Document mqvZw4pnK95xnEYwLe1m0YRk4

J 18 THE CIRCUIT COURT TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF ILLINOIS 2 ST. CLAIR COUNTY 3 FRANCES E. KEMNER, at al., ) ) 4 Plaintiffs, ) ) 5 vs. ) NO. S0-L-970 ) 6 MONSANTO COMPANY, ) ) 7 Defendant, ) Before the HON. RICHARD F. GOLDENHERSH, Judge 8 9 10 11 12 JURY TRIAL 13 July 29, 1985 14 15 16 17 18 APPEARANCES; 19 MR. REX CARR and MR. JERRY SEICFRKID, Attorneys at Law 20 Appeared on Behalf of the Plaintiffs 21 MS. KENNETH HEINEMAN and MR. JOSEPH NASSIF, Attorneys at Law 22 Appeared on Behalf of the Defendant 23 MARSHA SCHNIPPER 24 Official Court Reporter 1 INDEX 2 DR. GEORGE ROUSCH 3 Recroas Examination ................................... 2 4 Reclarification E x a m i n a t i o n ............. ............. 146 5 6 EXHIBITS 7 Plaintiff' No. 1529 ........... 8 Plaintiffs' No. 1530 ........... 9 Plaintiff' No. 1 5 3 1 ........... IO Plaintiffs' No. 1532 ........... 11 Plaintiffs' No. 1533 ........... 12 Plaintiffs' No* 1534 ........... 13 Plaintiffs* No. 1534A ......... 14 Plaintiffs' No. 1534B ......... 15 Defendant's No. 924 ........... 16 17 18 19 INTRODUCED ADMITTED 3 4 128 138 141 141 20 21 22 23 24 1 BE IT REMEMBERED AND CERTIFIED thac heretofore, on 2 to-wit: Monday July 2 9 f 1985 being one of the regular 3 judicial days of this Court the matter aa hereinbefore aet 4 forth came on for hearing before the HON. RICHARD P. GOLDEN5 HERSH, Circuit Judge In and for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit 6 State of Illinois St. Clair County Building, Belleville, St. 7 Clair County, Illinois, and the following was had of record, 8 to-wit: 9 ******* 10 THE C O U R T : Morning. 11 DR. GEORGE ROUSCH. 12 resuming the witness stand, having been previously sworn, 13 testified further as follows: 14 RECROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) IS BY MR. CARR: 16 Q Doctor, I hand you now what's been marked Plaintiff's 17 Exhibit 1529 and ask you to look at that and see if you don't 18 agree that this is dealing with 2,3,7,8 TCDD found in Building 19 46. 20 A I don't see where it says what building it is, sir. 21 Q Look at the -- the Pages 1, 2, 3, 4th from the last 22 -- I'm sorry, 3rd from the last page. See where It tells 23 where they took the samples from? 24 A The 3rd from last? 1 Q Yes, right in hera, iron Building 79, we've already 2 gone through that and hero then 46. 3 A Right. 4 MR, CARR: Offer that exhibit into evidence if It 5 please the Court. 6 THE COURT: Any objections? 7 MR. HEINEMAN: Your Honor it's clearly a Monsanto 8 document, but 1 don't think he's laid an adequate foundation 9 for its admission, and I'd object to It on that basis. 10 THE COURT: Objection Is overruled. It's admitted 11 over obJec tlon. 12 (At this time Plaintiff's Exhibit 1530 was marked for 13 identification purposes.) 14 Q Doctor, I hand you now what's been marked Plaintiff's 15 Exhibit 1530 and ask you to look at that and see if you recog 16 nize that as dealing with an analysis of various soil samples 17 in landfill areas in the Micro Plant for ,3,7,8 TCDD? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q Now, 1529 and 1530 both show the presenca of 2,3,7,8 20 TCDD in the samples, wipe samples from Building 46 and taken 21 from chase various land locations in the Nlcro Plant, do they 22 not? 23 A 24 I haven't figured that out yet. MR. CARR: I don't think I offered 1530, your Honor. 1 I of far 1530. 2 THE COURT * Any objection to 1530? 3 MR. HEINEMAN: Same objection as before, your Honor. 4 THE COURTi Fine. Sane ruling. It's admitted over 5 objection. 6 Q Doctor, can I help direct your attention to the tablet 7 A Yes, sir, I think they list them ae -- even though the title says 2,3,7,8, in the chart it says parts per billion 8 9 of TCDD. It doesn't say 2,3,7,8. Q Well, Doctor, if you'll look at the introduction, it 10 11 talks about they're comparing it with a 2,3,7,3 spike, 12 are they not, in each o f these instances? 13 A Z haven't read that. 14 Q Have you read it now, Doctor? A Yes, sir, but it doesn't say that they confirmed that IS 16 it was 2,3,7,8. 17 Q Doctor, the entire introduction talks about using 18 a specific 2,3,7,8 comparison, and then they give the results 19 using that specific standard. It's not unusual for your compan; 20 to use this shorthand method of describing 2,3,7,8, is it, sir, 21 to use TCDD? 22 A lo, sir, not to me. 23 q Now, Doctor, both of these exhibits deal with the 24 analysis of soil samples and wipe samples from these buildings 1 and from those various land areaa for 2,3,7,8 TCDD, does It not, 2 sir? 3 A They were looking for something that would elute with 4 2,3,78* I'm not sure they established that it was* They don't^ 5 say It la. 6 Q Where does It say they're looking for something that 7 elutes with 2 , 3 , 7 87 Would you show me that language please? 8 A Ko, sir, 1 can't find that. 9 Q Then, Doctor, why are you saying that they're doing 10 that? They're looking for 2,3,7,8 TCDD. they cell it Analysis 11 of Wipes for 2,3,7,8 TCDD, don't they, sir? Your chemists know 12 what they're looking for and they call it -* they analyss fo^ 13 possible concentration o f 2,3,7,8 TCDD, don't they, sir? 14 A Yes, air. 15 Q On the very first page they're talking about it? 16 A Yes, sir. 17 Q And they don't anywhere say that it's not 2,3,7,8 TCD$ 18 do they, sir? 19 A But they don't say It is either. 20 Q Doctor, what is the heading of the document? 21 A Analysis for 2,3,7,8. 22 Q And, Doctor, do they report parts per billion in thelir 23 tables of what they found? 24 A Yes, sir. 1 Q Now, Doctor, those exhibits were ell dated in 1985, 2 were they not, sir? 3 A Yes, air, 4 Q Doctor, the remedial work that took place took place 5 in -- the original testing for the EFA took place in 1983, 6 d i d n 't it, sir? 7 A I'm not sure whether It was *83 or *84, 8 Q Well, look at 1327 please, Doctor, Exhibit 1327, 9 MR. CARR: Does he have Che exhibits? 10 A N o , s i r , 11 Q The second sentence, Dr. Rousch, of the third page 12 entitled TCDD Remedial Work it says, sampling conducted during 13 1983 indicated the presence of TCDD at the plant, does it not, 14 sir? 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Q And TCDD there is used as a short term reference for 17 2,3,7,8 tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, isn't it, sir? 18 A X don't know. 19 Q Doctor, look at the sentence just immediately pre 20 ceding it. You see tha words 2,3,7,8 tetrachlorodlbenzo-p- 21 dioxln? 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q And then behind it tha parenthesis TCDD? 24 A Yes, sir. 1 Q They use TCDD there as a shorthand reference for 2 2,3,7,8 tetrachlorodibenzo~p-dibxihv do they not, air? 3 A I'm not ~~ I'm not sure -V,>; that' what it says 4 Q Doctor, when X write the name Rax Carr here and put 5 in parenthesis behind it Carr, and you see the name Carr 6 throughout that document, you know from the fact that the full 7 name was written out and then my -- the last name was put in 8 parenthesis, you know that wherever the name Carr appears with 9 out parenthesis throughout that document, chat that's shorthand 10 for Rex Carr; you know that, that's a very common method of 11 writing, isn't it. Doctor? 12 A Yes, sir* 13 Q And that's exactly the method they usat. in this 14 document. Do you see that 2,3,7,8 TCDD right there, Doctor? 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Q And do you see immediately behind that in parenthesis 17 the letters TCDD? