WEBVTT

NOTE Machine transcript of the film's sound; not yet checked.

1
00:00:13.100 --> 00:00:18.720
You have before you there, Mr. Sheckler,
Exhibit 5C and 5D.

2
00:00:19.120 --> 00:00:25.110
For the record, I'll identify 5C and 5D as

3
00:00:25.110 --> 00:00:29.930
a copy of a two-page letter dated December
6, 1956,

4
00:00:31.490 --> 00:00:37.730
from Daniel C. Braun, M.D., Medical
Director, to Mr.

5
00:00:37.930 --> 00:00:41.150
Hugh Jackson, Manager of the Industrial
Health Program, Johns-Manville
Corporation.

6
00:00:42.670 --> 00:00:45.010
Would you look that over, please, Mr.
Sheckler?

7
00:01:11.970 --> 00:01:12.970
Yes, sir.

8
00:01:12.700 --> 00:01:17.510
When you became manager of the Industrial
Health Program

9
00:01:17.510 --> 00:01:19.490
in 1960,

10
00:01:20.310 --> 00:01:25.430
did Mr. Jackson advise you or inform you
that he had received

11
00:01:25.430 --> 00:01:29.950
correspondence from Dr. Braun in 1956,

12
00:01:32.030 --> 00:01:37.170
which summarized or commented on some
medical articles that Dr.

13
00:01:37.310 --> 00:01:38.310
Braun had researched?

14
00:01:38.750 --> 00:01:39.750
No, sir.

15
00:01:40.130 --> 00:01:43.150
Who is Dr. Braun? You're aware of Dr.
Braun, are you not, Mr.

16
00:01:43.150 --> 00:01:44.150
Chairman?

17
00:01:43.410 --> 00:01:49.150
dr brown dr braun is currently the
director of the

18
00:01:49.150 --> 00:01:51.810
industrial health foundation the
industrial

19
00:01:51.810 --> 00:01:56.110
health foundation is another name for the
industrial hygiene foundation the
industrial

20
00:01:56.110 --> 00:02:00.710
hygiene foundation name was changed
sometime back to industrial health
foundation

21
00:02:00.710 --> 00:02:03.350
and dr braun

22
00:02:03.350 --> 00:02:09.010
let me rephrase that and the industrial
health foundation is and was an

23
00:02:09.010 --> 00:02:10.770
organization of companies

24
00:02:10.770 --> 00:02:16.430
in the industry? The Industrial Health
Foundation is sponsored

25
00:02:16.430 --> 00:02:18.530
by industry. And

26
00:02:18.530 --> 00:02:21.770
Johns-Manville was and is a member of that
organization? Yes, sir.

27
00:02:24.790 --> 00:02:26.370
Did Mr. Jackson

28
00:02:27.250 --> 00:02:33.400
advise you when you became manager of the
Industrial Health Program in 1960

29
00:02:34.960 --> 00:02:41.000
that Hinshaw and Garland had published a
book, Diseases of the Chest, in which they

30
00:02:41.000 --> 00:02:47.320
stated that exposure occurs in industrial
plants where asbestos products are
fabricated

31
00:02:47.320 --> 00:02:50.060
and among those who install insulating
materials.

32
00:02:51.200 --> 00:02:53.820
Were you advised of that by Mr. Jackson?

33
00:02:54.080 --> 00:02:55.080
No, sir.

34
00:02:54.640 --> 00:02:58.960
Did Mr. Jackson advise you when you became
manager of the industrial health program

35
00:02:58.960 --> 00:03:04.240
in 1960 that he had received literature
from any doctor

36
00:03:04.240 --> 00:03:09.480
that indicated that pipe coverers,

37
00:03:09.480 --> 00:03:15.700
insulators or laggers had contacted
asbestosis lung cancer according to dr.

38
00:03:15.840 --> 00:03:19.620
Braun's certain let me rephrase it let me
withdraw the entire question please

39
00:03:24.810 --> 00:03:30.050
did mr. Jackson advise you when you became
manager of the industrial health

40
00:03:30.050 --> 00:03:36.110
program in 1960 that dr.

