t h e jexhibit I?ve .given^ the jury, y 10 11 ' that ,is Page 229, is it'not> sir?' r ,/V ';^X ` 'Yes, .Jsir'^v y . r.' t y / 12 t ;-Q You've; gone-through that- already.' ;Bu't I waht J` 13; 1 , - to^ direct your *attention-to Page 227, t h e 1second V 14 - is-/. 16 * > ~j 17 A; Yess;f ^j^sirr*.1/ 1t*r.Vi i'1 4"/ ; ;I \ ii*t,^v` i f " V ' J ~i\ i i i S !v % a So r asn m ' 4t, oA ;pil'I sbrimng `a^ ' poJiwn-4t* **i'mh on . Jtb thv e' ch1loracne / -r . ; .y-^ vV-- -{-y ,/. i-J- ^ / coming with eftxVpnfotsaiuirreo(and//ovr*i>or\t4her ,effects p you see ' t.v - 1 * , ''1 Sk * * \^ i ^ 'j-l >^/-/'"**i.S' **V - V - i' ir, * 'm l"a'-r-*/'17'^L-'c .^\ ' `a- i[ -J- , J last paragraph on-Page '227. ` v 1. th - ' .'L !:! f i r-; - f.f `,J ' V- -'J.. -, - 18 - V -- / A^ Yes, rsir.'.- i`t i1-fV '.''-.x..'', - /-' '*'. J 19- _ Q - .It.1s-that-part of it dealing with'Toxic Effects 20 . in Humaris. \T 'y - / r .\ '/w* r ` ,, ` ", 21 ; A':` Y e s , sir.- " '5 .v ` ' - , ' .\ 4 / . ; JJ 22 . . / , Q' ,,, i t discusses three scientists who; were, all t * '! 23 three `who were, self rexpo sect to .2,3,7,8. Do"4you see that`s 24 ' :\-T'1 sir? r.-`v> ;/ ' - -- '% - 116 BATONNE. N .J. ,, O IO O l ;. i P E N G A D CO,., B A Y O N N E , ' N.J. .07002 ^F O R M ,lt, 2 4 8 i ` 2' r 3 '4 5 ' 6/ -7 . 8 '9 -10. 11. 12 \ 13; 14 , 15 16- 17 18 19 20; 21 \ '22 ; 23 24 ' ; . t ;" I V ri.'" A- > f y y /** I" * f * ^ .Vl,, * h ' r Yes,/sir// *. Q v N o w o ' f t h o s e three, all of whom, were ^exposed to 1 '^ " :Y Y -'"" i*. ' r-;V * ,4 - ' - F " S, r ^ ll-J ' r'| ' J 1 j' 2 ,3,7/8"*'two 'developed chloracne eight weeks after rY 1^ 1 fJ 'a r1 ' ' ^ j- *U -t" ' ^ ` ' V \ "J exposure " * ' Do you see t h a t , ' s i r ? Y Y ; 1: 7"-Y --.A' ; - Yes, :alE,'1','y,/- . Y V ;; ' _ ' " '1Y"q- ' .The .third one showed no evidence at a l l . ^-V '. `,, '` ' . ', ir ' , " -S. - y i , r ' , A . ' Y e s Y s i r Y Y ;,:Y ` Y ,VY V ,'Y Y - Y ' Y-Y ;Cf .,-Do .you see that,, pir?L: `f - ^ A Yes> -.sir* '/ Y Y ' :-: ; Y , Jl Y ; ' j .;Q ' .N o w /-'all-three,of these .^scientists,were. -: exp6s.edV'1,^ t / JpnlYJt^''0-awe-^ with chloracne/. :,j \ Y " . Y Y. -Y Y x Y- \ ", U'; Y `Y Vi"' ? . - ; \ Y k ' Yes,',sir*.-;'- Y ' V; ' k- v ^: . ; V1Q And you-acp^pt that as. true, dpn*t you, siir? 1 . V-!;r Y Y a * - , *- -, -A\''; 'YeSrj.^ir.Y "0 Y . V ^ Y ' 11 !/'^ J> - v . Q - Doctory vifi you'll, goToh.toiread; there,- there ^ , J, 1 i ii-V T;-;v V1-.. ,\\A >(;,; ;' -:\> - .`L v1 y-.V'.;.. ; Y / ' .were, delayed symptoms1 that the document thatvyou;-have brought up here sfeiy.s were; probably -due,-'to 2,3,7,3 approxi mately" two years later;7. Do you see that, sir? .`5A.. .Yes,.^sir;; *,i ,. '; Q, The exposure in our .case here was in *79. If: 2,3f7,8 TCDD does'.have a latency;/ and a layJperiod, you'could start seeing some^results in the.people of .Sturgeon"in 1981,. couldntt you, "sir? , A '' .Yes/, sir/' :Y.; ' ' v \ 117 , k _+ * / , k^ v r.w * h ' - - i Q : And here.these scientists, the second two -2 f.L scienti sta > that ;woud .include..tte'.one that ''did not- get - 3 chlract, would it not, sir';-- ^ ' L , r */ -.4, '[ ` ' '5, ` ` r A ' Yes,' sir'i^' ,, V 'v '/ v- _- 1 '' ^ Q --- show.ed personality/changes, .loss'of enrgy 6 , and drive, impirment o f :visin,,taste; and muscular 7." r V 8r,. - _> 9 0 ^ 1*1. ' , coordination* sleepfristurbanees; gstrointestinal 'symp-/' ' . toms,', and hirsutism., ' Now the. first-of the three experienced none of "these, adverse effects." V ,' i ' ^ . >; ' - T> , , J* ; rr ^^ v1 r _. - ,-F ' . F ^ / F ^ . . -L r . ; *J . -- . , -, v ' 1 * r'r r ' ' F11 ^ '- Yes,sir*V:/ - _ ,P ' j, " ' i p . 1 - '' ^ - 'I j lJ A- V *- 1* " '' J " * i ; -L - : ' . r * * \L ^U 4 ***' - 1 ,Q ' .Now; thefirst; one had chloracne, but ^ rk I - * ,'V ~ ' * I, n o thing,. ' k 12 13 14 J is 16 17;. V'". lse, accrcing to this paper; isn't that c o r r e c t s i r ? 1-^ '> f . -' .a A ` Yes ,V i*. >V. '>-*'rf;t'rw--; \avV'>/? sir ,> V; 1 ;j1 ? u : 'W " 'L . 1 *-. * ^ , V . ; ' '.i S- ' ' t- i1 -Q ; 1 ' '' The'second one had chloracne, and all 'rr* i'(.-"'i v* ^ ,, ij*>-'r-' /\-- C'f1- ,--1"i , . '">, thesi e \ .. - v - , other symptoms jthree s/>late4r--two-^ears later,; 1 1m r-'L *. -/,f- ; ,1 F; ' : . F > `r.1r; ' ` -sorryV.. So he got chloracne and everything else.. The 'i. -. -r-Tj vf(iLf;`At u '' a - .,'-v? . f, . .../:, .-,k.r ;, . third.scientist h a d jno chloracne, and all these other ;18 , .symptoms. All these other problems' tv/o. years later.- Do' 19 . . j you sed that, sir?- \ ] r.f' + V ` - ,* ' `-v r< J-`j j- .-J, J* 'S- . * J* ."v .` i 20 ..;; y } A- Yes, sir.v'-'* > - . - ..- 1 ,t '''p " */ t F,'1..^ `} ' ,-J' ' - F-1; ^ ,,V'V . t ,,^ 21 Q, 1 Now,;Doctor, isn't that- strong evidence that you 22 ' \ c n have exposure t ;2,3>7,8 TC D D , .get chloracne in jspme 23 , persons,^ and- some -persons because of their genetic make-'. 24 *J up, hot get chloracne and'other"persons because of their J ; '' V ' ' ' 1 '118 PENCAD CO.. BAYONNE. N .J. 0 7 0 0 2 . ,'V o R IH IL 24 B 1 genetic make-up, and in some persons get chloracne and the 2 other things too? You can get chloracne and nothing else 3 You can get chloracne and everything else You can get 4 no chloracne and everything else. Isn't that what this 5 shows, Doctor? 6 A No, sir. 7 Q Doctor, doesn't this : -- isn't, this what it 8 says, even though it may not show it to you? Doesn't it 9 say the first scientist got chloracne? 10 A Yes, sir. 11 Q But he,didn't get anything, else, did he, sir? ' `'. {: .'! .t >` V 12 A Yes, vsir. 1V ' -r 13 Q * The>second scientist got;chloracne, didn't he, 14 sir? " *' ' 15 A ,Yes, isiri' >*'r-^ k. ` **': 16 Q Two years later he got all these other problems 17 as well, didn't he? 18 A Yes, 19 Q The third scientist didn't get chloracne at all 20 did he, sir? 21 A That's right. 22 Q But two years later hesgot everything else, 23 didn't he, sir? 24 A Yes, sir 1 'S.** T 2' 3 ' > Q N o w doesn't that show. Doctor,'that there cari. , . be.a , ^^ ' * r ' '"v j- * . -.r-i-j* *" varied response to the exposure to 2,3,7,8 TCDD7 *- J > ` - ' *f 4 ' o * ` n j, '* s v n ,,- l " h< i' ' ^ 'r "J TJ A 1, That's,, one possibility. * * ^ t ,/ ; > ' A 4' Q ; .- That's "all I'm asking.. I t d o e s show that, 5 doesn't it, sir? -1'.1 : \.... .*' v 6. . ' A , -No,'sir i,,it doesn't-show that. A . v : " Q ;- - D o c t o r / a r e there anywords. that I've left out 8; , here that these scientists.put i n rthere? 9' \ ` ;A' 'NO, sir.v : 'v t - J. *'`` f 10' * -*r, 'v., ii ;* >- " ` :V . . " 'V ' V . v ' -:.'v - - " '-Qv ; L Have. I read it fairly? .' .- ' V. , ' -' - ? 'v "v1^- r\j :y- i --J -1 L- v . . > . " `.,i*A. -'.'YeS, Sir 3`LiV\./V.j' .}r 1|i/ V!l}r^v->". t\V:,,' , * v ,, y^` s' V ' -y ^ n'.ii-' "i;iVTvfV $ ;7 ;; > \ `r* '\r :r", * "% 4/ V t kx -V ,,* r S ' r rA .* ' r . ; - -' -u ' t \ iV-' 13 J Q; And have I interpretted fairly? These . (*"-*.. A .(. ` ^ " . 'L' "' --L' 'I i ' C> !'-*1 A`" 'V '{ } L - '(J - : ' scientists allrthree'have" these kind of findings, d i d n 't -14"'- 15 16. ,- .they, .sir? `. . T 'i r'1, ;> f''" y : ;; x t r < l ' i " \ V Q And -doesn11 it;.-then show, that there can be . 17 varied--'effects to exposure to dioxin, to 2,3,7,8 TCDD?' - 18 ,; 19 20 21 'i . .A, ' Depending"on the dose. r` ' * -1. *- i ** ' .<*. ' 1 ^ -* * . ; '4 .. V-' , , rwi " 1^ 1i' _' J 1* - * ,,v1 Q . Well,: Doctor,, they had, .according, to-this. *' -, , _* ^ n ~r '" r^ r, * > r*r * i ^ ` -- , /, _ ' L - i- ,, *- ' - _ L ^- F ,,-7* ` - - k =" ;, L document,^ they all Jw e r e :working with the same .stuff; , L 1'- H i .j *j * \ 1' ( - 1 r~ .yMn * " r" ` -"r " ^ ' " (' . ^ .^ ^ J i - .' - v " They're not-talking .about" dose, are they, sir? You see 22 nothing in here that says it depends on t h e dose. Do you' 23 ' see that? Did I misread that? . 24 1 vi , :.k - N o ,-sir. No, ^sir. " *' . Q I d i d n 't leave that out, did I, sir? A v Wo, sir. \ r 'Q They d o n 't say anything about this depending on the dose, do they,,sir? A : They don't even discuss the dose.' Q T h a t 's exactly correct. ; , A ^ T h a t 's right. - Q r They d o n 't discuss the dose, do-they, sir? . ,A. r Wo, sir. j. jQ This,shows by,itself, without any other evidence,; without "`any other ^knowledge, bn the face of this, it.shows/that you.can\indeed have varied responses ) , l? "'r' < - to, exposure to; dioxin/ doesh^t 'it, sir? \ ty A Yes, sirv ,- :r ' * *' , \, `. " ' hi 1 v t * /1 `j `. ^ i \ And, Doctor, the man that' got everything else, , but not chloracne,' now according to your earlier hypothesis, if he doesn't get chloracne, he*s not going to get anything else. Do you recall that being'-your testimony? A . -Yes, sir. ; Q Wow, this man d i d n 't get chloracne, did he, sir? / ,A No, sir. Q But he did g e t .everything else, didn't he? A 'L He got the same as the other men,' yes, sir 121 1 - Q Doesn't that indicate# Doctor, that you can 2 get everything else without getting chloracne? 