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q Now, they mean to tell you that TCDD means throughout 20 this document 2,3,7,8, do they not, sir? 21 A I don't know. 22 Q Doctor, Isn't that the way a document like that is 23 ordinarily read and interpreted, customary and ordinary usage 24 la Just as X have described It to you? 1 A No, sir. 2Q 3A 4Q 5 thing? That Isn't customary and ordinary usage, Doctor? No, sir. You don't do that rather than write out the entire 6 A They're talking about two different time frames, 7 Q Doctor, the TCDD follows insaediately behind the words 8 tetrachlorodlbenzo 2,3,7,8, doesn't it, sir? 9 A Yes, sir, 10 Q And isn't the TCDD in those parenthesis referring to 11 2,3,7,8 tetrachlorodibanzo-p-dloxinin that sentence, sir? 12 A I don't know. 13 Q You don't know that. Doctor? 14 A No, sir, 15 Q Isn't that the way you would interpret that, Doctor? 16 A It may be that or it may not, 17 Q Doctor, my question is isn't that the way that you 18 would interpret that. 19 A No. 20 (Pause) 21 Q (Mr. Carr writing on easal.) 22 A I can't quite see that, sir. 23 Q That's all right, you don't need to. I'll read it 24 to you. I'm not writing well enough to read It anyway. Doctor 1 I've written on this pad which nobody can ace but me 2,3,7,8 2 tetrachlorodlbento-p-dioxin at the top of it right there; you 3 see that? 4 A Yo b , sir* 5 Q And although It should have been following It I've 6 got In parenthesis TCDD close parenthesis right after* Now, 7 you know when you read that that I mean TCDD to be referring to 8 2.3.7.8 tetrachlorodibenso-p-dioxin, don't you, air? 9 A If I put them together like that, yes* 10 Q Doctor, they are put together Just exactly that way 11 In this first sentence of this document, are they not, sir, 12 exactly that way? Tetraehlorodibenao-p-dioxin parenthesis TCDD 13 2.3.7.8 tetrachlorodibneo-p-dioxin and in parenthesis TCDD? 14 A Yes, sir. 15 Q They're put together exactly -- 16 A Yes, sir. 17 Q And you Just said that's the way you would read it? 18 A Yes, air. 19 Q And you meant what you Just said, didn't you, sir? 20 A On that first sentence, yes. 21 Q TCDD there refers to the 2,3,7,8, doesn't it, sir? 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q Now, Doctor, this work was done In 1983, wasn't it, 24 sir? I A What sampling? You mean -- 2 Q The sampling referred to in the exhibit that's placed 3 there in front of you, sir. The next sentence says 4 A Yes, sir. Yes, sir. 5 Q And, Doctor, that chart that you see there is attache 6 to the document that refers to the 1983 sampling, isn't it, sir? 7 A What chart? 8 Q The chart, Doctor, that is the last page of the exhibJ. 9 that you're holding in your hand. JO A Oh, this one? n Q Y e s , Doctor, that o n e . 12 A Y e s , sir. 13 Q Sir? 14 A That calks about the area of contamination, yes, sir. 15 Q And, Doctor, this chart, Exhibit 1527B, which is part 16 of Exhibit 1527, shows what they intend to do to remedy the 17 findings discussed in that exhibit, isn't that correct, air? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q Block H, which is here where I'va indicated, and 20 Block I, which is here in the lower right-hand corner of chat 21 document, are going to be graded so as to promote proper dralna^ 22 crushed limestone will be added so it's necessary to provide 23 a suitable base for paving, and both blocks will be paved with 24 two inches of asphalt, and the gravel area Inside the dike wall 1 shows two storage tanks In Block I will be paved with four 2 Inches of concrete won't It sir? 3 A Yes sir. 4 Q And, Doctor, the -- that's what's going to -- 5 so all of this area here that JLs shaded Is going to be paved 6 with two inches o f asphalt, isn't it, sir? 7 A Yes, sir, 8 Q And in addition to that, they're going to pour four 9 Inches of concrete making dike walls around those storage tank 10 A Yes, sir. 11 Q Doctor, the contaminated soil In this area here will 12 be removed and placed In a sub-grade containment basin, would 13 it not, sir? 14 A Yes, sir. 15 Q And these basins are located In part of Block X, 16 aren't they, sir? 17 A Yes 18 Q And they're going to be put In that part of Block I 19 that's going to be paved, isn't It, sir? 20 A Yes. 21 Q So that the -- this soil and this soil that's con 22 tamina tod are all going to be covered with two Inches of black 23 top, Isn't It, sir? 24 A Plus concrete I Q Plus concrete? 2 A Yes, 3 Q And that's something along the order that you folks 4 suggested be done to Sturgeon in the area where the contaminatl 5 existed, isn't that correct; sir, in July of '79? 6 A X don't know whether that was in July or what was 7 said in July, 8 Q Well, Doctor, accept from me that there's a memo 9 dated July of '79 in which you had a meeting to discuss what to 10 do about Sturgeon and wanted -- you do recall that meeting, 11 don't you, sir? 12 A Yes, sir, 13 Q An d you do recall that on of the suggestions made at 14 that meeting was to blacktop the contaminated areas? 15 A I don't recall that, but that's possible. 16 Q You don'trecall that? 17 A Right, 18 Q Well, there's an exhibit in evidence to that effect, 19 and that's what was suggested and what was ultimately done at 20 Hitro, isn't that correct, sir? 21 A Yes, sir. 22 Q Also at Nltro this area up here where you have the 23 diagonally lined parallel area, that -- all that area was to 24 be covered with crushed limestone, wasn't it, sir? 1 A Yea, sir. 2 Q Now, this area was where chare was once upon a clxne 3 a crash incinerator, this area what they're calking about here 4 where all this lined area Is In the north part of this plant, 5 isn't that correct, sir? 6 A Yes, sir, 7 Q Tow, that incinerator, the fumes from that lnclnerato: 8 would go everywhere, would it not, sir? 9 A The exhaust, yes. 10 Q Yes, and all this area is going to be covered with 11 crushed limestone and this dotted line around here is going to 12 be an earthen -- I'm sorry, this line right here, this looks 13 like about a quarter inch wide on the chart that's blown up, 14 is all going to be an earthen dike, isn't it, sir? 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Q To prevent runoff from that area that's going to be 17 covered with crushed limestone? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q It's going to be graded to a slope to two new catch 20 basins and going to have a minimum thickness of three inches of 21 crushed limestone? 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q Tow, this area here that thay^ra going to do this wo: 24 in in 1983, 1984 rather, is right next to your parking lot for 1 that plant, isn't it, sir? 2 HR* HBINEMAHj Objection, your Honor, the document 3 says the work was to begin in March of 1935. 4 Q Well, the work chat's to be done in March of 1935 is 5 right next to this parking lot, Isn't it, sir? 6 A Yes, sir. 7 Q And this parking lot has bean used there by all the 8 employees of that plant, hasn't it, Bir? 9 A I have trouble because I can't place Chat parking lot. 10 That looks like the parking lot is in the wrong place to me, 11 but it may be the same one, X don't know. 12 Q Well, it says parking -- 13 A Yes, sir, It sura does. 14 Q And that parking is for the entire plant, isn't It? 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Q And it's right adjacent to Building 78 and 79 and 17 right adjacent to this area that has been used for the inciner 18 ation and right adjacent to this area where they're going to 19 put a concrete wall up -- or rather, I'm sorry, an earthen 20 wall and cover that all with limestone. Isn't that correct, sir? 21 A Yes, sir. 22 Q Is it fair to assume that t h e r e r j u s t m i g h t have been 23 over the years from 1946 to 1935, nearly 40 years, that there 24 might have been some exposure -- if 2,3,7,8 was found in this 1 area, In this entire area here as these exhibits indicate, and 2 2,3,7,8 was in this building in a dusty condition and they had 3 to use vacuum sweepers to remove the dust, if It was found in 4 that area, isn't it reasonable to assume that the people that 5 used that parking lot have some exposure to the TCDD In those areas? 