disregard what the doctor said.

 

 

 

 

rephrase the queStion so that matter is cleared up.

(By Mr. Heineman) Doctor. Dr. Roush. with
respect to the acute nature or the that arose and
or the exposure. how does that relate to the tact that the
study is talking about results after a long period or time?

MR. CARR: rour Honor. Counsel isnft going to

rephrase that question, I ask that the jury be instructed

THE COURT: Objection is sustained. The jury
is to disregard.

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. Would you repeat the
question? I'm not sure how it related -

THE COURT: Could you read back the question
please.

(Question read.)

THE WITNESS: Well. these workers did have
acute reaction immediately following the release, but those
subsided quite rapidly, and then after a period or
days to months they developed a skin reaction quite ditterent

than the irritant reaction, and that when it came on over a

period of days to'a month or more was called chloracne. So

 

that identitied group was based on the identification or

the chloracne or the skin reaction.
(By Mr. Heineman) How, was it possible in 1979

000247

 

1977 when this study -- when you began working on this
study, is it possible at that time to determine all or the
people who were exposed in the 1949 accident?

MR. CARR: Your Honor, rirst I would object.
Counsel hasn't established that this witness has that
knowledge. of his own knowledge, or if he's rererring to
this exhibit. whether or not this exhibit says that it's
possible. It's not clear what he's referring to. Is he

rererring to the witness' own knowledge? It so, i: he

-hasn't established that the witness has such knowledge.

hR. Well. your Honor, I'd like to
establish Dr. Roush testirying on behalr or inrormstion thatk
was developed by people working under him.

MR. CARR: Well. I object to that, your Honor.
1: he's going to refer to this study, refer to this study.
If he's referring to some hearsay documents. or hearsay in-
formation. that should be here so I can cross examine and
determine the authenticity or it.

THE I'm sustaining the objection. Would
you rephrase the question?

(By Mr. Heineman) Doctor, do you have personal

knowledge with respect to the way in which, or the effort
that was undertaken to try to determine a cohort for this

study that's reflected in Defendant's Exhibit 62?

000248

 

 

 

 

 

A Yes. sir.

i

All right. 'Now, would you tell us pleaae what

was done to try to determine the people who were expoaed?

 

was there any way to determine all of the people that were
expoeed in that 1949 in ident? ..
1 MR. CARR: Your Honor, I object to that. Thag'a
two questions. F1rat o: a1l, what was done? I think-he? .
baa to establish - I
- I THE count: You can anawer both o: the: 1h 
sequence. I
The frn'an? attempt to Heat?: the};
=who had involved in that aooident. they attempted to
11nd whether there's retorda available on work recorda that _Ir
would 1dent1?y who had been work1ng 1n that- acc1deht. and

they were unable to do so. -Ihe other approach to deo1d1hg

Lap
1"

who waa expoaed is to determine thoaa who had ohloraohe.

. 

 

.Dr. Suakihd sent me the ?1rat group o: people he 
exposed, and there were about fifty o: them ?1?ty to I
titty-three, aa I recall. -.Then we went back, and to add oh
L'to that populatzon who had ohloraohe. we went and got a
?oopy of Mr. Volr' a files in which he listed those that' were
on the Workman' a Compensatioh l1at. In to that. we
Ifoheoked with Workmen' 3 Comp-, and ver1?1ed those hanea that

obvioualy had ohloraohe.' so what we have then 18 a list o:

5 000249?

 

 :2?.i

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

people who were identified by Dr. Suskind, by those who -
cane in tron Ed vols. and then the Workmen's compensation

files. And that constituted what they called the chloracne

 

group. That neans that there could have been some people
who were there who had chloracne that was so mild that it
was not included. because a decision or who had?chloraone
was made by the doctor. they cross-checked the medical
records. but it still wasn't clear it a man had a hlackhead

whether the physician thought that was chloracne or not. 

?So we-were unable to determine those who did not have
I chloracne and who were involved in the clean-up. we believe

.that we picked most of then who_had signiticant chloracne

by the method used.

 

(By Mr. Heineman) Now, when you say yon had
access to Dr. Suskind's files, now Dr. Suskind had indeed
examined a nunher or these people back at the time or the
incident. and subsequently?

A Yes.

So he had files with respect to people who were

his own patients?

A Yes. sir.
And these were employees involved in the
incident?

 

- A Right' - 000250

.. .

 

 

?Than yo; said Ion-thing about 2d Volz'a ?1195. 

Right.
Now Ed was the

Yaa, he was.

 

Saraty Diractor or tha plant?

And he kept track or those paopla who had

tilad werhnan'n Colpanaation claims?

A

to hoop that list up-to-d

That's right.



But ho also had a roaponaihility'

at. tor the plant nanagar. rho

plant nanagar wantad a regular raport of how much chloraona

thara waa.?



A

0
tion tiles?

A


A
.
A

.

group or who had chlordane



 

so ha kept a racord or who had chloraono?

tar. air.

And than you said you want to workar'a Compensa-

Yea.

Ware thong-Rant by Honaanto or by the State?

By the Stata.

Stata o: Want Virginia?

And tron those

MR. CARR: You:

three source: you compilad tho
and who did not?

I Honor, I object as to who had

 

chlornone, not who wort axpoaod and did not have chloracna.

HR. 33mm;

I'm sorry, I miaapoka.

000251'

 

IHR. CARR: Yes. you did.

(By Mr. Eaineman) You had the list of who had

chloracne?

A Yes. air.

0 those were the people who were tollowed in this
study? -

A They became what we call the cohort. The

population that we could study.

0 Now, I want to get to the ditterence..sir,

between an acute exposure and a chronic exposure. People?

that were the subject or this study, what sort or exposurel

did they have?

A people who developed this chlorache at

that time were related to

the episode in which there was a

large discharge or the 2. 3, 7 roan.
So which.would that he? Would that he an acute
or chronic?
A ?Ah acute exposure.
0 That would he an acute exposure?
A Right.
Something that takes place over relatively

short period of time?

A Yes. sir.

 

0 There's a statement that I want to direct your 

000252 
1



 



attention to. I: I could direct your attention to the 

second page of Exhibit 62. the right-hand column. There's

a portion there that says 'Population and Methods:"is that

correct?
A Yes, sir.
0 At the end or that tirst paragraph?there's a

sentence that begins with the words 'An analysis.I no you

 

see that?
A Yes, sir.
would you read that to the'jury, please.
A 'An analysis or the chloracne cases and 

exposures not associated with this accident but rather with
the normal production processes will be the
subject of a ruture paper.?

Now, what is it that the authors of this
document are reterrino to in that sentence?

A This study was a study of those involved in the

acute accident. This subsequent study was to be related to

what health errects were associated with the normal operation

and production of TCP, and the 2. 4. at the plant. over

a period of time.

So that would it be possible, air. to describe

the second group or people to be examined in a future

 

paper, the subject of a future paper. would that be a

000253

 

18

chronic exposure that's being dealt with there? 

. A Well. the normal production process
would involve a continuing. long-term exposure as oppooed
to an episode.

'All right. Now what was the second - the
second one is the Zack-Gartey Study) is it not. sir?

A res, sir.

Now, what is the ditterence between the two?

What are the two separate studies accomplishing?

 

A Well. the tirst study was a concern tor the
possibility that those workers involved in this accident
in which there were people who were quite ill. they were
sick. Four of them were hospitalized at the University
o! Cincinati. some hundred miles away from Nitro, West
Virginia. tor a study in depth. So these workers had

signiticant exposEre.? And the question was for these_

 

hundred and twenty-two people identitied with exposure. that
heavy exposure had any adverse arrect on their mortality

experience. 

0 All right. Now how does that differentiate

from the eecond one?