3 ( A -Yes,' sirv,-* .- ,, 1 4 , Q Thank y o u , Doctor.> N o w ; `Doctor# this article .* * ^ -Vj 5 also in the table on Page 22 9,, it has certain citations 6 ,J there, references for the findings on this table, doesn't 7 'it, sir? /" ; ' +` - J ' -8 . A r Yes, 'sir'/' T , 'j/ -. , 1 ;1 9' 10 ,, ,Q - .All right.-'.And it/goes through - talks about ' >- \ \ . /\h,.,/ ` .. - : ,, 1 '-. all the^possible places that-peoplecan get exposure to / 11 dioxin, doesn't;,i t , 8 i r ? '>-/- / J. - '' J/V ; ^ )i r-;y ' -- - 12 - -';A : Yes ,v sir*"r *c ` ^ ~ ? s ; ,' 13 . 14 Q And .it talks abouts in ,,the second column there V- . V v``-It- /,c ; i, 'iV - . - ` that a potential source of human exposure has been CD 15 . another, an additional potential/source of human exposure 16 has been revealed,, beef fat taken from cattle raised, ohv,/ 17 what kind of treated grain, Doctor? 2,4,5-T, isn1t i t , BAYO NNE, N.J, 18 19 O U 2-0fc-'t O 21 22 23 .'24 sir? ' '**` ,- '-A; Y e s , .sir./'' , \ 'V* '; . ./ Q And, Doctor* the women living in these areas had breast milk samples t h a t .contained one part per ' trillion of 2,3,7>8>. didn't ,they, sir? V ?A` ''Yes, .sir//''; -Q/ :And the Yusho Study that is also.-- that I 122 PENGAD CO., -BAYONNE. -N.J, 07002 FORM 1L 24 B t '*' A,- , 1 2 '3 j4 J5 -6 7'` ,8'^ 9; io; . ii-`: 12 '* 13 , .14 ,15. I .16 . 17 18 *; 1? J 20 21 22F ' 23 .24 mentioned-earlier,-- - also discussed in this'column,' isn't it, -'sir? ^ v''- ;'J V, L `J'V !' f > : :7 . :`V . ' , ,,1'r :,A^ Yes, Vsir,. ^ . ' ' V :V V: fL' r^y ; " \ /: -,;Q: Twelve hundred..percent in Japan'were contmi- nated with this thing that contains ;-- . 1 .don!t know _ . ' As /Ti t ^* - 1 whether 'it mentions -,;-- it .mentions 2,3-,7 ;8 ..ttrachiri - , hated dibenzofuransy,but./it does;not mention -2,3,7,8 r ` .A F' 1i r^ ^' * 'r TCDDy does it, sit? ; *^ , ' 1% ' i ' . .a ',-V.N6/ Sir,'7i^ L-' .?`v i-<i: ' r7- '' : " ^ - * *,,' !1 i *' % ; , *' Ij\ i ' * ,*I 1V . ^ L, '* 's ' * . V_' , --, .- . - - - >r , '7 1. \ Qj vDoctor, one citation;it makes under the r- in*, ' J-/ ' i r ' 7 ; V . O . ' & '7 r r;: r t** ^ T ) * the Table for -porphyria, cutaniai'tarda deals with the f V - ; ' v'- ,; . industrially;'acquired porphyria; ; Could-you turn to the" -- j- *'k-j' - \ ^i *'VM, ,f;l ,L , ^f"-. I'j.( :v;,A i f1/*' o*.-". r* ' ^ - ..t . ,, ', -- you have the-completevexhibit; and look at Citation 27, the porphyria citation.-* , i`' A-;/ Yes,, sir-.. ' ' . ; " j : ` ^ ; ^ . -. ' . /..-.V*- J :7,-.77 7 V i7 ';: - /-. 7. ' 7 - , ' ` r' ,:7-;;q v v*.And 21: iJs`th Bleiberg; Article on' Industrially -Acquired porphyria? ^ L- ' :r ! ' (, , ' ' .1. "V '; -- 1- / *'v. .' 1 * ' - A1 r ! '< -^Yes, sir. ' r 1*' . r * "c'' *, v- 4 , % J- - 4 ^ 1 ' . >iT fp `: -- r. r, s . ' r .Q Do youirecognize that a s b e i n g Plaintiff's ' L L `V y ';7 -- ' . 'Exhibit 1445, which we'-disciissed? r\*' 7* , ' ' - Yes,`s i r .\ ; n..v '> ', ' V ' - Sir? , '; r* ^ . - r. 'A ; ; 'Yes,^sir.^,. .' ' '' ` Q - -And ;1,445; is ;a discussion of the people who- wer -/ f. "j^ . **r V - .-j* 123 1 exposed to 2,4,5-T and 2,4,5-trichlorophenol, and only 2 part of them got acne, chloracne, whereas a large number 3 got porphyria* Do you recall that, sir? 4 A Yes, sir.' S Q And that again indicates that you can have an 6 effect other than chloracne from dioxin exposure, doesn't 7 it, sir? . . 8 A ,No, sir* ''4 V \ ;. -r ' -' ' 9 -q , Doctor, ,,- ' ' if .i*'t doesn't i; show it, didn't you just. 10 say that it does shOw'"that .you can get other things withou 11 ' getting chloracne? ' I> 1 . r k - ` ` ' < 12 A Yes, sir* r i, 13 Q Then you do agree that it does show that- you 14 can get other, things without getting chloracne; don't 15 you, sir? '. , , 16 ^ j* A Are you talking about --- 17 MR. HEINEMAN: I'm confused, your Honor* Let 18 me object to the form of the question. What are we 19 talking about, the Bleiberg Article? 20 MR. CARR This article, 1445. 21 . THE WITNESS: What's that? 22 THE COURT: Objection -- I don't think it was 23 . confusing. The objection was overruled* You may continue 24 with your, question. - 1 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, would you repeat the 2 question now* 3 0 (By Mr. Carr) The article by Bleiberg referred 4 to in the Huff article called Industrially Acquired S Porphyria -- 6 A Yes, sir. *, V \ * , n T 7 Q -- ; demonstrates> according to that article, ', - j J1 ' ? t- 8 that you can get porphyria without getting chloracne, 9 doesn11 :it, sir? -. ; " _ 10 A Yes, sir. 11 Q Y e s / Now, Doctor, do you recall the article, 12 the Dunigan article, written by Dunigan, that Mr. Heineman 13 asked you about? 14 A Yes, sir. 15 Q Monsanto Exhibit 914. That article, Dr. Roush, 16 was not an article dealing with an investigation conducted 17 by the dermatologist Dunigan on his own. What it was,, 18 was it not, simply a review article of works and investi 19 gations done by others? 20 A Yes, sir. 21 Q . And in that, Dunigan gave his interpretation 22 of these articles, did he not, sir? 23 A Yes, sir. 24 0 And all he really did was just review these 1 other articles,that contained nothing new, did it, air? 2 A No, sir*- 3 Q And it doesn't show that Dunigan himself ever 4 saw a person exposed to dioxin or ever treated a person 5 exposed to dioxin, does it, sir? 6 A No, sir* 7 Q And different people can interpret the articles 8 that ha reviewed in different ways, can they not, sir? 9 A Yes, sir. 10 Q Now, Doctor, I'd like to direct your attention 11 to the Moses-Salikoff Table, if might* The article 12 if I might, which is Monsanto Exhibit 908. Do you have 13 it, sir? L 14 A No, sir.J Thank you. 15 G Now, Doctor, this work that is now called 16 Moses -- this was work that was originally done by Dr. 17 Selikoff, was it not, sir? 18 A I don't think he participated in the study. 19 Q Doctor, you at Monsanto knew that Dr. Selikoff 20 was retained by the Onion ,to do this work,.and did this 21 work, and Dr. Moses came in later when Dr. Selikoff was 22 getting ready to retire, and it was referred to in a 23 number of documents in your possession with your signature 24 on it, talking about the Selikoff Study. 1 A Yes, sir; 2 Q Don't you recall that, sir? 3 A Yes, sir. 4 Q And he did participate in it, did he not, sir? 5 A I don't think he participated in the examinatior 6 at all. 7 Q Doctor, I- didn't ask you about the examination. S We're talking about the study. You said he didn't parti 9 cipate in the study. 10 A He was there and got it started. 11 Q And as a matter of fact, he is given -- he's 12 one of the authors of this study, isn't he, sir? 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q_ So why would you tell us h didn't participate 15 when it's on the face of it when he did? 16 A Because I didn't think he participated in it. 17 Q Doctor, you had all the documents. I've seen 18 dozens of documents, press releases, everthing else, where 19 you are referring to t h e Selikoff Study. It was never it - 20 even called the Moses Study until it got published. You 21 know that, ' dt on't you, sir? i : , 22 A Yes, sir. Yes, sir. t 23 Q Why do you tell us then that you don't think 24 he even participated when you had all these documents in 1 your files that refer to it as the Selikoff,Study? X 2 don't comprehend that, Doctor. X don't understand your 3 reasoning. 4 A I didn't think he participated once the study 5 got started. He was responsible -- the Union came to him 6 and asked him if he would do the study, and he agreed to 7 do it. So he got the study started and let Moses do the 8. work then. 9 Q And he participated throughout writing the 10 document and everything else, didn't he. Doctor? 11 A ' I don't know. 12 Q Doctor, is .he listed as an author of it? 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q All that aside, Doctor, it's really got nothing 15 to do'With the question I want to ask you; But this 16 study that has come out here -- 17 A' Yes, sir. 18 Q -- * and that) Mr., 'Eeincie;man *asked y'ou ab,'o/ut, it 19 does show, does it not, that there can be possible changes 20 in enzymes that can persist for at least: ,ten years after 21 the exposure to the TCDD? 22 A* Yes, sir* *" ? 