6 7A Yes, sir. 8 . Q Yes. 9 (At this time Plaintiff's Exhibit 1531 was marked for 10 ldentlfIcatlon.) Q I hand you now what's been marked as Plaintiff's 11 Exhibit 1531, which is captioned Micro File, Dioxin Cleanup? 12 13 A Yes, sir, 14 Q Do you recognize that as a Monsanto document? 15 A No, sir. 16 MR. CARR: Your Honor, I'll represent to the Court 17 that this was among documents supplied to us by Monsanto under 18 rules of this Court. 19 THE COURT: Are you offering it into evidence? 20 MR. CARR: I am, yes, your Honor. 21 THE COURT: Do you have any objections? 22 MR. HEINEMAN: Well, your Honor, a couple of things. 23 First of all, this appears to be part of soma other document, 24 It's obviously not complete in and of itself. 1 MR. CARR: I know it's not, and I wish I had the com 2 plete document. This la what was given to me, 3 MR. HKINEMAH: Well, you've got -4 MR. CARR: X wiah I did have the comp late document. 5 MR. HEXNEMANs You've got what we've got. If this is 6 all chare is, then this la all there is, but Z don't know thatf 7 and the witness says he doesn't even recognize it as & Monsanto 8 document, and therefore, there's obviously been no foundation 9 laid for Its admission into evidence, and I'd object to it on 10 that basis. 11 MR. CARR: Are you representing that it was not given 12 to tie, Counsel? 13 MR. HE IN E M A N : Xt was obviously given to you. Hr. 14 Carr. 15 MR. CARR: Is it not part of the business records of 16 Monsanto? 17 MR, HEXNEMAN: Mr. Carr, you certainly know something 18 about rules of evidence with respect to laying a foundation for 19 the admission of a document. 20 MR. CARR: The rule is that you may not state somethir 21 that is not a fact, Counsel. You know this was supplied to me 22 as part of the documents and you're now saying that X haven't 23 proven that it's a Monsanto document? You alleged to me that 24 it was a Monsanto document. 1 MR. HEINEMAM: 0 course It's a Monsanto document 2 that was produced by Monsanto to you, 3 MR, CARR: Fins. 4 MR, B E I MEMAU: But befora you gat it Into evidence, 5 sir, you have to establish a foundation from the witness stand. 6 MR, CARR; That foundation is all X need to establish 7 Counsel, and it has to be relevant, and the document itself 8 shows that it's relevant, 9 THE COURT; It's admitted over objection, 10 Q Ur. Rousch, this does deal with Building 78 and 79 11 TCBD cleanup, doesn't It, sir? 12 A Yes, sir. 13 Q And who is Mr, R, A. Balts? 14 A I don't know. 15 Q And you do know who the O.H. Materials Comp any is? 16 A Yes, sir, 17 Q That's the same people that were out there in the 18 second stage of the cleanup at Sturgeon; you know that, don't 19 you, sir? 20 A Yes, air. 21 Q And they were selected to -- in 1985, I take it, 22 there is no date on this document, but in reference in time it 23 would be sometime after the 1983-84 document chat you have. 24 Document 1527, would It not, sir? 1 A I would assume so* 2 0 And It*s dealing with cleaning up Building 78 and 79 3 In the northern half or top half of Exhibit 1527B, Is it not* 4 sir? (Pause) Doctor, the very first paragraph on that j i 5 document refers to it, 78 and 79 you can see is over here,Ii1 6 Building 73 and 79 Is the back of Page 15, the last page of 7 1527, last page, Doctor. i 8 A T 'm sorry. 9 Q Right there, 79, 78. W e went through this Friday* 10 A I just couldn't remember those being the buildings 11 we talked about. 12 Q We talked about Building 79, but this exhibit talks 13 about as If i t 's one building, 73*79, and they are adjoining 14 on another, aren't they, sir? 15 A X think they're contiguous. j 16 Q Yes. And this document talks about going to clean j 17 Building 79 by spraying with water at 3,000 to A,000 pounds' per i 18. second? j 19 A Yss, sir. j 20 Q I'm sorry, pounds per square inch. Doesn't it, sir? 21 A Ys, sir. 22 Q Building 78 has loose dust and powder in it that 23 they're going to collect by vacuuming, aren't.they, sir? 24 A Yes, sir. \ 1 Q Doctor, that loose dust and powder In 78-'would ha 2 had to have been there since 1969 at the latest wouldn't 1 3 sir? 4 MR* HEINEMAN: Objection, that assumes that anybo 5 knows what In the world it is* Ii 6 THE COURT: Objection is overruled. jI| 7 Q Doctor, Insofar as counsel's statement that if an 8 knows what it Is, the vary first sentence says It's to ramo 9 to clean the interior of Building 78 and 79 in order to rem 10 trace amounts of 2,3,7,8 TCDD -- 11 A Yes, sir. 12 Q Isn't that exactly what it says? 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q Can't you conclude from that, although counsel j 15 apparently cannot, can't you conclude from that that the du i i 16 they're going to remove is for the purpose of removing the 17 2.3,7,8 TCDD? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q Can't you conclude from that that 2,3,7,8 TCDD is 20 In that dust? 21 A Yes, sir. 22 HR. HEINEMAN; My objection still stands, your Hd 23 THE COURT: Objection ie overruled. I j 24 i Q Doctor, these workers chat we have discussed earl \ 1 and chat you have gone over with Hr. Halneman are all work 2 that have worked in this plant that's outlined in Exhibit 1 3 isn't it, sir? 4 A Yes, sir. 5 Q They've all used the parking lot, they've all bee 6 exposed to the fumes and the incineration and the dust from 1 7 this area that's paved, they all -- well, they have found 8 2,3,7,8 TCDD contamination on three sides of this four-side i 9 plant lot, haven't they, sir? I , 10 A Yes, sir. H Q So the workers that work in this area are in -- 12 nearly surrounded by areas of 2,3,7,8 TCDD contamination, 13 aren't they, sir, and have been for twenty, thirty, forty y 14 isn't that correct, sir? -- not forty years, but since 19 i i 15 or thereabouts, 'AS, *46 up until 1985, just thirty-eight, ! 16 thirty-nine years, Isn't it, sir? I j 17' A Yes, sir. j \! 18 Q Is It fair to say that these workers that have be 19 surrounded by these areas of TCDD 2,3,7,8 contamination hav 20 had exposure to it, sir? i 21 A I don't know. 22 Q Can you deduce that from the fact that they're eu 23 rounded by it, Doctor? j 24 A No, sir, ! 1 Q You can't deduce that? 2 A No, air. | i 3* Q Well, Dr, Moses and Selikoff assumed that there was 4 exposure, didn't they, sir? 1 S A Exposure of what? I j i 6 Q Of what we're talking about. What are we talking 7 about. Doctor? i j 8 A These workers,. 1 i 9 Q Yes, and what are we talking about them being exposed 10 to? 11 A Dioxin* 12 Q So now you've answered your own question. Could you 13 proceed with the answer to my question, Doctor? 14 A No, sir. i i ] i IS Q You w o n 't proceed or you c a n 11 answer it? 16 A I c a n 't answer. ii 1 17 i Q Did Moses, Selikoff assume they were exposed or not? 18 You've read the article. Doctor -* 19 A Yes, sir. j i j 20 Q You discussed it with Hr, Helneman -- ] , 21 A Yes, sir. 22 Q Did they assume these workers were exposed or not? 23 A Hot all of them. ; i 24 Q And, Doctor, didn't you last week when I asked you i 1 about it, didn't you say that all the workers in that plant 2 were exposed to 2,3,7,8 TCDD to some extent? 3 A Theoretically. 4 Q You said, you didn't use the word;:theoretically when 5 X asked you about it the first tima, did you, Doctor? 6 A I don't recall. 7 Q Ho, what you said was they have all been exposed to 8 2,3,7,8 TCDD, didn't you, air? 9 A Hot measurably. 