. A The second study took those workers who had

been working at the plant for a period or about twenty years

 

or during that twenty years. and had exposure to continuing

I

090254

 

 

InYes. sir. I 
. One was tor chronic exposure, one was tor acute
exposure? .
A Yes. .
. Now, with respect to the Zack-Gartey Study, sir,
.does that study purport to say -
MR. CARR: ?Your Honor. I object to the leading

 

 

 

 

over most or this time. or at least up until 1969. and the .
question was at these lower levels or exposure. but Over

this long period or time. did that have any attect on their_
. 

mortality experience._

Now, it may well'be that there were some people
in the second study who were also exposed in the first one?

A Yes, sir.

?And there may be some people in the first one

 

who were not involved in the second one because they weren't

involved in the subsequent productioni is that 

 

 

torn of the question. I haven't objected to now, but I do

object now.

THE COURT: Repbrase it. please. I believe it

is leading.
I
0 (By Mr. Heineman) All right. What. it anything.

sir. does that study say with respect to whether or not

 

anybody who was the subject of it - strike that. Let me 20

 

000255

 



itart over again. what do

anything,_sir. acout wheth

in the past?

A It didn't address that question. ?The study was: 

es that study purport to say. if

er anybody who was listed as not

'exposed in the Gaffey Study had ever been exposed to 

simply a comparison of the mortality experience or those

involved either in the regular operation, on a regular basis.

or a year'at least who had
making and they
what their mortality exper
the comparison crew was th
at the plant could include

that unit. but were a part

 

How, sir -- no
studies. sir -- now. Mr. 
said. did he not, 31:; the

is Exhibit 1462-A, sir. I

tour people that were expo

their job was making the TCP, or

want to know whether they had -

ience was. And for comparison.

rest of the plant. And the rest
those who were not assigned to
or the whole work force.

w, in dealing with these two-

arr went through with you and he_

there were four people -- this?

want to show you. He pi?ks out

sed. listed as exposed in the

trichlorophenol process accident in 1949: correct??

A Yes. sir.
3 And then he sh

in which he stated that th

.


owed you Plaintiff's Exhibit 231-3.

ose same four people were included,

 

that's the wrong one.

Here, we are.

Here we go. I had the wrong one.

 

 



21

[1452-3, sir. Keeping in mind 1462-A, listed the four
people. listed or had underlined four people who had been
exposed in the '49 trichlorophenol process accidenti-correcti
A Yes. sir.
IQ 1462-3. had underlined the sane tour people as
being listed in the not exposed to 2.4.s-r table iron the

Zack-Gaffey Study.

.A Yes. sir.
"Is that right. sir?
A Yes. sir.

 

 

Now, how could it he. sir, that the four people



who were listed as exposed in the trichlorophenol process
accident could be listed as not exposed to the in
the Zack-Gartey Study?

A The definition of who was going t9 be in the
Zack-Garrey exposed group were those who were working pith
or during the period or 1955 to 1977. And

these four people were not in that cohort as I've just

 

described that's going to be studied. They were there
because they could not be identified by virtue of looking
at the work records. 

So that while they may have been exposed to

TCDD in the trichlorophenoi process accident in 1949, they

were not exposed to the chronic. low-level group, or just
000257

8 

 

'I'70?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

chronic -- let's just use that word -- the chronic exposure 

in the day-tO-day operation of the 2.4.S-T Department from

A That's right.

 

HR. cannz' Your Honor, I would object unless
counsel and the witness ill point out somethihg in the A
Zack-Gaffey Study where it says this excludes-anybody who
was working before 1955 in the TOP accident, in the TOP
production.

THE COURT: ?Ohjection sustained.

MR. HBINEMAN: I think, your Honor, I think-the
Zack-Gaffey Study itself defines the cohort.

MR. CARR: That's the reason I'm asking Counsel,
that's the reason I'm making the objection, because I?m

suggesting to you that it says nowhere that the people who

 

were exposed before 1955 were excluded from this study.
The representation that you're making to the
jury is wrong. .
HR. HEINEMAN: Well, sir. I think the represen-
tation is that those were the people who were working in
that department between '55 and '70. .

THE COURT: Okay. Objection is sustained.

 

Those weren't your words, Counsel.

THE COURT: The objection directly relates to the
000258 23

i I

 

proposition oeing put to the witness. The objectionTis
sustained. I'll allow you to reghrase the question. i: you
wish. . 

(By hr. Heineman) Doctor. in light at the
objection that Mr. Carr has made. sir. would you define the
cohort to the.2ackrGa??ey study carefully?. .

A The cohort that was going to be studied for the 

effect of working with TCP, 2.4.5-T was all or those who 

could be identified by the work records that had worked

 

with these materials. these two materials. over the period
from the first time we ha worh records available. 1155-
up to 19+7. we could not go beyond that.

Sir. that study, the attempt to identity that
cohort, was begun when? 

About the same time. 1978, '79.

Sometime around 1978? So in 1978 you were
trying to go back and find out who worked in the 2.4.5-T --
let's see - the 2.4.5.-T. production process?

A Right.

and as_of that date the only work records You ha:
began in 1955? A

a That?s right.

Now there were geople, were there not, who were

 

at work in 1955. in that process, who may have been at work
I

i eoozes
. I

 

24

 

3"

093000 

i
a

on: n: ordood on:

a??ptaut are: on: wax; --

?11: '3oq: op nox

:opun '11'8 
. $123; up aux go: xq prom n05 op :oqn 
S?'nox una.'nout 'au?r: Irv 

- I '11: ?oox 

a: ton: ppo pno :oauo: poq

SI :03; otdood on: out: a:

oon op nox oaoq o: anbnoo 3123 :oqn 'Aon .O

.3q6?3 

?555; a: zogzd spzoao:

anon oaoq :ou no?_noqn o; ob :nq osopazd'oq: u: poxzon

xtonoxaozd poq oqn ordood uooq oaon ?rm ozoqa as . 

?ztouopr pox prnoo - n05 uoqo put 9:5; 0: zoxzd 

'08 

ever: 32:: 

3oq: uooq oaoq Ion oqn 5351 u; Kuoduoa oq: qaxn

Buxazon :ou oson can otdood ozoa ozoq: :oqaoqn non: nox op

10 'otdood ozoq: oxon 'zpo 'aoq: a: norarppo u: 

zazoqoa oq: u; pophfauz oq props Koq: ?5561 393;: o:au

?=w51= I.:tqm 

:o :oox'o l:oo? xaon no uooq 50?: pru 0

'3'1 

gnq?rz :oq: ozogoq osoacza :oq: u;

 

tans}: arc: IT ?59339 .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

93

?1
ISZOOQ. 

I awn; '32 Buxxoor I1, n05 :zoqo: In: :o uotnzurng :IItap
uop nox IInIan ?zzoqoo lg? 30 noraru1;Ip Iq: po?urqa
an moi aoq ;o Imxa: u; Iuop IA. n?x :an Izns Ian I: max :na
up at: no: ?805 ?30q30503 won: and a: 5u15::.:zrac n05
thA as '39 Karftazou Iq: qu3 pa!
:qu .xpnas ?I;;I9-xarz In: no 631:;
In; '5pnal I :1 
IT :39q?: Iqi Iuop 3' 'pIIp :o IATTI IzIn
pIq oqn :Ianqi :no put; a: pIaoot put xatq :uIn

qu3 put :quIsc: and IDA put pazpunq auq:

 

:Iqao u: ?03U8130d10 q:TP.q In; -IauI;zIde aq: 

 

Izo;Iq3pIuT;Ip IIA arq: dnozb xpnas 9 5q Iuop

116A 3o quoa ??pn3I In: In,no? 1.33!

quA Itnan II Iqu: puv ?xrauIzI;;rp pouszp

IInIan 'zIAIuv a: armatizTP 9.:Iq: put 'anaaIquca_

I3: Iazoqoa on: Iqu: :o uorzyuerp :nox Iran Ian o:
nox go eI?urq: 'rtIu 

I gays 'avq: up a:

Ith In on n65 so; :Ipao u; pszanz I.:an an: op a: 

nox op gtqnisobun Ina '3q51: 0

 

?'uIa nox 'Iuta Iq: qua :o auxq: put 'Iznsodxa

'aruozqa I Iqu: Ian 'Ianodxa Inna: us go ?33.33! Iq:

?1 sun 3Q?qua In news ququaa a: But?sa Iz,no? :1 

 

zsoqno I Iu13Ip a. nap no; '330qu I anoqI Suture: 3:93: nos?malea.

one a

 

5 You mean if you put them together?
'5 Yea. -
-Becauae that two cohorts were put together with

d1??arant thihga 1n n1nd: 1

a that right?