1 23 Q Mow that's an important finding, a very impor 24 tant finding in this study, isn't it, sir? 1 A Yes7 sir 2 Q Because1enzymes are very important in how our 3 body operates. 4 A Yes, sir. 5 Q And Dr. Moses-Selikoff found that for as long - 6 and that was -- they were still finding tdiese enzymes 7 abnormalities ten years after the exposure to TCDD, 8 weren't they, sir? 9 A Yes, sir. * 10 Q And, Doctor, there was an additional thing that 11 they did, they put a table out on cancer deaths, didn't 12 .they, sir? 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q Now how many -- now to put this in frame of 15 reference, they did not have-access to the records at 16 Monsanto, did they, sir, when they made their study? 17 A No, I don't,think so. , 18 i Q Well, you testified here earlier, Doctor, if 19 I can refresh your memory that Monsanto did not cooperate 20 with them, and did not give'them any of the Monsanto 21 records. Do you recall that, sir? A We didn't cooperate completely with him. So 23 I am not sure what they meant. 24 Q You didn't cooperate with him at all. You 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 tt 16 o 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 didn't cooperate with' him in.any way,- did you, sir? * *-* (# ' r T\r were antagonistic to this study, weren't you, sir? You A Yes, sir** /. \.M \ ! " , V 1 ^ ^ 'i Q Yes- Now, Doctor, notwithstanding your antagonism to this study> they w e r e a c t , able to do a cancer death study, weren't they, sir? A Not a death study. Q Oh, I'm sorry. They were able to do a cancer study. They did^ not do a mortality study. A Yes; sir. Q . They were able to do a cancer study? A Yes, sir. Q And, Doctor, .they published the table on what they, found so far as cancer was concerned, didn*t they? A Yes, si r . ,, ' J1 , ^ Q And it's in this report, isn't It? A Yes, sir.' Q Would you mark this an exhibit? (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1525 was marked for identification by the court reporter.) Q (By M r . Carr) Handing you now w h a t 's been marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 1525, I'll ask you if that is 130 1 Page 172 of the Moses Study? 2 A Yes, sir. ' * ,,\ \ -- t , ,i t 3 MR. CARR: I offer that page into evidence, if 4 it please the Court.' 5 MR. HEINEMAN: Your Honor, excuse me. Has 908 6 been admitted in total? 7 THE COURT: Let me check. 8 MR. CARRi I think it has been by agreement of 9 both parties. 10 MR. HEINEMAN: I thought I recalled that, but 11 I wasn't sure. 12 THE COURT: Right, it has been. 13 MR. HEINEMAN: All right. 14 THE COURT: Do you have any objection to this? 15 MR. HEINEMAN: To this page? No, your Honor. 16 THE COURT: Thank you. 17 MR. HEINEMAN: What's the number on it? 18 THE COURT: -1525. 19 MR. HEINEMAN: Thank you. 20 THE COURT: You're welcome. It*s admitted by 21 agreement. 22 Q (By Mr* Carr) Doctor, how many cancers does- it 23 report? 24 A Fifteen. 1 Q Doctor -- - 2 A I can't make out this, -Let's see. 3 Q Doctor, you've .read this article, i / .- " , . f .. \ i 4 A Yes, sir* 5. Q And you've had it on your desk for over a year, 6 a year, It reports on 30 cancers, doesn't it, sir? 7 A It reports on 30 cancers. 8 0 Sir? 9 A Two rows* There's 30 cancers. 10 Q Yes, indeed, Doctor. And, Doctor, do you see 11 the Table there that he reported on people that had more 12 than one cancer. 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q And you can see the Subject Number 25, one 15 subject had both leukemia and prostate cancer, d i d n 't he, 16 sir? 17 A Yes, sir* 18 Q . Does that ring a bell with you, sir? 19 A Yes, sir. 20 G Do you recall that Suskind did not report on 21 the leukemia and prostate cancer ,,did he, sir? 22 A No, sir. 23 Q And Suskind had the access to all this infor 24 mation and it was repprted to him on the leukemia and 1 prostate cancer, did he, sir?.V . 2 A No, sir. 3 Q And Suskind had the access to all this infor4 mation and it was reported to him on the leukemia and 5 the prostate,wasn't it, sir? 6 A Yes, sir. * 7 Q . And, Doctor, it was easy for Moses to identify 8 the ones with multiple cancers, wasn't it, sir? 9 A Yes, sir. 10 Q But Dr. Suskind omitted those multiple cancers, 11 didn't he, sir? 12 A It's a different way of reporting. 13 Q Could you answer my question, Doctor. 14 A Yes, sir. 15 Q Now, Doctor, Moses points out clearly and 16 concisely in this article that there's no such thing as 17 an unexposed worker in that plant, doesn't she? 18 A No, sir. 19 Q Turn to- Page 170 of the article. Doctor. She 20 puts it in italics, doesn't she? RIt is recognized that 21 those without chloracn,,but with appropriate work-expos' 22 history, might also have had TCDD exposure and were not 23 therefore "unexposed controls." 24 A Yes, sir. 1 0 So sha points that out, doesn't she# sir? 2 A . Yes, sir* ^Bu t I Jthink she says there's a 3 no-exposed group in that plant* 4 0 I'm sorry? 5 A She also says there's a no-exposed group in 6 that population* 7 Q No* What she shows is that there's a no- 8 chloracne group# and she has even -- well# .1 take.that 9 :back. She has a table there, the table that you denied 10 the validity o f , .there were people that had no exposure 11 according, to'that table# and yet three percent of those 12 people had chloracne# didn't they# sir? 13 A Yes# sir, 14 Q And you equate chloracne-with exposure# don't 15 you, sir? 16 A Yes# sir. 17 Q So in all of those groups in the people that 18 as far as they know they.were never exposed all the way 19 down to the heavy exposure# exposure# there*:s chloracne 20 in everybody, isn't there? 21 A Yes# sir. ` 22 0 And that indicates that# in fact# these people 23 with no exposure# according to your,theory, they had 24 enough -- they had a heavy dose of exposure # enough to ,* 1 cause chloracne,, didn't they,'-sir? ; 2 A No, sir. " : 3 0 Oh, no? Doctor, chloracne is caused by 4 exposure to dioxin, isn't it, sir? 5 A Yes, sir. 6 Q Sir? 7 A Yes, sir, 8 Q And three percent of these people had chlor- 9, acne, d i d n 't they, sir? 10 A Yes, sir, 11 Q When they said they had no exposure 12 A Y e s , sir,` 13 Q And they had to have, in fact, a heavy exposure 14 to cause chloracne, didn't they', sir? 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Q So they had a heavy exposure -- 17 A Yes, sir. 18 ,,Q -- to it. Now where did they get that, Doctor' 19 To their knowledge they had no exposure at all, to 20 2,3,7,8 TCDD. 21 A Yes, sir, 22 Q Where' did they get it? 23 A She said they had no recall. Their recall 24 was bad* r-,r \^ I- t * - A- X- ^ r * >-.-';t *.* t> i '`W V - I* r ^ 1 ^ tt'z(^ r - v V -. ,'/Y ' J' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. 9 io.; H 12 13 _ 14 15 16 17 B A Y O N N E . N.J. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 0 Where does she nay that, Doctor? ; * . -\ . .--- i. .-- _ A .VJhere she classifies;-them* , . . 0 1 Where,does she v*r r . say* yt\he rrecall i'*s bad? ' 11' ' " * 1 > ^\ j- `i does she-say-their/recall was bad? , * Where , ,, A Where she classifies that chart;; .MR* \HElNEMANs" I *ni,sture it's on Page 171, ..'..Doctor#; V' v THE WITNESS: ; It says that if .the latter figures used to request `. Q i ^By- Mr, Carr) .Where? would you point it out tc| ,Ltoo; Doctor?; ' _ -- / ' "*'./ / ,J A ,j;Yes,. sir* 'On Page. 171, - *' Q : And what place? ' V / A . In the first,- second, third -- fourth paragraph; v in the middle of it. It says, wif the latter, figure is v .used to question the sensitivity of chloracne as an exposure indicator, the .36 percent prevalence of chloracne among those classified as having minimal exposure under- lines the limitations of reliance on recall in assessment 1 of exposure.** , You, can't use their recall as a basis K** r p+ " w* , ,,1 -r -for saying they're exposed or not exposed, " \ q . Well,'Doctor, what it means is you /can't . use the chloracne as the evidence of.amount of exposure, The Whole thrust ,of the table is you can be working right 136 >+ii ^ *w f- ' \ i'vU ^ > -J * .* ,irv<Jt;r' tr/il''* :/' ...'* ; !''