10 Q Doctor, X don't care and I'm not using the word 11 measurably or immeasurably. If it's there, it's there whether 12 you can measure it or not. It's there, and they were exposed 13 to it, weren't they? 14 A X don't know. 15 Q You don't know? 16 A No, sir. 17 Q Can you deduce that from the fact that they're 18 surrounded by it, sir; and they've been working there for thir 19 or forty years? 20 A I don't know. 21 Q Would your mind tell you that to deduce that, Dr.i 22 Rousch? 23 A I don't know. 24 Q Doctor, I'm not asking you whether or not you know 1 whether or not they were exposed* I'm asking yon whether your 2 mind will deduce that* You know what your mind will do. Can 3 your mind deduct from these facts, deduce from these facts sir 4 that t h e y 've had some exposure through the years that they've worked in that plant? Would your logical mind tell you that, S Dr. Rousch? 6 7 A I d o n 't know. Q You don't know whether or not your mind would tell 8 9 you that? 10 A No. Q You have -- 11 12 A I can't make a decision. 13 Q You can't make a decision on that? 14 A No, sir. 15 Q So your mind doesn't tell you that? You h aven't the 16 capacity In that mind that's been a trained, scientific mind 17 for all these years to deduce that people that have been working 18 in an area that's surrounded by TCDD contamination and the wind 19 blows and the rains run and the water washes oft of this area 20 that they're putting this big concrete, earthen dike up there, 21 and the incinerator burns materials, and cars pass In and out, 22 and men walk in and out this dusty plant, they walk to lunch 23 rooms, they walk to rest rooms, they walk to the parking lot, 24 cars drive up and down, trucks drive up and down, all these I thirty and forty years your mind wouldn't tell you that they 2 have some exposure to 2,3,7,8 TCDD if it's there? Your mind 3 won't tell you that, Dr. Rousch? 4 A I don't know, I don't think so, I can't decide. 5 Q Your mind wouldn't tell you that? 6 A Not at levels like this. I don't know howto do that 7 Q Doctor, now you're talking about lowlevels again. 8 Let's talk about the same thing, I'm not talking about high or 9 low levels, I'm talking about exposure to 2,3,7,8 TCDD to wh a t 10 ever extent, 11 A I understand, 12 Q Does your mind tell you, sir, and don't go back to 13 that other measurable business again, because I've laid that to 14 rest, do you understand, I'm not asking about that anymore, 15 that's at rest. Now, does your mind tell you that these worker 16 have some exposure to 2,3,7,8 TCDD? 17 A It's possible. 18 Q Yes. Doctor, thasa facts that wa'va gone into here, 19 all these vara things that were known to the people at the 20 NitrclPlant or could have bean known if they looked, if they 21 ware trying to find out if somebody was exposed, could have 22 been known to the people at the Nitro Plant that helped work 23 with Dr. Suskind, couldn't they, sir? 24 KR. HEINEKAN: Objection, sir, all of these things, 1 all of what things? 2 THE COURT: Objection is overruled. I t 's clear in 3 the context. Answer the question. Doctor. 4 Q Isn't that correct, Doctor? 5 A If they had known that contamination, they could have 6 told theta, yes. 7 Q Doctor, this contamination was known in 1983, wasn't 8 it, sir? 9 A Yes, sir. 10 Q And the Suskind report didn't come out until the 11 spring of -- until May oflastyear, isn't that right, sir? 12 A Yes, sir. 13 Q Sir? 14 A Y e s . IS Q Mow, Doctor, Dr. Moses, Selikoff found 30 cancers in 16 this group of people that Suskind found a total of 20 cancers; 17 do you recall chat, sir? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q Now, and Dr.Suskind hadthe cooperation of all the 20 Dr. iSoscs-Selikoff had was some limited records and the men, 21 Monsanto had the men and the plant records as well, didn't they, 22 air, which they helped give to Dr. Susklnd? 23 A Yes, air. 24 Q Now, how do you suppose it was that we going through 1 the records found 28 cancers, going through Dr, Suskind* s r 2 found 28 cancers as being reported by history which we went 3 through m ^ 4 A Yes, sir. 5 Q Moses-Selikoff found 30, but yet Suskind reports only 6 a total of 1A on the sxposed group and 6 In the unexposed group 7 for a total of 20? Doesn't that strike you as strange, Dr. 8, Rousch? 9 A No, sir, I went through those records 10 Q Doesn't it strike you as strange? 11 A Ho, sir. 12 Q All right, Now, Doctor, now you've gone through the 13 exhibit with Hr. Heineman, and you've eliminated certain of 14 these persons that you had put along with -- under my inter 15 rogation you put 27 and possibly 28 cancers in this group; 16 do you recall that, sir? 17 A Yes, sir. 18 q Now, you allmlnated approximately 12 of those -19 more than that, 13 or so of those 28 cancers, didn't you, sir? 20 A I didn't add up the numbers. 21 Q Oh, didn't you add tham up, Doctor, to come out 22 exactly like Suskind did* come out with 1A? 23 A 1 had more question marks than that. 24 Q You ultimately eliminated 13 cancers. You did that ] In eliminating two of them with one stroke on Scarberry, didn't 2 you? 3 A Yes sir. 4 Q Now, Scarberry is the one that you said you talked 5 to Hertsberger, and they counted as lung and bowel cancer; do 6 you recall that, sir? 7 A No, sir. 8 Q You don't recall testifying that on the 9th of July, 9 1935 at Page 106 relative to Scarberry, and your answer to that 10 question that he's listed according to the Interpretation you II got from Herteberger as having had lung cancer and bowel cancer 12 is that correct, sir, and your aaswer was yes. Do you recall 13 testifying that way? 14 A I don't remember it, but if I - what I said was IS I Just had talked to her. 16 Q Yes, and you talked to her, and she said that Scarbar: 17 had lung and bowel cancer, didn't she, and chat they treated 18 him as such? 19 A 1 don't recall that. 20 MR. HEXNEMAN; Objection, your Honor. 21 A I don't recall that. 22 MR. KEINEMAN: The testimony refers to the computer 23 printout and the fact that there's a listing there for lung and 24 bowel on the printout, that's what the testimony, that's what 1 the question is. 2 Q Isn't that what y o u got from Dr. Herfcabergcr? 3 A X don't recall that sir. 4 THE COURT; Objection la overruled. 5 Q You want to look at it and see If it refreshes your 6 memory? Right there sir. 7 A I don't know the basis of what my interpretation of 8 what Dr. Hertzberger had said. 9 Q Veil would you look at Exhibit 1472 and look at 10 Scarberry right in here. Hew ID Humber 118 do you see that? 11 A Yea sir. 12 Q And you see the computer H a t s Scarberry as having 13 lung cancer and bowel cancer? 14 A Yes sir. IS Q And do you recall now that you talked to Miss Hertz- 16 barger about Interpreting this computer printout and you helped 17 us with that interpretation? 18 A No, sir. 19 Q You don't recall that? 20 A I don't remember talking about Scarberry with her. 21 Q Do you recall talking about how to interpret the 22 computer printout? 23 A Yes, sir. 24 Q And she told you that where they have a V701 or 702 1 number that that means char was a confirmed cancer; do you 2 recall that, sir? 3 A So, that doesn't X don't know what that means. 4 It says on that list chat thare was a lung and bowel, and X 5 don't know what that means whan tha 701 and 702 is there. 6 Q You don't recall telling us after you talked to her 7 that that means when you have that number there, that means 8 there was a confirmed cancer? 9 A No, sir. 10 Q Doctor, when you gat away from Court hare, do you II deliberately put out of your mind what things you've testified 12 to earlier? 13 A No, sir. 14 Q You do recall talking to Hertabergar and Kertsbergar 15 telling you how to interpret this tape? 16 A How to interpret the tape, yes, that's right. 17 Q And you do recall telling us that when it has that 18 number there, V701, that that means a skin cancer, and V702 19 means some other kind of cancer, that those numbers refer to 20 cancers? 