A And de?ned tierently. 4 
0 De?1ned d1??erently? . i 
A 1 Yea. 
So 11 you junhl

what the de?1n1t1on of your cohort 1a?

A That'a right.

How, 1n connect

 

study, you said that you de
regard to what the experien
air?

A We detine that
chloracne. and we were able
group we're go1ng to look a
workers, and we took out on
S1nce there waa one female,
of the conaiatency.:
The second populati

worked 1n that

a them together. you don' _t know

1on w1th an' epiden1olo91cal
?1ned the cohort first without 
c. i'e


I

first cohort as those who had 
to 1dent1?y that population
t,aa a hundred and twenty-two

e. The nurr: was in 'there.

we dropped her out just hecauae

'Hundred and twenty-one of them were

on_ group waa thoae who had

operat1on, or tor at least one

 

- year during that time period'of t1me..

That' a how that
i= 000262

i
1

What do you mean by 

 

27



''the cohort once you rind out what the mortality experience

Iexpoeed to TCDD. that would be true. you say?

 

population was defined.

0 ?Now; when you make the definition or the
population. at that time do you have any idea what the
actual mortality experienca is for that population?

A Ho,eir.

.Q So you define it first. and thenyyou rind out
where the chips fall?

That's right.

A-
'And that's done in both atudiee?

3., Exactly the same.

0- And you don't maneuver then? You don't change

is?
A No, air.
0 You've already detined what the cohort is?
A That's right.
Now. so that while it in true to say, or it

 

may he true to say that both groupe studied could have been

A Yea. air. 

. They were exposed under ditterent circumstanceaf
correct? I

A Yea. 

And the purpose or the studies was to find out

000283



 

28

[?24

 

 

 

 

 




the dittering -- whether those 

-produced ditfering mortality experiences: Correct?571

A Yes. sir.? 

Now, when Mr. Carr asked youIto start adding 
them together, the tirat thing he did we? aat_you to nane;

certain people and he picked then off. 1%thinhg Exhibity1450

 

which was a list or ever?hody that was included in the Zack-
Suekind Study; isn't that right?. i

A Yes.

And then e- then, air. he had you start doing

I
some computations; didn't he? 3 

A Yea, sir.
And what he would do is takeithe deaths as to?
a certain type of cancer an compared to ?he total number or
deaths in the Zack-Gartey Study, and the? have you add in


the cancer deatha tron the Zach-Suskind study: correct?

A Yes. air.
. I
And he had you add those to the numerator_and he

I
had you add those sane to the denominator? correct?

A No, sir. i
0 Now. what's-the difzerence? Why is it. sir?
is.it that you can't compare them by just lumping

in the cancer deaths tron the other study without any

 

reference to the total number of deaths in that study?
a . .000234

. . a:
. . - 

 

 

12.population --


I

A That first line up there shown that there were
I .

10.? cancer deetha expected. and he di:vided it by the
population in the Garrey Study. in which there were 58. and
he eayx 18.9 percent ot the deatha were due to cancer. But
thenhe took the --he toot-67?he took so andadded 
that'c hard to tell tron that -- he addcd 9 cancer deatha
iron the :act-Suckind Study to the popuiation or Zach-Gartey
to come up with 67. In other worda. his population now was
67. and he got 18.! percent. and aaid he would expect 12.6.
But you can't do that.

But. air. he used the 18.9 percent. which it the

result or determining how many are expected in thin

A Right.
Q. -- correct. air?
a Right. 

 

That ien't t?e number or expected in thia

population. is it? 
A No. ae'a trying to calculate it there.

0 Right. But what in additionldo you have to do.

 

even i: thia 10.94 in not the expected tor this created

I
population of taking the and adding then to 53. there'x
atill something rurther wrong with it. ian't there. air?

A Yes.
000265.

 

30

Okay. Now uhat'o that?
1 ?Ho hao to chango that population tron tho 57 --
ha hao to add tho total population of tho Zaot?suotina

Study to it.
At iaaot that portion oi tho total population



which is not duplicatod?

A that's right.

9 In tho zaot-Gattoy study?

A That's right. 

So you'va got to rind out boo oaor total doatho

tharo ara in tho -

 

- group? You can't juot tata tho oanoaro -
that's liko taking tho rod apploo out o: gallon and rod
?applao, and rod applao out o! yailow and tad applao. and
lat'o tako thooa rodo and thaoo rado, and put than ovar
hora and oar along this bunch o: applao oa'va got a lot
Iota rods. .

a That's right.

0 But that ohoo what tho total imoidont
is, doao it?

A That's right.

 

You'va got to taha tho yallou applao from hozo

and bring than ovor with tho yollov applao tron hora. don't
000285

 

 

 

31


11





i:




22


24

 

 

 

 



 

 

 

you, air?

A That'e right?

So you're showing the number of red apples, which

may be the number or people exposed to TODD in the entire

population. not juet in that portion or the population:

correct?
A Yen.
How, so then?



it you look at Exhibit 1464-A hero;

sir. he say: here thet the deaths obeerved were 18 end not

A ?I'le

 

But he comperee_it with the deaths expected to

the.deathe expected only tron the Zack-Gaffer Study popula-

tion; correct?

A No, eir. He compared it to that recalculated

one on the other page right behind it.
3

All right. Bebk here?

A tee. The: right there. Thet_one two six;

9 Twelve point nix?

A Twelve,point nix, yen.

All right. So you calculated -- what's this, the

new expected?

A Yes.

Now this is tho new expected for this

 



. I

000267

 

 

[population?

A Yes, and that's not a population.

0 But what's the new expected for the real.
population, which ie how many people?

A Firth-eight plue thirty-two, minus tour. I think.
So it's - it's 86. What you ahould do is take that 86
timee -- 18.9. it in tact the percent expected in a larger
population would be the same at it wee in the first popula-
tion, and that's not correct. I

So that changee too, doean't it?

A Right. rou can't do that. that percent 
expected in the Zack-Garrey Study was derived trom a

computer program which.correcte the expected by virtue or

age. A: a population gets older, the cancer experience.

 

So you never can pick up and identity the
expected. First or all. the age expected mortality from
cancer in any population ie about twenty percent. So that's
pretty clone. But that that's expected in any apecial?
population it dependant upon the age or the population. So

when you etart to add. take 18.9 percent in the Zack-Sunkind

 

Study, which was conaiderably older than the Zack-Garrey

hecauae it wae haeed on that population back in 1949, the

 

expected is going to be quite different from that. And you

can't do it anyway - you can't take 18.9 and multiply it

oo?zas

 



#5

on; 33.3u1 nos qstqa u: uorartndod

1
633000

nox azaqn 'abrd puoaas cum

 

noruu-aau anox on :01 

 

Intxzadxo :oaut: psuaadxo aq: scarrnat

oarq atq: suuz?ozd 0:9 
:1 anq 'Atrunuru :1 up urn max ?05:
u: puv '05: an; :1 Buruaozzca ucdn

Au? u: cauoxzodxo ?axrrazom u: 

gozoq :noqa sup

go sotdrauxzd ozoq: 01v {313 ?utq:

sq: ?Buoin xfoaikauca 3.:tuz OS ?d'T

as nu: :1 sq; -uoruerndo

 

?aw5TJ Irv ?pUIxsns-xavz -- =1 oavu I
f?pnas purging-watz oq: ?33;

-- :noqv surxTV: nox 01v

go BuyuuTBOq on: at unop :q513 -azaq: :qbra 

112 

'3108

'nu?rq 11?