|J 1 next to one another. That's the reason you wouldn't 2 agree that 24 percent of the people could have heavy 3 exposure and yet not get chloracne. The whole thrust 4 of it# Doctor, is that you can get chloracne with very 5 little exposure, and you can not get chloracne'-with*very 6 heavy exposure* 7 `A Ho, sir. 8 Q You don't.agree that that table shows that? 9 A No, sir* That's what it says just the opposite 10 They start out by saying it can also be seen that 36 of 11 those classified not -- r not defined as being exposed, as 12 having minimal exposure, had a history of chloracne. Whai 13 they're saying is you can't tell by history, how much 14 exposure they've had. And you have to use -- the r e a s o n j 15 they went to using chloracne as a measure of exposure 16 because they couldn't measure what their exposure was. 17 Q Now, Doctor, isn't the other thing more likely 18 and haven't we seen it demonstrated? We know in the 19 case of the three scientists that these people had the 20 same exposure. 21 A No, s i r . ( 22 Q We don't know that? 23 A Ho, sir* There's no way you can tell -- 24 Q Where in do you get from the article they had * * i' - 1 different exposure? i 2 A Because that's the most logical explanation 3 for the difference. 4 0 Doctor, what you're doing again is you're 5 making a deduction from everything goes back to your thesi 6 of chloracne. So all of these people, where the 24 7 percent say they had a heavy exposure, and didn't get 8 chloracne, you're saying they've got bad memory? 9 A No, sir. . 10 Q Where these 49 percent had moderate exposure 11 and didn't get chloracne, you say they got bad memory? 12 A No, sir. No, sir. No, sir. 13 Q Then you're saying they had no exposure then* 14 A Yes, sir., 15 Q They said they had a moderate exposure. 16 A Yes, sir. r 17 Q So they^re either lying or they^ve got a bad 18 memory, one of the two* 19 A No, sir* , 20 Q Well, which is it, Doctor? 21 A They can also have a different two men 22 doing the same jobs can have a difference of exposure 23 in multiples of difference and levels of exposure, doing 24 the same job, And; one, man; who is assigned to the plant, l , - ;r and he jias to go out .arid.take, samples, and- the other man 2 -<_r ' sits in -the controls room all:the time , or another man has Tr 3 y ' to go up .and clean u p / a B p i i l - ~ ' 4 'Q '*' Doctor/ they're not .doing the same job then, ,ajj:e .'5 - - they," sir?. They're1 (doing different j o b s / T h e y have ; 6 / diffrent/job assigments, }doriVtLthey, "sir?r 7/ ' VYS, sjri; (;> / ' .8 r,,v '' --7 Q ' . l f they're doing those things. ; / -> ? Yes, sir, -but r-r *"r' - 7* ; 10 -.r,- .; Q j` If two "men w e r e `working in the bagging' departs 11 lll4, . .merit, they have the same :exposure,' d o n 11 they, sir?,. 12 U A "' If they both bag. But if they don't, both bagy 13 *14- ` j * C' ,,7 they don't have the .same. / / -v v> +,, n , r ,, ' 1,, "** * > - 1 A* 111 111 * ' j 1 j- Z,, - 'r - ' * J .V .1 * J * *. '** ' "/ . r , 1 * J1 ' Q - ^ Doctor, :what you're l a ying is these men either 15. - * ^ .are not' Intel 1 igent human beings arid c a n *t recognize i t PEKGAD CO*.' B AYO N N E. N ,J . 0 7 0 0 2 ` FORW iL "24 B -,16 : .they*re being exposed, or. not being exposed,'and you're ,P V .'saying that as far as t h e scientists are concerned, i>y-. 18 \ J these s c i e n t i s t s `are concerned, these scientists are- not 19 V . intelligent human beings, they don *t know that, they .had ,20 / exposure. Y o u 're .saying that all of these people here , 21 just sikpl don* t know'the score and you dp. - 22 / /A '- No, `sir. 1 A U l 'ni saying is that those work 23 a l l t h e time.' ; 7 ^ 7 7 ,.-7 /.*, >* /. ^ 24 :Q .' Dootor,,i v'o/,:re::saying. .it ;works' all the time. 139 "; r '. `f / ` 7 S*i,, -, i : . , 1 f- ' ` ^' < i , x -i> , S t / f k >. t-:1-b 7 b '-:7 `"'l ^ " / A' ^ .1 ' v. r \ r : ' ''f' . > /' / /. ;r . - . - only because\of-ypurLthesis that chloraOne is a result - 2 of heavy .exposure arid automatically if y o u 've got a heavy 3 exposure you *re going;to got chloracne. That -s rthe only ` 4 reason ,you say it. works everytime. It*s _not based on any- ' II"''**j., 'r,, S'**/rt ` ,*'9r C _, '1 , "f -J7 V, ' `' , * J U - r ''// * *- 1 -l - * r1 J V" '' ' 5; thing except that, isn'twthat/correct? : `. 6 ^A/ ,r,It's based bn a i r --- ' ' \ //'' 7 Q 1 'Doctor,,what\else, is it based upon? V ;ST ; . / ' . MR* .HEINEMfcN: ' .Objection. He cut him off and: ,9 won*t let. him answer. . He asked him a question and then 10 wonit let him answer it. ' He cuts him off .. v . ' ;, ` 11 ; THR.GOURTV'-/Doctor, you may answer the 12 .. t h e w i t n e s s s* P a r d o n ^ , V > j / - / ;'/ / ;/;/;. 13 V. THE COURTt Answer the/question. / - - v 14 THE V7ITNESS : There have b e e n :at least tear 1&` episodes, of a c c i dental'exposure in the *workplace as.-well ^J 4T 16 as chronic exposure'in. the workplace in which, it's been,/*' u1,7 ^demonstrated that people;who will be exposed to this/ *- * *. ' . x i r 1 ** , ,, </, J` * - '* 0 . 1 - s' - - L/ * 18 material, if t h e e x p o s u r e goesvup / t h e i r chloracne goes," 19 up.** Now -- and if the exposure is high enough, as. in 2 , the case of p u r ,episode.in 194 9 , those who* get chloracne , 21/ so m e .of those who have chloracne, and- only .those who tye/ 22- ' got bad .chloracne--do they'-get- o t h e r e f f e c t s , . 23 24 1 ^/.0 / r! (By Mr ,:-'-Carr) / Now / / D o c t o r -y o u 1re changing the subject again#/"But; V:\-- V what, you />;. " - said ; .V.' w<:as that when those - > l * ...v / ." i - .. ,, - . ec*t i- >- - / i.- .. ; V *. .'** ' r h>` 140 ;.-- i. \ it i p e n g * d co. P E N G *D ; C O .. B A Y O N N E . N .J . 0 7 0 0 2 . FORM., I L . 24 B. 1 1 r f` 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 id is 16 17 18 19 2$ 21 22 234 24 people have chloracne,, and get more exposure, they get more chlorance* .Doctor, all that proves is is that \ if you are susceptible to chloracne, if you are one of those persons, that get chloracne, when you're exposed to , more dioxin,.you get more c h l o r a c n e . T . A .? ".*H",o,,.;,C sir...* <-\V. ` ' ,- ;; .^ ^ ...jCK Doctor, where in have you ever seen a study that has shown, that everybody that was exposed to dioxin got chloracne? . \ tv. - ,yr. .A No, sir, I don't know that. c rtc ,:-v.Uxy.x<t Q Yes. Now, Doctor, the findings of Moses- Selikoff Study which.relates to exposure, you know that ' A . - O ' ' * ' 7_` ' ' - - the exposure for all of your people that have these "-r *' ' -`'V' - tjV:.w**v .. cancers, you ..know, that one way or another all of the people ..were exposed to dioxin. You know that, don't you, sir? Simply:because they worked in that plant. ,. A . No, sir. ,v . . .. tQ Doctor, do you recall in 1982 people in Czechoslovakia wanting some information from Monsanto in which th^y,wanted.to know a history about the 2,4,5-T production,.; where vit was produced, in the plant? Well, you probably don't. Mark this- as an exhibit. A a iU ,, 141 V' ' iT- ' j K ,. . , ti ' - 1L recognise that as/work .that":-was required to cdo after th EPA found dioxin in .the .Nitro Plant in 1984, / '3 A< --- A ./- Yes, sir. ,''Yes, r'sir */,-\/ * ^ 4-; : ; 5', < Q Doctor"; -- 'I offer 1527, your Honor,, into ' " * _ * ' v'V;V ' '; \ 'V'- evidence*' , . , \ ... r 6;", ; ? i a1 v \ THE COURT^ S4.^A Anr y ' o * b j e c t i oKn` mtt o 't h at? 5v -" *" r * *'", ' / ' r" / ^ HJ MR * ;HE HEMN % Well, y o u r H o h o r , it.Vs,: a v 8/ propos d. response *?-Do es `it; ay ;the EPA demanded anyth ihg*1 - i`` tV J| r r -, 'v , '" -, ' *.i .< , \r'' 9 Itrddesii*t say this -was actually sent to the ;EPA* I ; , 10 11 l 12 13 14 object to it. for lack, of foundation, \ y ' y'y.- *:j "v f- 7 X/ MR*- CARR-:, " I 'm '"not"offering i t for .the *.h - / r; ^ - t ' < . ,r,; v - , purpose of showing any-EPA I *m offering i t to show where the containinated soil'was: according to .Monsanto;, and for .the map of the charter plant th a t 1s; attached; thereto , and 15, illustrate t o t h e jury just where this. TCpp w a s , and ^ 16 11*i- 17 is : 19 20 21 '22 . 23 24 .where the work went. o n . - , ''1 - ; ' : MR * h e INEMM : ,W e l l , your Honor, ;Mr .Carr" has ' -r ` < ' *-- 1 1 1 ', /" L, / -,, 1 K ^^ ^ '' i i ',, ' ' r '. - - s*- now said three times; in a,question that;th EPA ordered this td.be done. I h a v e n 11'.seen a document yet that ha/s ,r J _ ' , ( ^\ ' U^rV r ^ i.*V. J -- j-_ -- v *' * P presented that establishes^ that!. ''SoMf.object to this oh l1ack of fi--aouinidatt,i.,o/n?rnikO/,1V^iV:i1'* '^ X- JJ f ^` J' f l V-w'/ `; .\*-,tk- 1 ' ;: IJ ' .J - 4` j :' "J MR. L jJ -^ T -J 'f .J.