21 A Yes, but I'm not sure the basis for that decision. 22 Q Doctor, a basis for whose decision, your decision or 23 Hartzberger's? 24 A Or her decision. I'm not sure whether they're saying 1 that there was a history of it or that was their conclusion 2 that's what it meant. 3 Q Doctor, the conclusion is is what you got.from Herte4 berger. 5 A I don't know what that V701 means. X have to know 6 that b ofora X can answer the question. 7 Q Doctor, do you recall your testimony when you said 8 you had called Vicki Rertzberger at lunch time? 9 A Yes, sir, and she did say that one Is for skin and 10 the other was for others, and X don't recall what those numbers 11 moan. 12 Q Now, Doctor, on Page 93 of the July 9eh testimony, 13 Counsel, I asked you, "Well, did she advise you that the item 14 before that, we're talking about Woodall at this time, and I've 15 lost him on this printout, No. 167,. did she advise you that 16 the numbers before that where it says V701 skin, that that 17 indicates a skin cancer"? And your answer was "Yes, sir." 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q Do you recall that being your testimony? 20 A I do -- I know that, but I*m not sure what that 21 means, what V701 means. Xt doesn't mean -- 22 Q Well, the next question. 23 A All right. 24 Q Where it 3ays skin cancer history, no, cancer history, 1 no, lc was Che advice you received chat the figures before that, 2 in front of that, that would be 701 equals skin,indicate^ that 3 there was a history of skin cancer, Is that correct, sir? Yes. 4 Well, would that be true, say, of the one above S Matheny where it says 701 bowel, that would indicate a bowel . 6 history? 7 Yes, sir. 8 And hare up where we have ID 118, Scarberry, va h a v e n 1 9 talked about Scarberry, it says there, that would be lung and 10 bowel cancer? 11 And your answer was, I think that's yas. 12 Do you recall all those questions and those answers? 13 A Yes, but not -- 14 MR, HEINEMAN: Objection, your Honor, the prior ques 15 tion was doesn't that Indicate a confirmed cancer was the way 16 Mr. Carr asked the question, and this testimony talks about 17 history, 18 THE COURT: Objection is overruled. 19 Q Don't you recall all chat as your testimony, Dr, 20 Rou3ch? 21 A Yes, that's history, that's what I thought. 22 Q Doctor, t h a t 's all we're talking about* The whole 23 table deals with just history of skin cancer, it's titled Histo 24 of Skin Cancer. None of your doctors, Suskind and no on else vent in there end did a biopsy they weren't there. All they 1 could go by was by history. 2 3 A Yes sir. 4 Q And Dr. Hertsberger told you that the V701 and the 5 V702 indicates a confirmed history of cancer doesn't it, sir? A No sir, it doesn't say confirmed history. 6 7 Q Well history of cancer then* A Yes sir. 8 9 Q Isn't that what it means? 10 A Yes sir. 11 Q And what you use this printer, this computer printout 12 and the other records that you have to determine whether or not 13 a person had a history of skin cancer, isn't that correct, sir? 14 A Yes, sir. 15 Q And she -- based upon what she told you then, 16 Scarberry has a history of lung and bowel cancer, doesn't he, 17 sir? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q Now, you eliminated him from the^ list that you pre pared along with Mr. Heineman. 20 21 A Yes, sir. Q Didn't you, sir? 22 23 A Yes, sir. 24 Q In the face of this history of skin cancer, didn't 1 you, sir? 2 A Yes, sir* 3 Q And bowel cancer? 4 A I did that independently, yes, sir. 5 Q Well, you had -- you weren't referring to the-cbtopui 6 printout when you eliminated Scarberry, ware you, sir? 7 A N o , sir,. 8 Q And the computer printout shows how Suskind recorded 9 it, that his printout, isn't it, sir? 10 A Yea, sir. 11 Q And we're talking about what Suskind reported to us, 12 we're talking about whether or not he was honest in reporting 13 14 cancers in the exposed group when In fact there was. 27 or 28 14 That's what this entire exercise Is about, Dr. Rousch, isn't it 15 sir, whether he's honest or Monsanto is honest in this inter 16 pretation? 17 A No, sir. 18 Q They told you that Scarberry, the records on Scarbarr] 19 should be interpreted, the records that they have and they gave 20 us should be Interpreted as having lung and bowel cancer, 21 didn't they, sir? 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q And if those records are to be Interpreted that way, 24 then Scarberry should be on the list, shouldn't he, sir, as 1 having a history of canear? 2 A If they'ra right, yes. 3 Q Yes, If they're right. That's all we're going by Is 4 what they've got, aren't we, sir? 5 A Yes, sir. 6 Q You haven't made any Independent Investigation, have 7 you, sir? 8 A $6, sir. 9 Q You're looking at something less than they looked at, 10 aren't you, sir? 11 A Y e s , sir. 12 Q Yes. Now, Doctor, you eliminated in addition to 13 Scarberry, you eliminated Reynolds, didn't you, sir? 14 A Yes, air. 15 Q Now, Reynolds you testified to on the 9th of July 16 that it's possible that he had exposure because he was respon 17 sible for transportation of the raw materials, finished product 18 responsible for receiving raw materials in containers and that 19 he would have & history of exposure, and you said yes, possible 20 exposure, dida'** you, sir? 21 A Yes, sir. 22 Q Now, if he's got, if he's been a shipping foreman for 23 three years in the warehouse, he surely would have had an 24 opportunity to be exposed to 2,4,5 T, would he not, sir? 1 A Possible. 2 Q And therefore, he should be in the exposed group, 3 shouldn't he, sir? 4 A I don't think so. 5 Q Doctor, the entire exercise is to find out whether or 6 not those people who had possible exposure in fact had any 7 history of cancer. That's what it's all about, Isn't it, sir? 8 A Yes, sir. 9 Q You don't know that anybody from your own definition, 10 you don't know that anybody actually had exposure, do you, air? 11 A Those who worked in the unit I sure would say were 12 exposed. 13 Q You don't know that though, do you, sir? You just 14 deduced that from the fact they work in an area where there is 15 2,4,5 T, don't you, sir? 16 A Yes, sir. 17 Q That's something that your mind tells you? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q So your mind has told you that they are exposed to i t , 20 and your mind tells you that a man that works -- he was a 21 foreman that works for years in the department where they ship 22 the stuff out after it's made, he, too, has a good possibility 23 of exposure, that's what your mind tells you, doesn't it, sir? 24 A Some possibility. 1 Q Well, have you got soma possibility, but you eliminate 2 him from this group, didn't you, sir? 3 A I put him in the questionable group that Suakind had. 4 Q Well, but you eliminated -- 5 A X put him in Suskind's questionable group. 6 Q Suakind didn't have a questionable group. 7 A When ha got down and finished it he had there wait 8 about 50 of them he left out because he couldn't decide whether 9 they were exposed or not. 10 Q , 50 cancers left out? 11 A No, sir, 50 people. 12 Q Were these 50 sick people, do you know, that he left 13 out? 14 A No, sir. 15 Q What did they have wrong with them besides cancer? 16 HR. HBINEMANi Objection. There's no indication they 17 had cancer at all. 18 MR. CARR; Reynolds had cancer, and he was left out, 19 w a s n 't he? 20 THE COURT: Objection is overruled. 21 Q Besides cancer what did they have wrong with them? 22 A That was decided before they did their evaluation 23 whether th e y 're ill or not, that was done separately. The 24 definition of these cohorts -- ] Q It was done separately Doctor? 