(0?0

-- ?arqtho oq: :o 053d puoaos on: a:

100T II 29 0: I IT '37959

'au?rz ITV 0
'359 no pactq

a: :1 uoq: pup 'uezsoad

Iq: nag; ?xpnac syn: u; poaroauf 016006 on: 3o-luo qaro go

9 Ian: on unantzn unoq
q: as ?n?up lat: prnoa
so; :1 :aazzoa-o: :opzo
auupuodop :7 
azaodxa aq; 
XTI: 0:,on Ksor?ruaptdo
:1 Inn 'Aou 0
?auop Ina :vqa'an

aq: Inuxm cute

5 an; 9.:rq: It: par :1

a; scout: oq: pp: :sn; pua Reggae-x392 0Q: lluTthis paragraph. Dr. Suskind is desoribing there; ia

one or these generally recognized computer programs? 

MR. CARR: Dr. Suskind or Zack? la the principl

author SuSkind -- 

9 (By 14:- Htinenn-J All right. Zack and sauna -

are discussing here one or these generally recognized

programs: isn't that right?

A Yes.

In other words, when they say data were

analyzed by the moditied lite-table method using the updated

Honson program.' it doesn't tell you right here what the

updated Monaon Program is, does it?

A No, sir.

So that the people. this being written ?or_

 

other epidemiologists. I suppose. people will know what the 

updated Monson Program is?

A Yes, sir. I

Wouldn't they?

A Yes, sir.

Why do they know that?

A Becauae it's oomoonly used.

 

Everybody uses


A Yes.
0

it?

All right. So-that when you're talking about



h. not,

 

35

 

this. epidemiological computer programs. these are things

that are used all over the country?

A Yes, sir.

 

And these are statistical analyses employed by
mathematicians; correct?
A Yes, sir.
Nor, it indeed this process was used by Mr.

Carr. where he added only the deaths, only the cancer deaths

_?rom the Zack-Sustind Study and not the total number or

deaths. so that thinge. as I understand it. that are wrong

 

here are one. you can't just take the cancer deaths. you've
got to bring in the total number or deaths into your

denominator here?

A Right.

9 Don't you?

A res. air.

In addition to that, your expected changes;
doesn't it?- A

A Yee. He was trying to calculate the expected

there. but it is not -- but you can't even do that that way.

 

All right. So your expected changes?
A 
In addition to that your expected changee not

only because of the number of people involved, but your

000271

 

35

.J

[2

13

I4



I,

20

 

 

 

expected changes because of the differences in age of the

people involved?5





A Yes, Sir. And time of death.

And the time of death_--

A Right.

0 - is anotheu factor. So all or those have to 

 

be plugged into the computer in order to come up uith what

in fact is the incident at death, whether it is atatitticall

all that has to he done. Yes. sir.

 

signiticant?
A Whether it's greater than the nunher or expected

Doesn't it} So that thie tigure, where other

types of cancer deaths have been calculated by Mr. Carr.

that's not correct either. is it?

 

 

A No. sir. .

For the reasons that we've just talked about?

A Right.

And this one for a ditterent kind or cancer
death. that's not correct either, is it, for the reasons
we talked about?

A That's right.

And the sane would be true of this one?

A Yes, sir. 

All right. That gets into the next study. We'll

000252





 

37

worry about that later. Now, in the Zack-Sunkind Study, you

studied a hundred and twenty-one people: correct?

.A Yes. sir.

Now out ot'the total deaths, there were how
many, 32? A I

A Thirty-two.

And how many were expected, air?

A Out of 46.4.

TEE COURE: I'm sorry. What was that number?

TEE WITNESS: rorty-eix point tour.

 

THE count; Thank you. 
. (By Mr. Heinepan) How in that study, Br. Sustind
says on page -- well. it'; the third page o: the exhibit,
right in the 'Reeults' section --
MR. CARR: What exhibit are you talking about?

an. HEINEMAN: 62. Defendant's 62, the Zack-

 

Suakind Study. 

MR. CARR: You said Suskind again. Dr. Zack

said this. and Suskind signed it along with Zach.

0 (By Mr. Heine?an) The Zack-Sustind Study.
A Yes. 
I
The results age stated there on that page right

below Table 1. are thIY n4t, Sir?

A Yes, sir.

000273

 

Inn.4- -

 

 

 

 

 


I

And it says, 'The results of the standardized

 

mortality analysis of the 121-memher study cohort are shown
in Table 13' correct, si I

A Yes, sir.

?The standard red mortality ratio for all deaths

is shown to be 0.69, with 32 observed deaths and 46.41

expected.?
A Yes, sir.
Correct? So that's 41. He says this is the

only statistically significant difference shown in this

table: correct?

A Yes, sir.

 

The only one that was statistically significant
was this. And what was it? It was low, wasn't it?

A Yes, sir.

It was statistically significant, less, fewer
deaths than expected: correct?

A Yes. sir.

0 All of the other findings where excesses were
found and there are lung cancer, disease of other respirator
pardon me - respiratory system and lung, there are excesses

found, are there not?

 

A Yes, sir.

But they're not statistically significant?

000274



 

That's right.

9 The diseases of the circulatory system are

round to be less than expected?

A Yes, sir.

Arterioeclerotic disease, including coronary

heart disease. is found to be than expected?

 

 

A Yes. sir.

The malignant neoplasms, all malignant neoplasms 
are found to he as expected: right?

A Yes, sir.

0 Cancer. 9 ohderved. 9.4 expected. 

A Right,.

Right? Now, these expected figuree are expected
for this population: correct?

A. Yes. air.

0 All right. Gastrointestinal, are these cancere
now?

A Yes. air.

0 Gastrointestinal cancers. none'found. 2.5
expected.

A Yes. sir.

Correct? Lung cancers: correct?

A Yes. sir.

Five ?ound.2.?5 expected. Correct?

I


000275

 

4O

[Yes, sir. I
So the gastrointestinals are low by'some margin,
the lung cancers are high by some margin. but neither or then

is found to be statistically signiticant?

 

A That's right.

Heart disease, 13 round, 17 expected. Correct?
A Seventeen seventy-tour.

Seventeen point -

A Seventy-tour.

All right. And that was tQund not to be

statisticall} signiticant? -

 

A That's right.

The bladder cancers, none round: correct?

A That's right.

Was there an expected level there tor bladder
cancers?

A . One point one six.

That?s the Zack-Suskind Study, isn't it. air?

A That's right. I

Zack-Gartey. Now what's the population in this
group? 

A I don't have it.

0 That's Plaintitt's Exhibit 281. It may be up

here. No, I'm sorry, it sure isn't. Let me hand you, sir,

I
000?76

 

that'a been earned an Plaintiti'a lahihit 2.1 and Detendant
Inaeaate Inhibit 65. low that's the Zach-Gattey Study, ia

it not. aitthe :att-loatind atudk, thete were a hundred and ttentyi

one that had onlotacae, but there were thirty-two deaths:

right?

A



titty-eight. Ia have total oannet. how aany, air?

.A





 

tee, air.
loo that'a the population in this gtoup, aiz?
riitr-eight.
titty-eight ie the nuehet oz deaths: tight?
rea, air.
Out at a neon large: population than that?
lot detined.

All right. It I can direct you: attentioa'haot

 

roe, tit.

all tight. to the sent-cattey re have total dea1


had hoe nany expected?
ren point ninety-toot.