~ l *"V i" "> < ' j' i ' '3' I," ( CARR: ^ Wei1, <:let me withdraw .the words 1 ' 'i r *\ l' " ' 1 I 1t T - ~ ^ ' - j- \-4 \ T \ a `r J 1 1 'f ^ ' d "order," a n d , p u t i t in the framework of request. ; 'V . THE COURT : ^ I t 1s *admitted over ofejection. You 143 J^ PEbGAD C O .. BAYO NNE, :N.J, may proceed. - 'I - _ , MR. REINEMAN: ,MayjIask what's being passed ,to1the jury, your Honor; j MR, CARR: ./ Th-last page, Counsel. It should , be marked 1527-A. y ' - ', ' /* ' A j - H'^*/\'^^ L * 1\ ^ r` v h ', " ^ T . ^ s ' (Plaintif V E x h i b i t s 1527-A and '527-B were ' marked for, identification by the, court ' reporter.) '` - L/ J0 * (By Mr.-Carr)^ : Doctor, do you recognise 1527-A 'as th'last page1of 1527? '- ^ A . Yes, sir... : -, . r \ Q A n d D o ' y o u recognize 1527-B as a blow-up of 1527-A? - v ` :v ' , > -- j.*'' A Yes, sixJ v " ./ , . '* i, 1 -. .. ^ .V. . * " '1 ' MR. CARR:v I offer these two, exhibits, if it ` please the Court , . "" THE CURT.jf r* 11 incorporate your prior i' V I-'*- L .V\ "i ;, . . . t* * i * x > , * -, , - -v ` . .j - ` obj ections Th e y 1r e ;'admitted^ over obj ection.M . - /; . i.MR . 'HEINEiiAN,:A>-Thank; y o u y p u r 'HOiior. r '- j , 11 - r 1 i^ . H ' j, ' , . "l about B now? I'm Lsorry. That's a blow-up of A? A. `MR* CARR: V A blow-up. of A "; What Q (By Mr. rr) Now, Doctor, by reading these PENGAO CO.. BAYONNE. N .J. 070 0 2 'iF O R M ; iL 2 4 B |. 2. .\ 3 "4 5 6 .* 'J 7 ' ,8 ' 4' 10 1:2. 1 ' 13 .14 - 15' 16 'T 18 t 19 2P 21 22 . *23.' 24 ' two documents together ,;we can find out .just where the - . 2,4:, 5rtrichlorophenol a c e t i c a c i d was'produced at the i.:-( Nitro Plant, can we hot,, sir? \ V;-, - _ r *;; , - s. . A ' X don't* know that.. But;you- may be rights\ A ^Q-. Well,; if.you'll look at the 1526, the third page-of it, it. says;"Details of. 2,4,5-trichiorpphenoxy- - acetic acid Production at -the Nitro Plant-" " Do you see, \*v, ^ j ^ r,u . ' * ^, ,, that/Jsir?' ;*>- . ; >r- t * * ^,, h" r -* ' ?. ; r ~ : JYes, s i , . * . . ' ^ 11 * -j 'J^v " .* \ - ^ -g ,i %, ' ' ' j * -1 1u > , 1 ;Jt, //' 1 v ,'.v '-? . ' v . ..tv >:r,\ - ... J r . '.!> ' . / ' ^ .:-/; - ; 1 * ,, , v- - - And it says, first of all,-that "when it was started, it was actually started,to introduce An .1946 , V'\ ..wasn't it, sir?.': :r. ^ * '">//' - ,,7 ^ .7 " ^ ;A ; .On an experimental basis, -yes;:,sir. - ' - . Q .To see;v?hether or not you could "do it, see , whether^Or not it would be worthwhile to. do, it? T- 1 / ' , jy T y( k , ' > '-A' -I'tn s^e.'thatts,'ri^h,^ t ' -;s\ ; t - fQ .In 19 4 6 -is when .it was .startedV And. you r ;v started,rolant troductioh.,in Optober .of .1948.r - . .. A r- -. '< .. . - . . 'y* ? Yes,sir'.i; ' _ . . ` L- )}. : ' i .V - v *J.(J ?; . f; v 1 ! -i t - ' . i.f'-iv i ' , i.'v. '.V--. i > " v> . ^ 1" h r *V f. r " 4,1 - ^ ,;'Q Nowf Doctor f/7it started out. the .pilot plant - /- - j i-i1' f]fy >/' v,f2* -t ri r at EuAiding 32. - Nov/, 'where' is Building"327 sir?. , -A i, ' * ; .1 -v i can't ** r v e , aydf ro\i t ^ o j n - -mine. 4 ^ ^ S o 4 m^e are ^ kind of *' " 1 '.it1'/* ^ 1* .1''' - ^ i* *^ ^ smeared". : ' *_'^ ' " Q ! -Well,; i * 11 concede I c a n 11 read. It either So 145 . ^ .y w e f1 1 "have to forget-about Building 32. They started it- inB;-41: We know,;where B-:41 is, don't we, sir? 'A ' ' *i Yes,, s,i r .; *' * rj -*" .,** ''t ' -I , Q I'll put a.circle around it right here; correct sir? - . ' ` A `, Y 1r ,.v, ;-Q. .. J " ** * Yes,sir*1 "J -t \ v J, `- r'r , .<, , . , * _ * 4 S' 1 i" . That's B.-41> And'then" they transferred it by pipelinert o 3 r34. - And .B^,34 is -- I had'it a moment ago --J it's right here below i t , `isn't it, sir? -A _ Yes,. sir/\v \ / % .. And from there it. went to B46. / t * : A:' 1. thinks - v 'V -- * r, .Q1 "B-46 is right here, is it not, sir?. , , L A 1 Yes>, sir.-1/I think,that's a 4. . ' , Q;, .And from there.it went to drier- trays in B-21/ and-I had 21 located'once;upon a time! I thought* But .I don!t see it now. 3 ut I do see it went tp Building 1.6" i' Vv )'! *j'- 1 ; 7 .^ f * ** andB "79. 3-79 w e :see`as Way t p her. ;r.Don't- w e , air? ^ ' r.7 $7 .Jt 7 l i : .V- '% - - Do. you see that, sir?' ' 1J ' ' j\, "t.r';t * J) A Yes, sir.C vn7;'j ,'7 ir-'* * 7 : ' . . - ; *'' 1 v-" v -v *''rV ' , ':.A ^ 'Q And then it was taken over to B back to :`*v . .. l 7 i, t \\ i-i': -V ` r ;* ?, B-34, which we previously identified as" down here. Correct, s i r ? - P E N G A O CO.. B A Y O N N E . N,J, 0 7 0 0 2 . F O R M IL 2 4 B 1- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 /io ; 11 J2 13 14 15 16 .`1718 '19 20 21 22 23 24 Q , So there is two buildings,/three buildings , ` we can*t find. B - 21', B -46, and B-16; isn't that right, j sir?' - Z* - / ; - ; ` \ ^ A I think.that's righti'. ,` .1 MR. HEINE^Ns"; I-thought we ..found 46. . > MR. CARRi Ye s , `we do have. I've missed it* , , * 'Q (By'Mr ,;.Carr), Now these are a l l `streets between these v a rious'places, aren't they, sir?. A ,Yes>.sir.; / _ . '. i V.' : ;* Q And how did they get th material- from;B-34 "to' '3-79? .By- truck,, or automobile, r railroad? These are railroad lines hre, are they not, sir? - A Yes, sir. They wouldn't use'rail line for thaij: .Q J I d o n 't think they would either. Well, Doctor the chart also shows the'areas'.where they, found ,'dioxin / contamination in/1983 i 1. ` '4 'J / ' 'r * t /. * 'A * Yes, sir;/ ;T - '' v ' . - ' / . rj.:i v v j / / ' '., . s i v; ' ~ * *'~j/1; v ; .' , . * `J / -' y p -v, . .- /.A '.Yes, siri /-A // LV // \ ` / " q \ ,, And -if you.recall, I referred earlier to the ' 1- r. ' - 4. , ?. vi.^-j y, c: , s* :r\ -i ~ ,r`'L- 1 section of the rear fence -in:the -south part) of the plant* j" ^ b* y s* . . Yes,, sir.- *Q L e t 's see. W e 've got some mre buildings to find, first of aiIV W e 've got:B-51 to find, and B-30 -- 147 ` _ ' " \ 1 . r.we found Br*34, B-92. Oh, I got the Building IS that I ' , missed before.- T h a t 's right here\asrwell. Isn't it, sir? 3. . 1 A It looks like a 14 to.me. ' 4<r 5 Q It looks like a.16 on mine. .Oh,. I got 91 too. Or was it 92 that I'm looking for? 6 A 92. . .V. - ' . - 7 Q : I'm looking'for 92; - 91 is here." Doctor, .what 8 this chart shows, even without locating these otherr - 9 -- ,, buildings, is that'-.there was an.'area of contamination 10 u r requiring these arehs to.be paved, some areas to be * ` i- - y _v ' ; , covered with crushed limestone,. some .areas,tb be excavatec 12 Yes, sir. "I'm riot sure it was required. But 13 it was'initiated.^ But' that's, what was ,planned to do 14 * * .anyway. ! 15 Q And the area that had to be excavated is right 16 1.>. ; 17 . / - down there at the' south rareav] Do you^seeV that, sir? ` '<; \ \ '-rf .. V, `i; . I' - ' , ,A Yes, sir'. ' '' --v -- . , 18 'V;. , C P ' It would ibe ;right; here/ would.'jit*not? .^_T :,,-v \;***^ i > lti(> -v17-b ;r 19 , A -Yes, sir. :20 .Q ' And this other area-.'here Is;-to. be either paved 21 ' or covered.with crushed /limestone, all the vacant places 22 between those buildings?' isn't that correct, sir? 23 r : 24 ." * r A =- Yes, sir. Most of that was limestone original!.y* ` Q. 'It may have been. But it got contaminated, so 148 j? _ .- _ 'i 1 ; 'i' ,i i j - w - (L v.'* - 1. < r- ) RENGAO C O ., B A Y O N N E . N .J . 0 7 0 0 2 FORM 1L 2 A B PENG*D CO.. BAYONNE. N .J. 07002 yi -2~i 3 4 5-- 6 7r 8' 9; 10 M 12 13 r* 14 ... / 15 16', 17 . 18 19 ' . 20 21 , 22 23 they needed.to cover- the limestone that was there because it says area to be -covered with crushed limestone, doesn't it, Doctor? r h \ Yes, sir.; ^ : - r' \ ' -^ .^ r ' 1 Q ' How,- Doctor,/the areas'where this work is to * r^ 1_ ' -" be done, is all outside,.is.it hot, sir? , 1A ' Q L JYes, 3ir>.'-.-j`:' f *,, 1 J k."' V * //,- ^ i " r1 T, r t *. ^ And that would indicate, v/ould it not, sir, that dioxin was found ihLthose areas? .. ; A vYes; .'siri ; L" - /Q -And, Doctor; you know that dioxin was found in Building 79 from the wipe samples, you know that, don't *' t r ;you? ` r < '-// /." ' . \^ A - Yes,, sir.' ' 'V ; _L ' j. - ' ' .-0 /And-.BuilLddiinngg'-^^S ,-ia still being.used j isn't it; sir? tjvi Vi- f.' f;.. r;-/' *% L " ' ' , A Yes, sir / :I think: so>, k ` ;*rf ;/ -Q What are they. doingv;in 79?--; i: p ' 'K. A v I don't recall'. // ti- \ vjf t 3f. i ^ t " "1 j L , 0 r I don't intent.to make all of the report an exhibit./ I'm going to.make a part of the Building 79 report:an exhibit. Coiinsel can see-the entire amount if he wants, the entire file. - 1 149 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1528, was marked /l ' v ' ^for.identification by .the.court reporter.) Q (By Mr. Carr) Handing you now. Exhibit 1528, and ask t you if you r( r e c ^ o ' gn ,. ' i z eJ ^that as t. ihe anlysis < of wipe r. ,, - ' WJ * s *w . ' t 1. , samples, but without the nanograms. Counsel, let me show you the entire exhibit, if you want the nanograms* '` / 1 11fl r 1' r - ^ Jl That's here. It's everything up to the nanograms. - . 