2 A Yes. 3 Q Wasn't it actually done all at the same time? 4 A But by -- 5 Q Wasn't it done at the same time Doctor? 6 A BO. 7 Q Doctor at one time didn't -- didn't Suskind have a 8 group that he calls questionable exposure? 9 A Yes, sir, 10 Q But he eliminated that didn't he, sir? 11 A Yes, sir, 12 Q Now, he knew the health of those people when he 13 eliminated that questionable exposure, didn't he, sir? 14 A I don't think so. 15 Q Doctor, he had cheated a final draft, a draft already. 16 He had to know. 17 A But that was -- 18 Q You saw the draft, didn't you, sir? 19 A Yes, air. 20 Q So he had to know whether or not those people had 21 possible exposure and their health history, didn't he? He had 22 already made tables, he had made the porphyrin tables, so he 23 absolutely knew what was wrong with those people when he elimi 24 nated these 50 from that study, didn't he, sir? Didn't he, sir? 1 A I don't know when ho eliminated thorn from the discussi 2 Q You know he eliminated them after he created the 3 health tables, after he had his text written for the first and 4 second time, Ha eliminated those people in the third and final 5 draft, didn't he, sir? 6 A Yes, sir. 7 Q He had two drafts prepared before that 8 A Right,, 9 Q So don't tell tm that they didn't know the health 10 status of those 50 people. They knew the health status and they 11 eliminated them. 12 A Yes, sir, 13 Q Doctor, you eliminated Volz, didn't you, sir? 14 A Ho, sir. 15 Q You eliminated his bladder cancer, you gave him the 16 akin cancer? 17 A O h , y e s . 18 Q But you eliminated thebladder cancer? 19 A Yes, sir. 20 Q Doctor, why did you eliminate the bladder cancer? 21 i A Because it was abenign tumor. 22 Q And does It say benign tumor in the Vole records? 23 A 1 think so. 24 Q Do you have -- could you give Group Exhibit 1468 1 to the witness. 2 (Pause) 3 A I'll need the number sir if it's In here. 4 Q 52. 5 A Pardon? 6 Q 52 and his name is written on it anyway. 7 A All right. 8 Q Now, Doctor the question that's -- first of all 9 the Interviewer is what kind of person the person that takes 10 these medical histories? 11 A I think they were both -- there are at least two 12 of them, and they were nurses. 13 Q Registered nurses? 14 A Yea sir. IS Q Yes. And they were trained presumably in interviewing 16 and looking sure that the facts they got were as full and 17 as they could gat *- as they could get? 18 A Yes sir. 19 Q And they know the difference between a -- well. 20 first of all tumors or either -- when you say tumor you can 21 mean either a cancer or a non-cancarous growtht can't you sir? 22 A Yes sir. 23 Q So just saying tumor doesn't tell you whether or not 24 it is or Is not cancerous does it sir? 1 A That's right, 2 Q Now, the questioner asks "Hava you aver been told by 3 a doctor that you had or have any type of cancer", doesn't it# 4 sir# Page 15? 5 A Yes, sir. 6 Q Now# they're not asking whether or not the employee 7 believes that ha has a cancer# they're asking a question# a 8 trained registered nurse asking the question whether or not 9 they've ever been told by a doctor that he had cancer? 10 A Yes, sir, 11 Q Nov that doctor would know better whether or not that 12 was a cancer than you some years later or an interviewer some 13 years later, wouldn't they, sir, the doctor that looked at 14 the tissue to start with and that treated the person? 15 A If the doctor had said It, yes. 16 Q That's what you're asking# if the doctor said it, 17 aren't you# sir? 18 A Yes# sir. 19 Q Did anybody go back and cheek with the doctor to see 20 whether or not the doctor said it? 21 A No, sir. 22 Q Now Mr. Volz told your interviewer that a doctor had 23 told him that he had bladder and skin cancer# didn't he, sir? 24 I'm sorry, bladder cancer. t 1 A Yea, air. 2 Q And your doctor interviewer who got additional 3 -- now to put it In proper perspective the personal medical 4 history is the history that's taken officially, it has a whole 5 list of things of what you had wrong with you and when you had 6 wrong with you? 7 A Yes. sir. 8 Q And when you had it, right? 9 A Yes, sir. 10 Q And in that Mr. Volz said that he had been told by a 11 doctor that he had bladder cancer didn't he sir? 12 A Yes. sir. 13 Q Now later on there's additional history taken isn't 14 there, sir? 15 A Yes. sir, 16 Q Now, it's not instead of it's store history, isn't it, 17 sir? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q And that more history revealed that he also had a 20 basal cell carcinoma, doesn't it, sir? Page 21, Dr. Rousch. 21 A Yes, sir. 22 Q And that's where you coma up with the skin cancer, 23 correct, air? 24 A Yes. sir. I Q Nov on Page 23 there la additional history taken with 2 reference to the bladder? 3 A Yes, sir. 4 Q Now, there Is written In there bladder tumor 1951 5 removed, no recurrence, annual cystogram then In parenthesis 6 above it, benign? 7 A Yes, sir. 8 Q Nov, how would that doctor know In 1979 when he's 9 taking this additional history from Hr. Vole that It wasn't 10 cancar when Hr. Volz was told that it was cancer that he had in 11 1951? 12 A X don't know. 13 Q Yes. The original doctor is one that would know 14 whether or not it vas cancerous or not, wouldn't he, sir? 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Q You can't look at a person's body who's had a tumor 17 removed from the bladder or that matter a tumor removed from 18 skin, you can't look at that person and say -- tell by look 19 at them whether that was a cancerous growth that was removed 20 from the skin or a cancerous growth that was removed from the 21 bladder, can you, sir? 22 A No, sir. 23 Q And so the additional physical examination that takes 24 place, both of the skin and of the body, doesn't tell the I Q And they have to look under -- they have to atain 2 It and look under a high powered microscope and do other things 3 before they can -- and it takes hours for them to -- soma4 times days for them to even be sure of that diagnosis, doesn't 5 it sir? 6 A Yes, sir. 7 Q And they report back to the doctor chat's taking care 8 of the patient and say, wall, this was malignant, this was 9 cancerous or this was not cancerous, doesn't it, sir? 10 A Yea, sir* 11 Q But the history that Volz gave was that he was told 12 that It was a bladder cancer, isn't that the history that he 13 was cold? 14 A That's what he told the nurse. 15 Q Are there any medical records connected to thesa? 16 We had them in the case of Hein where he talked about this 17 carcinoma *18 A Y e s . 19 Q Are there any otheradditional medical records here 20 to tell you that this was not a cancer that that doctor reported 21 to Mr. Volz? 22 A Only what the doctor reports. 23 Q Yes, only that, and the doctor reports what Volz said? 24 A Yes, sir. 1 Q And Volz said it was cancerous, didn't he? 2A 3Q 4 sir? You can't rationalize those two, Excuse me. Volz said It was cancerous, wasn't it, 5 A He also told -- 6 HR. HEINEMANi You mean to the doctor? 7 A told this doctor; 8 Q Sir? 9 A He told the doctor as well. 10 Q What did he tell the doctor? 11 A That he had a benign bladder tumor. 12 Q No, the parenthesis is added there by the doctor, he' 13 doing the interpreting of what Volz gives him, isn't he, sir? 14 A On Page 23 he says benign bladder tumor. 15 Q That's what the doctor that examined Volz said, 16 A What the doctor says on history, 17 Q Excuse me, the doctor that examined Volz said that. 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q And not the doctor that did the operating? 20 A T h a t 's r ight . 