 

In thia population: correct?

tea. that population of that age distribution.

caettointeatinal, hon near?

the

 

00023737



 

42

None. And how
Two point eight
Lung?
Six.

How many expect

Three point five seven.

Twenty-seven.

 

How many expect
Nineteen poin
And bladder?


A

A

A
Heart disease?
A

A

A Bladder two, wi
0

Yes. sir. Now or the total or these 32 death:

in the Zach-Suskind Study,

that were in the Zack-Sunkind Study and listed as unexposed

in Zack-Gartey: correct?

IA Yes.

In addition to
were in the Zack-Sunkind St
Zach-Gatzey Study?

A Yes. tot: of th

0 So there is a 

between the two groupsmany expeCted? fJAJre ?i 

28:0.

ed?

ed.eir?
seven two.

th point twenty-two expected.

there were four that we know or

that. air. were there eome'that

udy and listed an exposed in the

em.

otal of eight people that overlap

 

.A That's right.

000278V

5 

 

43

I The two groups of deaths?

2- A That's right.

 

 

 

Now with reepect to adding-2ack-5uakind and

Zack-darrey, what did you do with.that. air?

A You'll have to add the 53 or the Garrey Study

and you add to that the 32 Zack-suetind. minus tour that

were already included. - i

.0 Now, how about the other tour?)
A That's the tour we're adding.
0 All right. So that the total deaths when yin

add these two together are how many? 

 

A It's 58 plus 28, or 86.
So it's not 

A No. 

'.It'a 86?

A that's right.

Correct?' Did you in the Epidemiology Department
make this calculation since Mr. Carr went over this with you?

a m. sir.

 

0 All right. And what did you do in order to 
the calculation? 

A We used a Monson Program based on the age

 

distribution or that 86 to determine what the expected canoe:

death for each one or those categories.
000279

I


 

 

 

.went over with you?

 

 

 


oolputer Henson Program: correct?

All right. Now over here youlva got thej

A. Correct.

Over here we have what computations Mr. Carr
went through with you. Okay? 

A Right. 
0 Now we start with the total cancer. Let's make

sure we've got them in order here. Gastrointestinal. lung,

bladder. system, other cancers. and heart disease.

 

Correct. sir?
A Yes. sir. 

How those ere the various items that Mr. Carr

A Yes. sir.

 

Now -- now, as to total cancers. Mr. Carr said
there were should be expected how many, sir?
Twelve point six.3wesn't it?

A That rirst item you had was twelve six.

0 Okay. As to said there
were two. and --

- MR. CARR: Your Honor, I don't really mind being

considered as a witness in this case. but I've not said

anything. I've asked que?

tions and the witness has respond-

_ed. various witnesses haveuresponded giving these facts. and

'000280 

 

'45

[all these particular facts were elicited.?ron this witness

 

at this tine from the exhibits in evidence. I objeot to
counsel characterizing said.?'

MR. HEINEMAN: I think that's quite accurate.
Mr. Carr.

MR. CARR: Thank you.



MR. HEINEMAN: What you did was write down these
calculations for him. You said you had done then onla
calculator. Correct?

MR. CARR: Counsel, as you know. each thing on
there has t? be agreed Jo by a witness based upon the gacts
given the witness. based upon the exhibits in evidence, or
else it cannot be put there for the jury, as you're aware
of that. It cannot be admitted into evidence. Thererore.
each fact that I have put on any board I have done to uith
the agreement of the;witness at the particular point in
time.

THE COURT: Objection is sustained. Could you
rephrase your statements.

0 (By Mr. Heineman) Doctor, Mr. Carr showed you

a calculation for lung cancer. Do you recall that?

A Yes. sir.

 

And he said ?here were --.
1
MR. CARR: Your Honor --
000281

 

(By Mr. Heineman) -- he said there weregten? 
MR. CARR: Your Honor, I object. I gave the

calculation to the witness. The witness agreed that that

calculation. based upon those facts, were correct.- these 

to them, but the way that it works. Counsel. is the witness
either agrees or disagrees. I: he disagrees. it cannot be

written on the exhibit.

 

MR. HEINEMAN: Your Honor. it I might address
that a moment. My recollection of what happened was that
the witness said a number or times that you can't do that.
rou can't add the two together. And Hr. Carr said he could.
and that were these calculations correct if you assunad
that they added than together. That's what the witness
agreed that the arithmetic was correct.

HR. What I gave to the witness were the
tacts that were in the exhibits. .I said based upon these
facts is this calculation correct. and the witness agreed
based upon those facts that they were correct.

THE COURT: Objection is sustained. I'll ask
you again to rephrase it.%

0 (By Mr. Heinedan) The calculations, sir.
that you went through with Mr. Carr, reflected 10 lung

cancer deaths and 4.12 -- now wait a minute. Well. here

0%0282



- are not calculations that are nine. I'll be glad to testify

 

47

wa've got it right here. Plaintiff's Exhibit 1465;?. Do

you see that. Sir? - 

A Yes, sir.

For lung, 10. Genitourinary, 2. Correct?
A Yes, sir. - I 

How he listed 10 tor lung. 

MR. CARR: Your Honor. Counsel in same

thing again.
MR. HEINEMAN: I'm sorry. It's a trendian slip.
Judge.

(By hr. Heineman) The calculation atataa 16 -

 

lung cancer deaths: is that right?

A Yes. sir. i

And it says here on Plaintif?'s Exxhhit 1465-A
10 lung cancer deaths: correct? .

A Right?..? 5 5

And the number expected for lung cancer deaths

calculated to be 4.12: is that right. air?

A I don't recall. what's it.?

9
Is this it?
A Yes.

a)

Four goint one two. where the 143 percent --

Yes.

3'

 

All right. So that's for the lung cancer there,

I
1



 

 

 

_as shown on 
A Right. 
0 All right. Now, air. with respect to -1 with
respect to bladder cancer. there were two listed in 
correct. sir? 
A Yes.

- The calculation or expected -- I don't see that

here. I'm trying to find the exhibit where that nunber

[was. Judge.

TEE counr: Why don't we take a short break and

you find it?

 

MR. HEINEMAN: All right. Thank you.

THE COURT: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen. we'll
take a short break at this time. I will remind_you, and
this would go tor any other breaks which we take. not to
discuss this matter anong yourselves. with anyone outside

the jury panel. or as.or yet form any opinions or conclusionL

about the matter in trial. Court is in recess.

(Short recess.)_

 

9 (By Hr. Heinemanl Doctor, at the break you

corrected me on something; didn't you. sir? You said this

6.1. should be 6.0.: is that right?



I

000284

 

 

49

-23.

24

 

 

 

 

A Yes, sir.

what would that stand for?

A That means gastrointestinal, and G.U. would be
genitourinary. I

9 Okay.-

ma. And another correction,iwhat is that

exhibit number. counsel?

:?iRe EEINEHAN: NO, ?.te

 

MR. CARR: Why don't you put an exhibit number
on it so I can refer to it?

MR. Okay. I'll be glad to. -

(Defendant Monsanto Exhibit 910 was marked

for identifiodtion by the court reporter.)

(3y hr.;Heineman) Doctor. I'm marking-this
sheet that we've ceen'drawing on here an Defendant's Exhibit
910. and that's this'laet sheet where we're addking Zach-
Sunkihd and Zack-Gaffey together: correct. sir?


A Yes. sir. 
CARR: It reiers to a I'c:arr Study,? or a
I'Cnrr column.?' of inaccurate to he an

exhibit. or Dr. Roush's testimony to that effect. But I

haven't testified to it. I objett to the use of the word

000285

 

 

50

'Carr' on this exhibit.

HR. HEINEMNR: Wall, your Honor, tho reason
the "Carr' is on thtra is that that. war. the calculations
that Mr. Carr went through with tho And it waa
to identify than an that column only.

