By Andy Norstadt
The Belligham Herald

SEATTLE – The Intalco Aluminum Corp. "potroom palsy" case is in the hands of jurors, who must decide which group of expert witnesses they believe.

Attorneys on both sides presented closing arguments Tuesday, the 34th day of the trial in U. S. District Court.

Attorneys focused on holes they found in testimony provided by more than a dozen witnesses – neurologists, psychiatrists and researchers who have examined claims made by former employees of Intalco.

Twenty-five workers filed suite three years ago against the plant’s designed, builder and owner. The men contend their health problems – ranging from poor coordination and tremors to dizziness and depression – can be traced to exposure to harmful fumes at the smelter west of Ferndale during its first six years of operation.

After 1972, hoods were installed over smelting pots to capture toxic fumes.

The amount of damages sought by the workers has not been made public, but it could total several million dollars if the jury sides with the men.

The cases of eight former workers were presented during the first phase of the trial.

"We have a group of men working at the same time, at the same plant, under the same conditions developing the same symptoms," said Bellingham attorney dean Brett. "It’s not just a coincidence."

Defense attorneys told jurors that some of the mean are indeed ill, but with conditions that have other, more plausible explanations than exposure to toxics at the smelter.

"These people are convinced they are the disabled veterans of Intalco," said John Wilson, a Seattle attorney representing AMAX, the plant’s original owner.

Wilson said their belief has not been borne out by the testimony.

For example, he said, no evidence was produced showing elevated levels of aluminum in the blood or urine of the men.

Aluminum is the substance considered by the plaintiffs’ experts to be the most likely source of the men’s’ nervous-system problems.

Brett questioned the seamless nature of the defense, in which expert witnesses were all in accord, presenting none of the disagreement he said one would expect among scientists.

Brett said that was to be expected when experts go through a selection process designed to choose scientists who agree with a defense position.

"It’s too perfect," he told the jury. "In the complex world of science, people don’t always agree."