1 if"''* ^` offer this exhibit, your Honor. ~ I J, .`THE COURT t- Any oh jection to 1528? MRV HEINEMAN: Your Honor, may Counsel approach.the bench for a moment?^ - / r THE.COURT: -Sure. ' `' V % . '* ; ;(The following proceedings were had at, the b e n c h ' out bf the,^ hearing of the jury:) .' j ' f A v '* * f > V . 1 : .. * t r . I t ' ...t ^ 3 - / . MR. HEINEMANi" .Long1ago in-^this case we approaoh-. V N .V,,'. -.-,,V V* r" ed.this subject of the relevancy of the Nitro incident, .; '- r " ;'t -*3, the Nitro people,, the,..2";4>5-T, vand .aliv'of- that, and its *1 * *F 1 J L relevancy in. t h e c a s e . We; objected^ to. it :at that time. , -' {''if '' 'f ,lV " 4 j-- 'V ' - THE COURT: Oh, sure, a long time ago. '. MR. H E I N E M A N A n d the Court overruled. ' " . . t. ' ' THE COURT: Right. / ' .'.- MR. HEINEMAN:- I assume that T don't have to keep making..that objection.: THE COURT.: Oh, nO. 'if was made as a continui$ , " " 11' - ^ - ' ,, 1" l 1 i. mT ( ~ ^ v - - 1_ P ^ h l -- ._ 150 objection, - , ' . MR. HEIEMAN: /We have an objection to e v e r y - ,' thing related to Nitro. ,r THE COURT: I believe it, was. That's m y ` knowledge. ,\ .' r'-\ .. MR. CARR; That's fine with me. THE COURT u iVve been treating /it as such. MR, HE NEMAN;^ Fine. I just*assumed, that didn't have to keep making that*.sameLobjection. . `, - / THE COURT* -Not, at all. '- , MR. HEINEMAN: ' With-respect to everything 1 relating to Nitro. ; - .. , r THE COURT! * No, not' at;`all. . ' 1 t' y "'"', ^ j F j-*y * ,_i *, , ' . MR. JEINEMAN-- Thnkxyou". ' '/ l; 1 i ' . *r. . -, f t ' V v - :s , ' (Th following'proceedings were had in the- . J \ 'f.. &>'J - 1 ^ TJf *- V, ' r : - 1 *' *'/Jt> * ryt - 1 `. _- presence1and hearing'o f <the jury :)^ w .O -, 1 THE COURT:.. D o .you have any objection.to 1526? ' ( **. ' V-\ *' . H - - f a >* :<-:VfV.( w Ss- .. y 1 -MR. HEINEMAN; No other, objction, yor Honor* , THE COURT:' Fine. It's admitted. Q - .0y Mr. Carr) Doctor* if you'll 'turn to Table 1-A, which is the page "that* has number C1128 in the right-hand crner." y "" , ] ^ y r, ` \ .'A Y e s > sir. / j Q . You '.Usee; that they took sweepings from the 151 1 .r . dry end of the east"door from a. screen. .* 2 -3.: l A"" .Yes fsir. iJ v it-,-. " ' ,,a ,J. ` ' ' ^ .` ' ,> '. - " / .Q From a'screen'boxtop, and the base of the 4 . stairs, and the middle section of the south door, middle 5 - section of the northwest corner in the dust collector, . 6 . from a stacker, from all kinds of places around that / ' 'building, didn't they, sir? / r 8 A 1 -Does it say^ which building?1 . ,v 9 : Q- '' Building 79 10 . MR. HEINEMAN: Where does'it say-that?' 11 ; MR. CARR::- If you'll 'look at the bottom of the 11 . .page numbered 11278, one sample B - 7 9 I f you will look 13 14 at the second to last/`page of *the e x hibit'that'll ,'ve' given' ** ii1 t .?t*.<;xir. *r f*' '{ '^*ri>*^ *,J 1>,v'*cv T 1 - you, you'll-see B-79,-'B-79/ all df" those'things' are 15 described as B-79. The-analysis, requests: j^'DO you see. r , - is: f'V. 0 'r'- jl- , ` 1(5 'l.. ' that, Counsel? v/"; - .. ,r 17 , , ' , ,. " ;r >& r ; ~ ? * .'* ,,a* t ^ ; :" t THE WITNESS: -v I seeit' on .that page, and on the 18 other page. But X'dpn't see it bn Table 1-A. - 19 , \{ MB. CARR: Do you see the same thing being 20 described there, 'don't you, Counsel? This all deals witJ^ J PNGAD CO*, BAYONNE, N j , ( 07002 21 o 1wipe samples in B-:??/' Building 79. .22 MR. HEINEMAN:- Some of them look the same. 23 * MR. CARR: They're all the.same exhibit. You '' r 1 'r-a t J2 ' ,<4 ^V 24 d o see those references to Buildihg''79 in this exhibit, 152 1 ',,,, , rj ry * - _ ` ` ^ -; * ,, ,,, ,, 4 ir' j ' ki* *. r ,,,, '` 1-* -1 1 -v ^' . v * *- \ f, don't you, -Dir. Roush? ' if you'll turn to the analysis request,, you'^see- ali the 16 samples taken, all referring ' J - 1. u ,* to Building 79, isn't it, Dr. Roush?, A 1 Yes,'sir. ,Q (By 'MrCarr); Now, -Doctor,' referring to the findings,rthey find that these various places from these .sweepings, 4.68 parts.per billion, 15.55 parts 'per billion, 1.99 parts per billion, 3.87 parts per billion,: 8.24 parts'per billion, 13.56 p a r t s 1per billion,. 12.51 parts .per. billion, 97.74 parts per billion; 6.72 parts pver billidn:;3i05 parts per billion, 'and 11.82jparts per billion. ; A. L about? Do.you not :see.?that, V - *W -sir?,.r - "-' .-, y'v . ^ " V " - Yes,.si.rV - .v" j:.. .,> 'X-- "H 1 '' MR. HEINEMN .Which -page are yo u ;tallkkding : 'v t:.; V' '- J f'.'J V, \ r ' J / iVJIJ -- MR..CARR: -Ta-,b*le-i 1-A> -,C*ouni'sle*l. "VuS/-i , MR. HEINEMAN: Where's the 11.82? " 'MR. CARR : ,On the -next pagv Table 1-A " continues. '-'y k - '' '. ' , V _ MR. HEKEMAN! And four- non-detected, correct? \ MR. CARR: .I 'm interested* Counsel,, in showing the 5JGDD that was :there to expos the people in Building 79. These sweepings were taken in 1984. Thirteen years* ,>> M R . .HEINMAN: You weren't interested in showing 153 '* * / . * the TCDD that was'riot-there. ;:' ; V MR.- CARR: -O f course, not, Counsel. What I'm interested' in doing1 is showing that -these people were exposed to TCDD, ,so why would I care about-showing where it's not there?.I'm proving an affirmative, Counsel", not" a negative. y.v/1 "v*:/, .THE COURTS Mr,-- Carr,'-you may proceed. ' \ (M R . CARR: , Thank you, your Honor.- Q , (By Mr... Carr) * -Doctor,, you- see that all that dioxin, detected in the sweepings in all parts of this building; do- you hot, sir? 'V ' > ' 41 , -I VL- ' ' - J ; 5 " -A , Yes#->siri-\* .r- , \ v r ,4 . -/"Vi fj.'-- *v, - - -.0 .Q Everyplace^ they look, ,there's one, .two, three> ,J*. .-- ;y r P : & x ^ -1 ;- four exceptions; they^fpund dioxin, didn't; they, sir? , ' A 'Yes, sir. . _ t .. > > '- r 'f. j.. K ir,' ! ; " '`-I / i *1 J` ^ J ; y* 'V, y .i s y , y . Q.. And whoever was in those buildings from the/ time they started using it in 1948, or up until 1984 was exposed 'to the; dioxin in .that building, were, they not, sir . - MR.l HEIEMAN: Objection, your Honor. It p- ,, ^L r.* assumes that Building, 79 was in existence all that time. I don't think that's: been established. I don't know if th]is witness even knows." r- ' ` '\ y THE COURT: Objection is overruled. ' P\'' Q (By1M r . ,Carr) Isn't1that correct, Doctor? * 154 1 2' , 3 4 '5;. 67 8 9 10 11 12 13 ,14 15 16 17 PENCAD CO.,. BAYONNE, N,J. 18 19 20 - 21 L -J 22 23 r 24' ,, 7 I'm not sure how long Building 79 was there. . " . Q r Whatever time i t .was. there, Doctor,, the people working in that building up to September 1984 at least -were exposed to t h e 'dioxin there, weren't they? . . . . *j .A ,*Y e s ,..sir... ^ ^ i "r ' v i* <'* ," * ^ ' Q " Sir? /' t' ' / ` Yes, sir. ^ \ * ' ' '' . <- " * ,, : ' '. /. , '' \ t ' ; 0 .That wasn't just:in the corners, it was all,ove the building, wasn't it, sir? 'There were only,four places they looked where they didn't find it. They found, it ` ;A? .*;ft i`V ? ' - everywhere, didnVt /hey, `Doctor?: x ^ A, \ . v r * Jifi, I ,}i l- - x= V `i'\\ - ' A . " A 'J NO, sir - Everywhere -well, where didn' t .they find it? Read.the / o u r -- four places where they didn' t,find it. , - i \ i { - y ' - ; . J ' , 11, f r J. ( . " }-`,.* * i VA* - 'I ; A r They were trying to look arid find it. Q Excuse me, Doctor, they took samples from all *J , l 1 ( * -f r * 16 places and they'<|idn?t.find it in only four'of theL16 y isn't that correct; sir? ' - T, . ,A Q .Yes, 'sir.'" Yes,"sir.'.. t ( j * t And the people that were .in that -- that were i|n that building all during the time it was being used to manufacture 2,4,5-t ; and.thereafter, whatever purpose it , might have been, put to, were exposed to the TCDD in that building / w e r e they not, sir? 155 1 A I don't know what you mean by exposed. 2 Q Doctor, you do know what I mean by exposed. 3 You know exactly what I mean by exposed. An opportunity 4 for the dioxin to get on them, be ingested, inhaled, come 5 through their skin, however. You know there was an 6 opportunity for the dioxin to get in them and poison them. 7 That's what I mean by exposed. 8 A There was an opportunity for exposure. 9 MR. CARR: Your Honor, I'm after 4:00, and it 10 is Friday. 