THE counr: I'd pretax that you changa that.
I'll allow you t: change it to what-var number of tha
exhibit that you?va bean rotarring to that thoaa calcula-

tionn.

 

MR. HEINEMANF Well. it's a combination or
exhibits, your Honor. 1

THE COURQ: do want you to change that.

MR. REINEHRNJ All right. sir.

THE You'va baan raferring to 1465-R and

MR. CARR: Just put tha axhihit nunbars on it
that you'ra retarring to, Counaal. Then you don't have to
guess about what you'ra talking about.

HR. HBINEHAN: Now those documanta hart. your

Honor. tron which that. number: cane. son. or than canc,
were novar marked by Mr. cart. Could u. got plaintitt

exhibit number: on those, than I can put the numbers of

thorn.

 

THE counra' Fine.

1'13. CARR: That's fine with me. 000288.

 

$1

_10

potcont oquais 12.6.

 

 

 

 

I
I
HR. I think it stoxts hots. 

 

252 count: on can Just not. it a group exhibit.

an. ?szuauA?a not. it a gzoup cxhihit. you:
Honor?

238 it's tho can. 
ltPiaintiff'o Group Exhibit ?512 was notkod

to: by the coast topoztor.)

 

.. 

KR. All tight. So that the second

 

would be cicaz. you: Plaintiit'o Gxouo Exhibit 1533
. . .

consists o: to. fits: shoot at calculation: in which Hr.

Caz: - in which that. appears calculations 67 tiaoo 18.9

The second ah?ct of calculations ending in the
one noodrod forty-thtoc.pozoont. rho thixd shooti
o? calculations in tho atatcnont 92 pctcont in 
lid tho roozth shoot o? calculations Indigo in the union:
2? potoint. .

T33 COURT: fine.

 

(33 at. daincohn) ?ow, six. with zoopoct to tho
hiaddo: - with suspect to oiaddox cancer, the nunoor which I
appoats in the acct-Gatioy'Study. which is Piaintitt'l

Rxhioit 281. as too cxpoctod in Unit, sin 000287

 

52

Point twenty-two.

a Point twenty-two. And Plaintirt'a Group Exhibit
1512. to your recollection, air, doea not contain a calcula-
tion tor bladder cancer. doee 

HR. CARR: I object to the for: or the queetion.

 

count: Objection auatained.
(By ur. Heineean) Dcee Group Inhibit 1512
contain a calculation for bladder cancer?
A No, air.

Ice with reepect to the cancer calculation.

 

Exhibit 14es-A above a pefcentaqe or deatha higher than-
expected. That's Plaintift'e Inhibit 1465-8 of 92 percent.
And ve can trace a calculation for that an part or Group
Exhibit 1512. can we not.iair?

A fee. air.

0 And in that the expected vae placed at 1.56;
correct? In the calculation in Group Exhibit 1512.

a which in 15127

 

I'm sorry?

I Which 1' 1512?

1512 la thia group exhibit or coloulotione, air.
A Yea. Right.

0 Right?

A

?.000288

 

53

[liated aa 3 -

 

 

 

 

 

And from Exhibit 1465-A we see that thererarc

-- occurring.' Nov, air. with reap-ct to other

aitca, we see from Exhibit 1465-A that there are three

occurring. and from Exhibit 15 - two occurring at a percen-

tage or death higher than expected or 26 percent. and it

we go back to Group Exhibit 1512 we see that in order to get

 

that 26 percent there vaa.a i.59 expected uaed.

A YCI.

And with reacht to heart disease, air. we 


tron Exhibit 1465-A that there are 27 accounted tor there.

We don't have -- do we have auch a calculation among Group

Exhibit 1512?

A No, sir.

But tron Exhibit 281 we have the expected of

What, 31:, 19e72?

A 19.72. i

0 All right, aiJ. Now you told ua, air. that you

cauaed a computer Manson ?rogrnn to be run: is that right.

air?
A You. sir.
And how did you go about doing that?
- a We took that -- what we were trying to find ia

000289



 

54

 

 

55

063000

 

Irq: no :Iqao?oa ptxaon Jazz?s ?za

aunts stun stnasrp nox p1p noun pug



?05: 30 notaruruxoqpp :06 ptnoo

land 0105 :rqa Idnoxs on: own axon

 

slat: puzoodxo on: 03133030? 03

gzoqdobo: and oq prnoa xlq: itq: Burunscv

?zoqaoboa and oq anoa xoq: urn: burunnsv ~30;

 

 

(*zoazodoz aznc: oq: xq no;

I
Poxzru It? ozuvcfow nuvpu83061

Irv 
'31: ?30; 

ap-uzozxod buxtq

n03 puv 
?an?ru 
a?0:3r5 23a 0
'10 -v
?aq?tz 0.






n05 :Iq: as 
?qu 

gaq?tz noun :1 Izoqaoboa

at nox dnozs on:

bur 99 stun no pain Itzboza uosuou sq: pug 

-osoq: 30 not. so;

urzsoza uocuow oq: pasn

In ?dno:5 :tq: at poauosozd It noranqrzaatp .69 sq: qurn 99

3? :o notartndod a so; aztuq pue ?zaqao 

?Eunr Pizaodxa an: Oq PTnoa 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RR. CARR: your Honor. I object to any use by
Gattey unless Dr. Roush did it himself. If Dr. Gaffey did
it. Dr. Gaffey should be here. It's not clear thus far,
other than the fact that Roush discussed it with Dr. Gatfey,
who worked the computer, who put it in. who did the study.

THE COURT: Would you clarify that-please.

 

MR. HEINEMAN: I?ll be glad to clear that up.

THE couar: sine.

(By Mr. Heineman) Dr. Roush, tell us how you

and Dr. Gatfey did this. and what each of you did.

A we -- I asked him whether we could put theei
two studies together in his opinion, and he said no, they
could not be out -- I I

AR. CARR: Your Honor. I object to any testimony
that this witness is gains to give to some other oerson.

THE COURE: Objection is sustained. It is

hearsay. 
(By Mr. Heinean) Now, if you would. sir. tell
us what the two of you did, together or separately, in
coming up with the figures_on the computer Monson ?rogram.'
. I

A He did the com?uter analysis of the exgected
mortality for each of those specific causes of death.

50 --

A Related to a population a: 86 with the age'
000291
.

 

 



distribution that could only be gotten from that program.

9 All right. How was that done under your!

 

direction, air?

A Yes. air.

9 Hart you with him out at Monsanto ha did it?
A No, sir. I

So that it was at your instruction that ho

portornad this exercise with tho Computor Monson Program?

 

A Yes. air.

0 And than he can. to you with the rssults?

A Yes. sir. 

I All right. L+t ma hand you whatia boon markad 

. I 
an Datendant'a Exhibit 91?. sir. Can you identify that for

A Yea. air. 
What is that?E
A This is the prbportional mortality ratio study

at Gatzsy by putting thoaa two populations together.

a I notioa it's in handwriting} in that right?

A Yas. air.

Whose handwriting is?that?

A Dr. Gatfsy's.

And that was that handwriting, was that given

0002le

 

Ul

I-l



Yes, sir.

was that the report or what you had asked him
to do?

A ?es, sir.

Sir. was there a determination-with respect to -

this,Conputer Monaon Program as to how many total cancers'

'were to be considered? 1

MR. CARR: Your Honor. I object. Any use of the .

table is clearly Dr. cattey's table. and not Dr.Roush's

 

table. and not be used unless I cross.examine Dr. Gartey
as to its authenticityclearly a 
self-serving statement prepared by Monsanto. I object to
it. -

MR. Your Honor, there isn't any
question. as I've established through this witness, this
work was done by Dr. Gartey under this witness' direction,
and that this report was made by Dr. Gatiey in his own
handwriting as t' the results 0! the report on the results
0: this Computer Monson Program. I think under those

circumstances. all I want this witness to do is to report

what those numbers are.

