Richard Ness : Trial Log : Court Hearing #19 on 10 March 2006

• 1. I agree with this witness statement in the BAP that if mercury levels in blood range between 200-500 ug/l then there may be a potential to have nervous disorder symptoms.
• 2. I also agree with the witness statement that his study was not complete and non-conclusive.
• 3. I reject the witness statement, that you do not have to follow laboratory protocols that include not eating fish for 20-30 hours prior to the blood sampling. How else can you make a comparison to a standard if standard protocols are not followed?
• 4. I must conclude however, that I find it simply amazing that a PhD in the field of toxicology could make such a mistake as to use a WHO AVERAGE of 8ppb in blood without mentioning or noticing it is applicable for people who eat fish less then once a week and conclude that a fishing community is contaminated with mercury. Then make these statements to the press, public and police without checking with other medical experts.
• 5. It seems obvious that this witness did not even read or selectively picked only parts of his own WHO reference. He should have seen in the same reference that “In communities with high fish consumption rates could normally have blood levels in the range of 200 ppb in blood. “ and still be normal.
• 6. It is my conclusion that it is obvious the “victums” blood that the witness examined contained low to normal levels of mercury.
• 7. In my opinion, this “expert” in the past has created a national sensation out of normal people and imposed fear and concern in the communities, not acting in his capacity as an “expert” but in is capacity as a advocate or in some other capacity

• 1. I accept the witness testimony that he, as part of the independent team in August / September 2004 that team found “that water and fish in Buyat Bay normal”. Only the July police sampling seems to remain a question [ or anomaly ]
• 2. I agree with item 10 of his BAP and witness testimony that [the utilization of] of AAS laboratory equipment with cold vapour technique is acceptable equipment for testing mercury and arsenic in sea water
• 3. While I observed the evidence presented today, it is obvious that the evidence was not preserved to allow further testing ( e.g. not refrigerated, frozen, or otherwise preserved) thus no opportunity is available to duplicate laboratory results
• 4. The laboratory testing on sediments as an example do not indicate in what compound or form the metals were contained and as a result those tests are irrelevant [to this case]
• 5. I find it confusing that the police laboratory found the waters of Totok Bay higher in mercury then in Buyat Bay with massive variations of several times between individual samples. This seems unusual in such a dynamic environmental systems such as the sea.
• 6. I also find it amazing that the high levels of mercury in water indicated by the police laboratory do not correlate with very low levels of mercury in the police laboratory fish samples. Logic would assume a correlation between fish and the sea water in which they live.
• 7. I further conclude that the “chain of care, custody and control” of the samples was broken in the process. Thus leaving the opportunity for others to access the samples, leaving into question what samples were analyzed at the police laboratory or even what is being presented to this court.
• 8. I reject the police laboratory results in many areas [ of this investigation ] as some of the samples do not correlate to previous and more recent sampling. The police samples also do not match or correlate with the split samples analyzed at the ALS laboratory in Bogor.