11 THE COURT: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we'll 12 break for the day at this point in time. We'll resume 13 again at 9:00 Monday. I would remind you, since this is 14 an over night break, besides your regular admonishments, 15 that you're not to read, listen to, or watch anything 16 about this case in particular, or the subject matter in 17 general in any of the media. Thank you for your attention 18 and cooperation and patience this week. V7e'll see you 19 Monday. 20 Court is adjourned. Have a good weekend. 21 ( Court adjourned.) 22 23 24 1 STATE OP ILLINOIS ) ) 2 TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT ) SS. ) 3 COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR ) 4 5 I, Kathleen Watson Brunsmann, one of the 6 Official Court Reporters, do hereby certify that the 7 foregoing transcript is a true and correct copy of said 8 proceedings. 9 10 DATED* August 2, 1985. 11 12 c 2 w m l 1 i wjijyijL-, Kathleen Watson Brunsmann, CSR, RPR 13 Official Court Reporter 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 PEN GAD CO.* BAYONNE* N *j* 0 7 0 0 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 H 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 L 24 STATE OF ILLINOIS TWENTIETH. JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COUNTY OF ST* CLAIR ' SS, i/, RICHARD.P. GOLDENHERSH, .Circuit Judge, do hereby r +* kt' ** certify that the foregoing-transcript is a true and correct \* < ' *> " *' * _ 1 `',F ,y; J copy of said transcript. * -- p DATED} ;i ' P fSVi'? -v r\. fi . , :is,\ / j *vt < . *^, m*r\ * -J ' i.t , ,\ v,..\'j , v -j" ^ 'P : -y,\} RICHAEp P . GOLDENHERSH , CIRCUIT JUDG 2 158 not a small fraction is it sir? It's a major fraction and justJabout as bi9 as you can get is it not sir? A If we base it on what he said here Q , Ye3, If you base it on the knowledge that you had if this exhibit correctly states the facts And by this exhibit I mean 1142 correctly states the facts and the extent of Monsanto's knowledge at that time; isn't that correct sir?, A * Yes, sir Q And you do know that, subsequently you had this material examined by Rappe of Sweden, and that he said that there was 45 parts per billion of 2,3,7,8 TCDD. You do recall that, don't you, sir? A Mo, sir, I don't recall that. X recall the memo that you're referring to, or the letter 1 recall the numbers Q Well, do you know that Monsanto sent it to Professor Christopher Rappe for analysis? A Yes, sir q no you know thatProfessorChristopher Rappe analysed it? A Yes, sir* Q And do youknow that hereported toMonsanto that it was 45 parts per billion 2,3,7,8 TCDD? 1 A It's nc>t the way I recall it, 2 Q How do you recall it/ sir? 3 A There are a number of -- as I recall, there are 4 a number of analyses that were done on that sample, and 5 there were two of them at 45 parts per billion, and one of 6 them was supposed to have been spiked, so that the one 7 spiked and without the spiked both came out at 45 parts per 8 billion* And the reason they spiked it, so they can tell 9 it -- 10 Q Excuse me. Dr, Roush, did Professor Rappe tell 11 you that? 12 A No, sir. That's the way -- 13 Q Did you read Professor Rappe*s evidence deposi 14 tion that was taken in this case? 15 A No, sir, 16 Q Did anybody tell you what Professor Rappe swore 17 to under oath? 18 A No, sir. No, sir, 19 Q Then what y o u 're giving us is .what Mr, Heineman 20 or somebody that way told you? 21 A I c a n 't -- ,1 read it, and I discussed it, and 1 22 can't tell which I'm reflecting now, 23 Q you c a n 't tell whether y o u 're reflecting what 24 Mr* Heineman told you ,, ' ' '' '' 1 A No# sir* 2 Q -- or what you read? 3 A X c a n ' t b e sure unless X saw it again* 4 Q Well, you. do know now that Professor Rappe 5 testified in this case? 6 A yes# sir* 7 Q And he analyzed thesample andthat it was 45 S parts per billion 2#3#7#8# and you do know that your Counse 9 has admitted to this jury that there was 2#3#7#S TCDD in 10 the tank car? You know.that# d o n 't you# sir? 11 A Yes# sir* 12 Q . All right Nov; -- and you knowPlaintiff's 13 Exhibit 188# a Rappe Exhibit# shows that this tank car had 14 45 parts per billion 2#3#7#8 TCDD in it* do you' know that 15 too? 16 A No# sir* ' 17 G You haven't seenPlaintiff's Exhibit 188? 18 A No # sir 19 Q Which was a report made byProfessor Rappe* 20 A X c a n 't relate it to a number that you're 21 saying* 22 G I 'm sorry. You wouldn't be# or course you 23 wouldn't* I'm sorry* You have seen the charts and the 24 memos prepared by Professor Rappe in! which* he describes the i 1 Contents as having 45 parts per billion 2,3,7,8 TCDD. 2 A I saw one document. 1 don't know if that's the 3 only one or not. 4 Q Well, whatever it is* You also know that 45 5 parts per billion 2,3r7,8 is a lot more than just a small 6 fraction of the total tetrachloro-dibenzo-p-dioxins in that 7 tank car, don't you, sir# of that tetras? 8 t A If that's correct, yes* 9 Q If that's correct* Now, Doctor, the next 10 exhibit, 1521, in the -- which is a memo that Mr* Metcalf 11 made of a conversation he had with Harry Gilmer the day 12 following the writing of the letter that we just referred 13 to -- 14 A Yes, sir. IS Q , He now tells him that he doubts seriously that 16 the 2,3,7,8 isomer could even be as much as 16 percent of 17 the 37 parts per billion, doesn't he, sir? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q And then he says hedoubts it could bethat high 20 if it were present at all*' 21 A Yes, sir. 22 Q Didn't he,sir? Now,Doctor, that again is not 23 telling the EPA to.assume that this is 2,3,7,8 TCDD in the 24. tank car, is it, sir? , i 1 A No, sir 2 Q As a matter of fact, it is attempting to persuad 3 them that the< opposite is the case, isn't it, sir? 4 A Yes, sir* 5 Q Yes. And,Doctor, would you say that that is 6 proper to try to persuade the EPA that there is no 2,3,7,8 7 TCDD in the tank car, if it's there, i t 's just a very 8 small fraction of the 37, when you have a chemist who has 9 made a report, made a memo here where he says he estimates 10 that it 's 90 percent 2,3,7,8 in that -- of that 37, 40 parts 11 per billion of tetras? 12 A If that's correct, yes 13 Q you think i t 1S' -- 14 A If that's correct, then it's improper to say 15 only a small part is* 16 Q Yes, indeed it is* And it would be misleading, 17 would it not, Doctor? 18 A Wh a t 's misleading? 19 Q If you tell anybody that there's only going to 20 be no 2,3,7,8 present in the tank car, or if it's present 21 it's going to be a very small fraction of 37 parts per 22 billion Isn't that misleading, sir? i. ' , i\ 1* * 23 A No, sir 24 Q Doctor, if you have reason'to believe from this 1 document that you have 36 parts per billion of 2,3,7,8 2 TCDD in that tank car# or 31 parts per billion 2,3#7,8 TCDD 3 in that tank car, isn't it misleading to tell the EPA that 4 you think -- you doubt seriously that it's present at all, 5 and that if it is present, it's only a very small fraction 6 of 37? 7 A , No, sir - 8 Q Don't you believe that's misleading? 9 A No# sir* 10 Q Doctor, it's not telling them what you know to 11 be the case , is it, sir? 12 A No, sir* 13 Q Then if you don't tell them what you believe to 14 be the..case, and you tell them the opposite of what you 15 believe to be the case, isn't that misleading? I s n 't that 1.6 leading someone to believe something that you don't think 17 is true? 18 A I'm not sure what the question is* 19 Q Doctor, the question is simply, if I tell you 20 that the value of my automobile is a thousand dollars, whan 21 I had an appraiser tell me that he thinks it couldn't get 22 $250 on the open market, a man that's. skilled in appraising 23 automobiles, a man that has been selling them for years, and 24 X just came from him, and he just told me that, and X come 1 to you and say this car is worth a thousand dollars, X 2 think it's worth a thousand dollars, am X not misleading you 3 sir? 4 A Yes, sir. 5 Q Yes. And if you have a chemist who has told 6 you in this memo that he estimates that it's 90 percent 7 2,3,7,8 TCDD, isn't it misleading for you to tell the EPA 8 that you don't think it could be 2,3,7,8 TCDD? 9 A Yes. 10 MR. HEINEMANi Objection, Doctor. Your Honor, 11 objection. It assumes that Mr. Kaley told this witness 12 or anyone other than Dr. Mieure about what was in that memo. 13 It also assumes, or it misrepresents what Dr, Kaley testifies 14 in court about in respect to that memo. X object to it. 15 THE c o u r t s Overruled on both objections. 