 

MR. CARR: I object to it. that all he wants to
do is to have Dr. Gaftey's table introduced into evidenoa.

or used without Dr. Gaitey being here and subject to the
I 000293.

58

 

cross examination as the rules require.
THE COURT: Objection is sustained.
(By Mr. Heineman) All right. Doctor, one of
the items included on Plaintitt'a Exhibit 1464-A is an

entry tor a Mr. John ?batman. Do you see that. air?

 

A Yes, sir. 

. Whose date or death was 1971. Do you :93 that.
air?

A Yes, sir.

And the source or inrormation was Marcie'Stssuss.

A Yes. sir. - -

Do you see that, air?

A Yes, sir.

Now, this John workman is included on this

exhibit entitled, ?Cancer Deaths of Workers Exposed to TCDD
Omitted from Tablei1052ack-Gattey Report:' correct?

A Yes, 

 

. And it is a tact, is it not, that according to
this exhibit, which was ahoun to you a couple a days ago,
a tew days ago, that the aouce or that information was Mar-
cie Strauss: is that right?
A Ires, sir.
You have -3 Do you have Plaintitt'a Exhibit 1463

Thank you. Let me hand you what's been previously marked





 

59



Plaintitt's Exhibit 1463. Do you remember that 

eir?
A



I



_2es, sir. . 1

Mr. Carr went through_it with you, or went

through portions-of it with you, did he not?

A



Yes, air.

And he asked you speciricaliy about a certain

 

page which is page four or tour, and Attachment II, Roman



Numberal II. no you remember that, air?
I

A



A


entry for a

A



Where was that, air? I don't remember it.

i
Page four ofirour, Attachment II. -

Yes. I
i

All right. under there he asked you about the

Mr. John Workman, did he not, sir?

Yes, air.

And this is the name John Workman for'which

Strauss ia liatediaa the source or information?

A

0

Yes, air.

And there is a portion of this record here,

there's some writing on thie_document that's in evidence

 

which Carr did not ask you to read to the jury. Do

I

you remember that?

A




I

Yea, sir. I
I

Would you read it to the jury --

5'

ocument,

 


II
12

14
I5
16



 

 

 

 

 

 

?Mg. Would you identify whose wr?ting it
is. because this is a work of Strauss. unless this is
Strauss' handwriting on there. I'll object to it. I

THE HEINEMHN: The document is in evidence. Mr.
Carr.

MR. Then I withdraw the objection. But

.

I would ask that you identity whose writing it is. ?ounsel.

MR. HEINEMAN: I don't know whether this

 

witness knows whose writing it is.

(By hr. Heinemen) Do you know whose writing

that is there. sir?

A No. sir.

You don't know one way or the Other?

A No.

It might beJMarcie Strauss, it might not be?
A Yes. 31:} I

i .
MR. CARR: I object to that. That's pure

 

Speculation. I ask the jury be instructed to disregard it,
THE COURT: Objection is sustained, the jury
is ordered to disregard it.
2 (By Mr. Heineman) Now would you read that
statement to the jury, p?ease.
A "He shouldn't be counted as exposed because

inrornation came from the medical records. not the work

I
000235


 

 

6 

.history.?

i
I

All right, It says he shouldn't be counJed as

exposed because the infor

records, not the work his

nation oame_?rom the medical

tory: correct?

 

A Yes, sir.

Now, the ZackFGaffey Study, sir, was based upon
work histories, was it not? I

A Yes, sir. 3

And it was the people whose work histories

.demonstrated their exposure to the process or manutacturinq

and that were included?
A Yes, sir. 
So that, in this document that's in evidence,

1
the typewritten portion has John Workman listed?

A Yes,sir.

The handwriteniportion says he should not be
included? i i

A 'Yes, sir.

Now, sir -- before I get to that. let me ask

you this, Dr. Roush, if you have two separate studies, and

statistically one study does not reveal a certain abnormali?

 

and statistically the other study does not stress that

particular abnormality, even though both are looked for, if

you put the two together,

what would you expect to find?
000297



62

 

 

.halt?

 

A Since you're

percentage in one study

adding constant ratios. a certain

has cancer and a certain percentage

 

of the other that have cancer, the percentages will come

 

out to be about the sane,

and relate to the two of them.

It won't be strikingly iterent?

.So that if you put the

sets of figures together

properly by adding the total populations studied in eLch,

that you shouldn't find enormous changes from one to the

other, should you?

1?

A No. As a matter or fact. it would be eondplace'
inbetween._ i

?It would be inbetween the finding or one and
the finding 

A That's right.

It's like taking rive and :our. putting them

together to make nine. div

A Yes. The only

ide it by two and you get four

problem is that the populations!

are not equal size, so they have to be weighted.

All right. So
the populations have to be

according to.age?

A Yes. sir.

that in an epidemiological.study,

yeighted according to size,

 

Those kinds of

have to be made.

000298 i

corrections

 

 

63

than either one. is it? 

 

 

 

1
According to date of death as well. But when you doiall

of those calculations according to the Monson Program, then
what comes out is something that's a hybrid of the tuo?
That's right.

0 But it's not going to be outlandishly greater

 

A Right. The only thing that will happen then is
the significance.of it will be related now to the new
larger denominator. so the significance will change because
of the larger number in the denominator. That's the reason
the denominator is so important. It's the reason you can't
just take part of it and add it.

So the larger denominator may create something
that is statistically significant that wasn't before?

A That's right.:

0 And it may create something not to be statistioa

_ly significant that was before?

A Yes. sir.
So the larger numbers change statistically,

the findings of each one ofparately?

 

A That?s right.
0 But no: greatly?
A No. No. It depends on how far they're apart,

because a larger one will tend to make the numbers come up
000299

 

 



the range of either one?

 

 

 

 

 

closer to the larger one.

All right.

A. No. air. 

It's going'to be someuhere inbetween then?
A Right. . 

0 Now, sir, do you have Exhibit 1483 there?

Ifm sorry,_here it is right here. Exhibit 1483 is in
evidence there. sir, is it not? i

A What do you mean in evidence?

0 Neil. it has

not?

 

THE COURT: 3 think it has.

0 (By Mr. Heineman) You may not know that, Dr.
Roush. but I think it has occurred. -Now I'd like to direct
your attention to page 39

THE COURT: I
HR. HEINEHAN:

mark that please.

(Defendant Mor

for identification by the court reporter.)

(By Mr. Heinenbn) Sir. let me hand you what's

But it's not going to be outside

been admitted into evidence. has it

I

. I think it is. of that exxhbit.

has been admitted into evidence.

Leanto Exhibit 912 was marked

 

 

i

 

Thank you, Judge. would you

000300


 

65

been marked f0! i?entification purposes as Defendant's

Exhibit Number 912. Is that an accurate copy of pace 30 of

Exhibit 1483?

A

Exhibit 912



1
I

Yes, sir.

 

MR. Your Honor, may I pass copies of
to the jury? -.

THE COURI: :Yes, you may.

hR. CARR: go objection, your honor.

(By Mr. Heineman) Now do you remember. sir.

_Hr. Carr discussing with you the subject or the relationship

statistically between exposure and the extent to

which PR3 caused bladder cancer in the Nitro populationuntil like 1955?

A



'Right.

Yes, sir..
So you remember that, sir?
Yes, sir.

Now there was no doubt. was there, sir, that

. Monsanto was aware that exposure to PAB, which stands for --

Para-aminobiphenyl.

Para-aninobiphenyl?

That had been. manufactured at theNNitro Plant


1

YES. 51!

was found to be a bladder carcinogtnr and was no




.

 

.longer manufactured after that date. 
A Yes, sir. 

And Monsanto instituted a progrem or monitoring
those people that had been exposed to 

A Yes. sir.