21 Q Yes. How, Doctor, let's look at Honaker, another one 22 that you eliminated a cancer* How on Honaker you've agreed 23 that Honaker had leukemia and prostate cancer, didn't he? 24 A Yes, sir. 1 Chat. We'v already showad you thac in the Moses-Selikoff 2 the last parson reported had leukemia and prostate cancer 3 A Yes sir. 4 Q Do you recall that sir? that's the same person here 5 that we're talking about? 6 A Yes sir 7 Q So it's the same group, Doctor, and was supposed to 8 be the same group, only the Moses-Sellkoff people didn't have 9 access -- 10 MR. HEINEMAN: Objection, your Honor, there's abaolut 11 no evidence that it's the same group examined, none. 12 MR. CARR; Your Honor, both studies deal with the 13 workers at Nltro Riant who were supposed to have been exposed. 14 The Moses*Sellkoff group goes by *- not by work history, per IS se, but by acne, chloracne, and the morbidity study by Susklnd 16 also uses chloracne and talks about the same group* The intro* 17 ductlon to each and the cohort in each is the same group* 18 MR* HEINEMANt Your Honor -- 19 MR* CARR; They're not identical, but they're taken 20 from the same group of workers. 21 MR, HEINEMAN; They're taken from the same plant, but 22 they're not -- there's no, absolutely no evidence that they 23 are the same group. 24 THE CO U R T i Objection is overruled. There is evident 1 in the record. You may proceed. 2 Q Dr. Rousch, didn't you and Helnsisan bring up the 3 Moses-Salikoff study to be talking about the Nitro workers? 4 A Yea, sir, 5 Q And you meant to bring it up to show what 2 ,3,7,8 6 TCDD either does or does not do to your group of people at Hltro, 7 doesn't it, sir? 8 A Yes, sir. 9 Q And you tried to include all of your Micro workers in 10 your morbidity study by Susklnd, sir, except those that had 11 terminated before *55? 12 A We had those before then. 13 Q Isn't that correct, sir? 14 A If they were working and had started before 1955 -15 Q Mow, Doctor -16 A They would be part of the study. They vent back and 17 18 Q The Selikoff table would appear that this group of 19 people, these workers in this plant are healthier than what it 20 would appear in the Moses-Selikoff study, doesn'r It, sir; 20 21 cancers as opposed to 30? The Susklnd study shows the people 22 to be healthier than the Moses-Selikoff group, isn't 1c, sir, 23 If you look at their cancer history? 24 A At cancers, that's right* ] Q Now, la it an advantage to Monsanto in Its dealings 2 with its w o rkers, Its dealings with the world ae far as dioxin 3 is concerned to show that the people who are exposed to TCDD in 4 the Nitro Plant are healthier or less healthy, which is to 5 Monsanto's advantage? 6 A To show there's no cancer or -- 7 Q TO show fever cancers? 8 A Yes sir. 9 Q Isn't that correct sir? And would you say that the 10 Susklnd report of 14 cancers or 20 cancars in the total group 11 is more advantageous to Monsanto than the Moses-Selikoff report 12 o f 30 cancers? 13 A N o , s i r , 14 Q Sir? 15 A No, sir. 16 Q You would say It's not? 17 A No, sir. 18 Q Well, it shows a healthier group of people, doesn't 19 it, with fewer cancers, doesn't it? 20 A Yes, sir. 21 Q And therefore that's to Monsanto's advantage, isn't 22 it, eir7 You Just got through saying that, didn't you, sir? 23 A Yes, sir. 24 Q Now, Doctor, on Lowell West you eliminated, according 1 to Mr. Seigfraid? notes you eliminated a skin cancer, didn't 2 you, sir? That's No* 89. 3 THE COURTi Before vs get him Is this a good point 4 for a short break? 5 MR. CARRt Surely, your Honor. \ 6 THE COURTi Ladles and gentleman, we'll take a short 7 recess at this time. I would remind you, and this would go for 8 any other breaks we take during the day, that you're not to 9 discuss this among yourselves, with anyone outside the jury 10 panel or as of yet form any opinions or conclusions about the 11 matters on trial. Court will be In a short recess. 12 (At this time a short recess was taken,) 13 DR. GEORGE ROUSCH, 14 resuming the witness stand, having been previously sworn, 15 testified further as follows! 16 RECROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) 17 BY MR. CARR: 18 Q Doctor, Che next one I'd Ilka to ask you again on 19 review would be Lowell West. It's No. 89. Did you find that, 20 air? 21 A Yes, sir. 22 Q Mr. West gave a history of skin cancer, did he not? 23 A Yes, sir. 24 Q There Is nothing in the record to take away from that 1 history that ha gave, is there eir, no additional history that 2 he did not have skin cancer? 3 A The physician when ha did his examination didn't even 4 mention it, 5 Q My question is is there anything in the record to 6 take away from the fact that Hr* West reported to your inter 7 viewer that the doctor had told him that he had skin cancer in 8 1958? 9A I'd say it's inconsistent with the doctor's report. 10 Q What did the doctor 9ay that's inconsistent with -- 11 what did the examining doctor say so we can get it straight 12 keep it In order what did he say that was inconsistent with 13 tha -- what the treating doctor said was skin cancer in 1958? 14 A He made no mention of skin cancer. 15 Q He didn't say that there was not skin cancer did he? 16 A Ho, sir. 17 Q And the history that you're looking at where he -18 where you say he made no mention of it is that called 19 history, isn't it, sir? 20 A Ho, sir. 21 Q Doctor, look at Page 21. 22 A Yes, sir. 23 q That is the -- what you're referring to, is it not? 24 A Yes* sir. 1 q Sir? 2 A Yes, sir. 3 Q And what does It say on that page, Doctor? What does 4 It describe the history being taken on that page? 5 A Ha says he had, I think it's chloracne. 6 Q What does it describe, what does chat page describe, 7 what's It listed -- it uses the words additional history, 8 does It not? 9 A Right, yes, sir. 10 Q Yes, that's as I've asked you a moment ago that you 11 said it wasn't though, it is though, it's talking about addi 12 tional history, isn't it, sir? 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q Now, is thare any additional history taken that's 15 given there, sir, that takes away from the original history 16 that was given in tha history section, personal medical history 17 section, that takes away from the fact chat he says a doctor 18 told him that he had skin cancer two times as a matter of fact 19 in 1958? 20 A The doctor didn't mention that he had skin cancer. 21 Q All right. But he did not say chat chat history was 22 inaccurate, did he, sir? 23 A No, sir. 24 q And, Doctor, if you will look at the computer study. ] 1472, for West, It) No. 89, you see chat he -- the computer 2 lists him as having skin cancer, history of skin cancer, does 3 it not, sir? 4 A Skin cancer. 5 Q Sir? 6 A I don't know whether it's history of skin cancer or 7 skin cancer. 8 q It says V701 equals skin, doesn't it, sir? 9 A Yes, sir. 10 Q And don't you remember we established that Hertzbergei: 11 told you that means a history of skin cancer? Remember we just 12 went through that before the break, Dr. Rousch? 13 A Yes, and I didn'tremember it thenand I still don't. 14 Q You do recall -15 A I do know -- 16 Q -- reading your testimony, didn'tyou, Doctor? 17 A Yes, sir. 18 Q And you did testify that way under oath on July the 19 9th, didn't you, sir? 20 A Not that Hertzbergsr told me that. 21 Q Doctor, didn't you testify that Hertzbergar told you 22 that those numbers, V701-skin, means a history of skin cancer? 23 I Just read it to you, and I handed it to you and you read it 24 yourself. L 1 A The next one says -- 2 Q Excuse me, Doctor, you're on another point Now, 3 let's get that point settled. Didn't you just read that this 4 morning that that's what Hertzberger told you? 5 HR. HEINENAN: Objection, your Honor, it's with 6 respect to one particular person and he's referring to that 7 record. 8 THE COURT: Objection is overruled. It wasn't framed 9 that way. Answer the question, Doctor. 