16 Please answer the question, Doctor. 17 THE WITNESS) If Mr. Metcalf had that informa 18 tion when he wrote this memo -- 19 Q (By Mr. Carr) Yes. 20 A -- then it would ,have .been improper.. *But 21 there's still -- ,\ 22 Q And wouldn't it be misleading? 23 A Yes, sir. The only problem with this is that 24 in that Rockefeller meeting that we discussed,, when they t 1 talked about the risk of dioxin* we talked about before* 2 in that document, the SPA in 1983 said that the route to mak* 3 ing 2*3,7,8 come from the tetrachloro-dibenzo route# and 4 not from .the phenol route# so that the EPA as of last year 5 is still saying you don't get to 2,3,7#8 by going the 6 phenol route. 7 Q Now why do you reckin they're saying that# 8 Doctor? Do you reckin they're saying that because theyfre 9 relying bn things that chemical companies have told them? IO A No, sir. No, sir. 11 Q Now, Doctor, you know, and Monsanto knows, and 12 has known since 1957, that you get 2,3,7,8 by a number of 13 means 14 MR. HEINEMAN Objection. 15 Q (By Mr. Carr) You know that, don't, you? 16 MR. HEINEMAN I didn'^t get the date. Since 17 1937? 18 THE COURT *57* is when he said. 19 MR. CARR Yes, when the man from the Univer- 20 sity of Xowa, according'to Dr* Wilson, talked 'about various j i 21 ways that 2,3,7,8 isomer could be formed* The evidence is 22 in this case already. Counsel.' / * ; 23 Q (By Mr. Carr) And when you've known since 1975 24 or '76 that your own chemist, Steve Vogel, says you can get 1 2,3,7,8 by adding caustic to the stillpot, and you know all 2 these things, sir? and the EPA doesn't know it, and your 3 chemist having this knowledge, isn't that misleading, sir? 4 MR. HEINBMANi Objection to the statement of wha 5 the prior evidence shows* It's incorrect* The Vogel Report 6 talks about higher chloronated dioxin* 7 THE COURTS The objection is overruled* It's 8 not an improper statement* 9 THE WITNESSt I can't tell you why the EPA 10 makes the statement it made* 11 Q (by Mr* Carr) Doctor, that isn't my question* 12 My question is you at Monsanto, you had a memo prepared by 13 Dr* Kaley, when he analyzed the reserve sample from this 14 tank car; This is the memo that he put out* He's identifie 15 it as his memo* 16 A. Yes, sir* 17 Q Somebody else changed it. Somebody else wrote 18 something else on it* But the original memo that he 19 prepared was this one, according to his sworn testimony in 20 this court* All right? And Steve Vogel has also testified 21 in this court, and there'have b e e m d t h e r chemists testify 22 that, yes, they took the caustic away and the 2,3,7,8 23 wasn't being formed* Now all this .was*knowledge that 24 Monsanto had in '76, '77, '79, and the spring of *79 when yo 1 quit using caustic. You didn't get -- you still got some 2 2 f3,7,8, but not near as much. Now all that is information 3 that you know, and the chlorinated phenol, and you sit here 4 and say, and know that the EPA believes it can't come from 5 chlorinated phenols, based upon a 1983 report that they 6 had. You know at Monsanto, you know the EPA doesn't have 7 the full facts, don't you, sir? 8 A No, sir. 9 Q If they believe that you cannot get dioxin from 10 chlorinated phenols, you know that's not a fact, don't you, 11 sir? 12 A No, sir. 13 Q You don't know that that's not a fact? 14 \A They said you don't get the 2,3,7,8, you get 15 dioxin, but you don't get 2,3,7,8* 16 Q And, Doctor, you know that you do get 2,3,7,8 17 TCDD from chlorinating phenols, don't you, sir? 18 A In some cases,, yes* ; 19 Q Yes. But the EPA'doesn't know that, do they, 20 sir? Based upon what you've said./ *.- 21 A I don't know. 22 Q You just got throughsaying it, Doctor. 23 A I don't know what EPA knows* 24 Q You just got through saying what they knew. You 1 just got through sitting hers ten seconds ago and saying 2 the EP& still believes that it comes from benzine and not 3 from phenols. 4 A Yes, sir. 5 Q Didn't you, sir? 6 A Yes, sir. Yes, sir, that's right. 7 G Now, Doctor, that's the extent of the EPA's 8 knowledge. They don't have the same knowledge about the 9 chemistry and about the chemicals that Monsanto has. They 10 are asking, you in these letters, in these memos, in these 11 calls, they're asking you, "Give us your expertise** And 12 what do you do? You tell them, "Hey, it can't be made by 13 that process, and if it were in some part of the 2,4,5, the 14 most it would be, it would be about 16 percent, and it 15 wouldn't be a major fraction at all*" And you have your 16 own senior chemist, who just six days before, had prepared, 17 or four days before,had prepared this memo, Plaintiff's \ i ' i t. 1 r 18 Exhibit 1142, in which he, estimates ;that 90 percent of 19 what's in there, the 2,3,7,& isomer* Don't you .consider ,* j ' " .r . ' * *\ * *J t . ,* ,, ! , * ** 20 that under those circumstances,""Dr...Roush, It's''misleading 21 to the EPA? ,, 22 A If that's the truth* 23 Q Yes* Doctor, I'll now hand you what's been 24 marked -- before I do that* I have other exhibits prepared r 1 that I forgot to use* Could I have 1520-A and 1521-A 2 please* 3 4 (Plaintiff's Exhibits 1520-A and 1521-A were 5 marked for identification by the court reporter) 6 7 Q (By Mr* Carr) Doctor, you recognise 1520-A as 8 being a blow-up of page two of the February 12th letter to 9 Harry Gilmer by Mr. Metcalf? 10 A Yes, sir*. 11 Q - And do you recognize 1521-A as being the blow-up 12 of the February -- the first page of the February 13th 13 memo made by Mr* Metcalf? 14 A Yes, sir* 15 MR. CARR: I offer 1520-A and 1521-A into 16 evidence, if it please \t* he court* \. . ** \ 17 MR* HEINEMANs ` No objection, Judge*1 . 1' 18 THE COURT: Both are, admitted without objection. 19 Thank you* `^ :* 1 20 MR# CARR? Your Honor*,; l'-d like now to offer 4 i* P ' ^ * 21 Plaintiff's Exhibit 1482 into evidence* It's been previous 22 ly identified. Mr. Heineman suggested that I should offer 23 it Into evidence, and at that time I didn't wish to do so* 24 But now I do offer Plaintiff's Exhibit 1482 into evidence* i THE COURT: . Okay.' -Any objection Jto 1482?. MR. HEINEMAN: ;>/No objection, Judge. ; ', THE COURT:.F.Admitted without objection. 'MR. HEINEMAN: - May. I ask what's being passed to" the juryr/your H o n o r ? .' r MR. CARR: 1482. /, . '.-/ * - .; ; M R / HEINEMAN: The.1entire document?-, J ; " ; MR. C A R R r Yes. ; ' 1J;ir " ` Q' (By Mr.' Carr) Doctor, I'd'first, like to direct .' your attention to .the question that I have discussed with you on direct examination that Mr. peineman' discussed with/; you on his clarification examination, that would b e `question l_ 1,, number 13.., That would be on the second page. Do you - -recall.,r.sir?. ^. >' ' rT _/ ' * / , <m - '\- - _- i e That I .discussed this question with you relative to the fact that TCDD is `corisldered/to be/a 'promoter - -, . !-- 'I . J. ' r , - * t ; , / :' of cancer. \ Do you recall''that/ sir? .` / '* '. i7 k- ' J ii ` '- A Yes, sir.' : * \ > 411---r V Q . 'Do you aiso recall that you arid Mr. Heineman - * {*'T.; '* f ` "v* i* * * &'4u'- * discussed a McCardle Laboratory Study that you Isay showed that dioxin .is not a promoter ,of cancer? 1 Do you recall that, sir? ^ k/' *./ / , ; 'A:..' ,:YeS, Sif.,' ' - -V , ! ' , ' *! *'r't * ' * ' " " ^^ 2*L ' . ,,* '" Q 1./ Now, Dr. Roush, the exact opposite is what was 1 shown in that McCardle Study# that is Marcie'Strauss' . 'V'2' 3 4 ;, statement here- was shown t o 'be true, and the case# rather than your statement,that TCDD is hot a p r o m o t e r o f cancerj isn't that a fact,'sir? .5 6 7. - A please. J don't think that's right. -- k MR. CARR: Would you mark that as an exhibit# ,r '' 8' 9 -1 (Plaintiff 's Exhibit 1522 was marked ': ' ' L ' 10 " .. for identification by the court reporter.)' : 11 BAYONNE, N.J.- 07002 12 13 14 15 16 .-17 ' 18 19 = - 20 21 22 23 24 0 . (By Mr, Carr)., Handing you now Plaintiff's Exhibit |522# andrask .you if y o u .recognise that a s a memo ' made by one of your --.X think a toxicologist# Mr. Long, Timothy Long# oh behalf/Of-Monsanto/: referring to this ' * ,> " , - >. '* 5 ^.. ' i i ; ; v..- '-f'Sr'i ; `i ,, _ . t ff r f \. ^ dioxin seminar put on byvthe McCafdie Laboratory -- - : ' ' " S J vV- r A - ]A 'r. . ,, A iV`> < A Yes# sir. 5" V'.; . Q ---that-you discussed,about# , -. : i a ;!v?` ^-"1.*i A Yes# sir. Q And this was what, you and Mr*. Heineman d i s c ussed wasn't it# sir? ` .' \ ' - This ~ .P1. r- .. MR. HEINEMANt .This seminar? - THE WITNESS: This seminar,^ no# sir. 18 .