 

And indeed some or those people were included

in the Nitro morbidity Study?

A 235' 511?.
And some of the findings with respect to then

were set out here in Exhibit 9 -- whet is it - 9127

I

I
I

A 912. 
. 912. Is tnstiright, sir? . .

A Yes, sir. i

Now, Mr. Carr suggested t' you, did he not --

well. first of all, when you look at the people that were

exposed here. those across the top, those words across'the

top refer to exposure to f.4.5-T: correct?

I
1

A Yes, sir.

So that the chumn on the lett are those eho
were not exposed to and the middle column is those
who were. and the right-haLd column is those pith question-
able exposure tv correct?

A Yes, sir.

And then those who had been exposed to pere-
eoosqz



I

 

67

.aminobiphenyl are distributed among those three colunns:
I

correct?
A Yes. air. 1
And those among the persons that had exposure

to para-aninooiphenyl who had bladder tumors, or bladder

cancer. those are also distributed among those columns:

 

correct? - 
A Yee. sir.
So that -- and these are by history rather than

examination, according to this documentoe:by history.

9 I'm sorryhistory and not by examination.
I All right. so what is the dizference between a

I
bladder tumor and a bladder cancer?
i
A A tumor is any cancer or both growths that can

happen anyplace in the body. and the difference between a
tumor and a cancer is the tumor is a benign tumor by this
detinition. and because they're separated the bladder.cancer
in one that's a maiignanc . One is a growth and the other
one is a growth that's a malignancy. -

dnat this wasawas differentiating between the

two? .
I

a Yes.
000303

 

dd

lull II Hi



s-u?au mu Ilium-I 



12

[3

[4

IS



I9

 

 

 

 

 

 

_Seven times larger: correct?

0 Those which were benign tumors and those which

were malignant cancers?
. A Yes, sir.

4, All right. Now, Mr. Carr, when questioning

you, showed you these gercent numbers. Do you remember

 

 

that. sir? 1
I A Yes, sir. -

And he said that the .61 percent was less than
one percent: correct? a

A Yes, sir. i

a On the bladder tumors and bladder cance?si

a Yes, sir. I

But the 3.4? percent'for the bladder tunors was

many times larger than the .51. I think he said itiwas

i

A Six times larger. 

1

And that would be accurate i: you looked just
at those percentage numbers. wouldn't it, sir?

A Yes, sir.

-u And he relied on those numbers to lead to the

conclusion that those who were exyosed had more bladder

 

tumors, those were exposed to and para-aminobiphenyl
had more bladder tumors than those who were exposed only to

para-aminobiphenyl and not the 2.4.5-T: correct?

00030



 

Yes. Sire - . . I i
But as a matter of fact, Doctor. those percentages

I

that are being looked at there are the percentages that

 

those numbers bear to the little up here: isn't that

right?

A Yes; 31:.
Okay. Now that little number up tthe

refers to the total number of people exposed, or the total

number or people unexposed in the Suskind horbity 

'doesn't it?


. i 
3 Doesn't refer to the number of people exposed

A Yes. sir.

to para-aminobiphenyl, does it?

A No, sir. i

So those numbers are not percentages of B, or



71, or 16, they' re percentages of 163Yes. sir. 5

.Aren't they?

A Yes, sir.

So that if you want to look. sir. at how many

 

people actually ?ot bladder tumors or bladder cancer, o:
1

those who were exposed to para-aminobiphenyl, as compared

to those that were exposed of those which ones also had
,i

exposure to 2.4.5-T. you just look at the numbers that are

000305

 

 

.tnose columns. don't you? 

A Yes, Ell. -J

So tnat of those who were not exposed to 
eignt had para-amlnooipnanyl exposure: right?- A

A yes. sir. I

And of those. two had either a tumor or cancer:

I correct?

A Yes. sir.

I So tnot would be two out of eight. or zsgpercont
corract.sir? - . i

A Yes. air. 1 

9 So that the rate or those who were expost-to

I
both para-aminooiphenyl ind 2.4.5-T that got one of these

cancers or tumors waa 25 percent? Excuse me. I did that

wrong, didn't 

 

A for. you did.
It's the otn?r way around. The rate or those
. .

woo were exposed only to para-aminobiphenyl and not exposed

to 2.4.5-T is 25 percent: correct?
A Yes. sir.
Well. let's look at the next column. Those

who were exposed to both is 71: correct?

A Yes. sir. i

and or tnose 9 people had alone: a tumor or a 

i
I

.000303

 

 



cancer or the bladder: correct?
A Yes, sir.
And it's 9 out'of 71, or about twelve and a

halt percent?

 

A That's right.

Correct?

A Yes, sir i 'l

0 So that ere is less bladder cancer among the

people who were also exposed to 2 4 than there is among

the people who are only exposed to para-aminobipheny?: correct?

i
A Yes, sir. i 

and. indeed, those with questionable exposure
are two out or 16. one out of 8, about twelve and a half
percent again? I

A Yes. sir. I

And there'os there' less people who
have questionable exposure to and para-aminoblphenyl
exposure than those who have exposure to para-aminobiphenyl
alone?

A Yes, sir.

Correct? As a matter of fact. this document

 

proves just tne ogposite or what Mr. Carr asked you about
1
doesn't it. Slr?

A Yes, sir.

000367

 

 

72

1:1.

$08000

mgpom aq: go xup u; Itzauas u: zaa?am :aatqn? :c

1135 an 'pamqrnua? pup sofpeq -xrao :aunoa an:

 

.{oaarFaq_z '59: an: no; ;1 s: srq: :iun?a 


.:vaanzzg '2w

1 .
. auopzed :no? Boq 

 

Buravazq 83.06 abattvq I '?Ufa =munoa 
. 

i 

?OSPqpi'Iur: p006 aq era;

-qaunf so; xeazq o:

 

3NVWENIEH 

s; notaao?qb :muno: 331

330:: surptot oq: a: zaagqo oh I :3333 '3w

o?haTTaq !I"apm.5u18q {101333-qu 3m

 

ugxorp zen: oq ptnon :1 -- (unmaugon 

?atqn 65'::atdo I 'zouon :nox":uuv3 ?uw

9391:: an o: noxsnrauo: Rue axpn 3:30: 31

 

 

:nox so; nox aueq; 'autu a: Buguzom noxzomo: ?ax nos 

?:trn:1::rd

y; syn: :noqe suxqaxug 33:23 no a: UQQSIT 
:02 a:,no? aeq: nox pugma: prnon I -oo:5 :2 5pzuzom?
nozzoao: uzvb? ageas 11.03 -op-o: surge axon on azegoq

qu ?re: 1 3: at zutad syn: :2 59p ad: atozq

-Auao '3q511 3.19:: 'ub ?un 

fiep an:

:utn max :1

"[0831103 ?It: 3911391 9110181115303 can:

:sa?aza an: new: use 1 ?noyasan? aq: go use; unraauzmexa

. -no? 33303036

I:

I. aq ptnon :1 ?Buor' oral: 





 

 

 

6 

Ll'l

9 

5 



fl

3!

P.

mannanwon mam 

 

nocnn Hm mmuocnnma.

.nocnn unmounnmm.v



an

 

Inforegoing transcriyt is a true and correct copy of said
I 

STATE 0? 
JUDICIAL arrest: 55.

COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR

Kathleen Watson Brunsmann, one of the

 

Official Court Regorters? do hereby certify that the

transcript.

DATED: Jul? 29.'1sas.

i .
Mm

Kathleen ?arson Brunsmann, C33. RPR
Official Court Reporter

 

000310

 

'STATE OF ILLINOIS

JUDICIAL CIRCHIT ss

COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR

I. GOLDENEERSH. Circuit Judge. do

 

hereby certify that the foregoing transcript is a true and

carrec: cop? of said transcript.

narznz'

July 29, 1985.

Circu Judge

   

000311