10 Q Doctor, you're not listening to my question. 11 A I'm sorry. 12 Q You weren't paying the least bit of attention to what 13 I was asking. Do you have any idea what I asked you, sir? 14 A Yes, sir. i 15 Q I asked you whether or not you Just testified this 16 morning, you just read your testimony this morning that Hertz17 bergar told you that the V7Q1 letters and the dash behind it 18 skin or dash behind it leukemia or dash behind it bowel means 19 cancer of those organs. 20 A I'm not sure. 21 Q You're not sure that you Juat saw it this morning, 22 sir? 23 A Yes, sir. 24 Q You don't recall me showing you the transcript? 1 A Yes, sir. 2 Q And you read it, didn't you? 3 A Yas, sir. 4 Q You read what you said? 5 A But it wasn't complete. 6 Q Sir? 7 A It's not complete what I read. 8 Q What I gave you is the complete transcript. T h a t 's 9 the only transcript we have, Doctor. 10 A I understand. 11 Q And it was your answer, wasn't it, sir, at that time 12 under oath on July the 9th? 13 A W h a t 1a 14 Q Wasn't it, sir? 15 A What? 16 Q The answer that you gave on July the 9th was your 17 answer to the question and you said at that time that Herts* 18 berger told you that that means skin cancer those numbers 19 there, V701, means it's a cancer, a history of cancer. Do you 20 recall that? Mr. Heinaman said no I was using the words that 21 It was confirmed skin cancer, and ha said no, that's history, 22 and I said yes, that's right, it's a history of skin cancer, 23 those numbers mean that. We Just went through that through 24 the break. 1 A But we're back on whether this means skin cancer or 2 not. 3 Q Doctor, you're not listening to my question. My quss" 4 tion is not what you believe today this means or doesn't mean. 5 Ky question is is what you said this morning and on July the 6 9th that Hertsberger told you that it meant. Could you listen 7 to me, Doctor? 8 A Yes, sir. 9 Q Mow, Hertzberger toldyou according to your testimony 10 on July the 9th that meant history of cancer, didn't she, air? n A Yes. 12 0 Yes, Now, Doctor, and West Is listed in Suskind's 13 computer tape printout as having V701 equals skin cancer, corrai: 14 sir? 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Q And Kertzberger told you that that meant that he had 17 history of skin cancer, didn't she? 18 A With thatconnotation, yes. 19 Q Yes, Now, Doctor, he's listed in the only record thai: 20 you have, the questionnaire that he filled out that a doctor 21 told him he had skin cancer, he's listed in Suskind's computer 22 summary, bring together of all the information in Suskind's 23 computer printout as having a history of skin cancer, isn't 24 that right, sir? 1 A Yes, sir. 2 Q And you have no document anywhere that says that he 3 did not have skin cancer, all you have Is that another doctor 4 in additional medical history didn't mention it one way or the 5 other -- 6 A Yes, sir. 7 Q Isn't that correct, sir? 8 A That's right. 9 Q All right. Doctor, the next one that you referred to 10 was Hill, was it not, sir, or the next one that you eliminated 11 a cancer would have been Keith Hill. His ID number would be 12 133. 13 A What number was that? 14 Q 133, Keith Hill. It will have a three page medical 15 discharge summary paper clipped to it on the top. There it is. 16 Doctor, that -- you eliminated the bladder cancer history on 17 Hill, did you not, but you Included the skin cancer? Do you 18 recall that, sir? 19 A No, sir. 20 Q Well, look at the records and sae, first of all, if 21 there is not medical records there which it says on March 22nd, 22 1976, the second page of the exhibit that you have in your hand, 23 Doctor, the second page -- 24 A Right. 1 Q You got the second paga? 2 A , Yes, sir. 3 Q It says March 22nd, '76 in the right-hand corner? 4 A Yes, sir. 5 Q And then it says history of carcinoma of tha bladder, 6 rule out recurrence? 7 A Yes, sir. 8 Q See where It says that? 9 A Yes, sir. 10 Q And they do an operation, a cystoscopy and a pantoscoj 11 and they have the same post-operative diagnosis. They say no 12 recurrence seen, don't they, sir? 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q And that is a statement that ha has a history of IS carcinoma of the bladder, isn't it, sir? 16 A Yes, sir. 17 Q And, Doctor, you eliminated when you discussed with 18 Hr. Helneman any bladder cancer history, didn't you, sir? 19 A Yes, sir. 20 Q Thank you, sir. The next one that you eliminated 21 would have been a skin cancer to Rogers and that would be Uo. 22 422. Have you got that one? 23 A Yes, sir. 24 Q And you eliminated him because you said there was, 1 if I remember your testimony correctly* ha had no history of 2 exposure or did you, sir? 3 A I don't have my notes. 4 Q Wall, you want to look at the record than and tall us 5 what you would -6 A Yes, sir, 7 Q -- say about Mr. Rogers? Is he e x p o s e d o r not? 8 A On history he said ha was not exposed. 9 Q Now, Doctor, you testified relative to Mr. Rogers 10 when I asked you questions that he was exposed. Do you recall 11 that, sir? 12 A This is a casa of whether you can say no exposure 13 versus some or possible exposure. 14 Q Yes. Now, you said directly chat -- in your testi IS mony with Mr. Heineman that he was not exposed? 16 ,A Yes, sir. 17 Q And the history doesn't say that he was not exposed, 18 does it, sir? 19 A I think the fact that ha was transportation foreman 20 and receiving supervisor that said ha wasn't exposed. 21 Q Doctor, what did he do from 1949 to 1953? 22 A He was foreman -- he was shipping. 23 Q H worked in the shipping from -- for the first 24 three years as a warehouse man from 1949 to 1951, didn't ha, 1 sir? 2 A Yes, sir. 3 Q What did they ship out in that period of time when ho 4 was a worker? 5 A All the products that were made at Monsanto. 6 Q And was 24,5 T one of those products that was made? 7 A Yes sir. 8 Q And did he then work with 24,5 T that was made, sir, 9 at that plant from '49 to *51? 10 A I'm not sure what the foreman -- of the 2,4,5 T? 11 Q Did he work with 2,4,5 T in that three year period of 12 time, sir? 13 A I don't know. 14 Q Sir? 15 A I don't know. 16 Q If he was working in the Shipping Department and he 17 was shipping out 2,4,5 7, wasn't he working with It, Dr. Rousch? 18 A Hot necessarily. 19 Q Well, do you have anything that says that he wasn't 20 working with it? The evidence that you have is that he was 21 working with it. You have nothing to the contrary, do you, 22 sir? 23 MR. HEIKEHANi Objection, your Honor, X d o n 't think 24 the witness agrees. 1 A X don't believe -- 2 MR. CARR: I'm asking him. 3 Q Wher do you have something to the contrary that says 4 he was not working with 2,4,5 T shipping it out from the ware 5 house? 6 THE COURT: Objection overruled. 7 MR. HEIHBMANr Your Honor, I didn't get to finish my 8 objection. 9 THE COURT: I thought you had. 10 MR, HEIHEKAN: My objection to the question was Mr. Carr was assuming that there was nothing in the evidence or 11 that the evidence established that ha was working with 2,4,5 T, 12 13 and I don't think there's anything in the evidence, in the 14 record to establish that, and that's what I was objecting to. 15 THE COURT: Objection is overruled. The question was 16 proper. 17 A I don't believe that he had exposure to 2,4,5 T even 18 If he was shipping the material, because it was put into drums 19 and vats and bags before, and all they would, they bring them 20 in on dollies and take them out on dollies, and there was no 21 exposure taking place, 22 Q Doctor, do you recall that the area all in the -- 23 these buildings where they were shipping this product from, 24 it was all dusty, and they found 2,4,5 or rather TCDD in the