41
00:03:36.270 --> 00:03:40.690
Braun or any other doctor had referred him
to medical

42
00:03:40.690 --> 00:03:46.410
articles in the 50s that indicated pipe
coverers and

43
00:03:46.410 --> 00:03:49.150
laggers as suffering from

44
00:03:49.150 --> 00:03:52.190
asbestosis lung cancer. No sir.

45
00:03:53.170 --> 00:03:54.170
Did

46
00:04:04.500 --> 00:04:06.940
anyone at Johns-Manville advise you from
the

47
00:04:09.410 --> 00:04:14.950
summer 6 1956 up until the date of your
retirement in 1977 that Dr.

48
00:04:15.170 --> 00:04:16.390
Braun had

49
00:04:16.390 --> 00:04:20.110
written a letter to Mr. Jackson that
summarized Dr.

50
00:04:20.230 --> 00:04:21.350
Braun's research of a

51
00:04:21.350 --> 00:04:24.930
a number of medical articles dealing with
asbestosis and lung cancer?

52
00:04:25.750 --> 00:04:26.750
No, sir.

53
00:04:27.490 --> 00:04:31.130
And when you became manager of the
Industrial Health Program in 1960, were
you

54
00:04:31.130 --> 00:04:32.130
provided with

55
00:04:31.850 --> 00:04:36.750
copies or the original of exhibit 5C and
5D that you had before you?

56
00:04:37.490 --> 00:04:39.890
No, sir. Did you ever see the

57
00:04:39.890 --> 00:04:44.170
original or a copy of 5C and D at any time
prior to the date of your retirement

58
00:04:44.170 --> 00:04:45.170
from Johns-Manville

59
00:04:45.090 --> 00:04:48.290
in 1977 no sir at

60
00:04:53.500 --> 00:04:59.120
any time prior to 1964 were you aware

61
00:04:59.120 --> 00:05:02.380
that doctors hinshaw and garland in their

62
00:05:02.380 --> 00:05:08.280
book diseases of the chest stated that
asbestos i'm sorry let me

63
00:05:08.280 --> 00:05:09.560
withdraw the question may i sir

64
00:05:11.650 --> 00:05:17.020
it's the long lunch were you aware any
time prior to april of

65
00:05:17.020 --> 00:05:20.220
1964 the doctors hinshaw and garland

66
00:05:20.220 --> 00:05:22.040
in their book, Diseases of the Chest,

67
00:05:22.700 --> 00:05:26.940
had stated that exposure occurs in
industrial plants

68
00:05:26.940 --> 00:05:28.600
where asbestos products are fabricated

69
00:05:28.600 --> 00:05:30.700
and among those who install insulating
materials.

70
00:05:31.980 --> 00:05:32.980
No, sir.

71
00:05:33.500 --> 00:05:36.300
And at any time prior to April of 1964,

72
00:05:38.240 --> 00:05:42.220
were you aware that Drs.

73
00:05:42.560 --> 00:05:43.560
Isselbacher,

74
00:05:43.360 --> 00:05:47.560
Kloss, that's K-L-A-U-S, and Hardy, H-A-R-
D-Y,

75
00:05:47.560 --> 00:05:53.420
published an article in 1953 wherein they

76
00:05:53.420 --> 00:05:57.480
recounted a review of asbestosis

77
00:05:57.480 --> 00:06:02.060
lung cancer cases that had occurred in a
number of occupations including pipe

78
00:06:02.060 --> 00:06:09.560
coverers, weavers, carters.

79
00:06:14.470 --> 00:06:15.470
I'm

80
00:06:21.320 --> 00:06:22.580
sorry, Mr. O'Reilly. I'm sorry.

81
00:06:26.920 --> 00:06:27.960
I'm having a little

82
00:06:27.960 --> 00:06:31.520
problem with this. Mr.

83
00:06:31.740 --> 00:06:36.140
O'Reilly first gives the witness a letter
and asks him

84
00:06:36.140 --> 00:06:41.220
to look at it and asks him if he's seen it
before and he testifies about that.

85
00:06:41.280 --> 00:06:44.520
Then he leaves a letter in front of him
and he asks him what amount to general

86
00:06:44.520 --> 00:06:49.240
questions about medical literature with
the obvious inference that that's what's

87
00:06:49.240 --> 00:06:53.560
in the letter. He is in effect getting
what he wants without going through

88
00:06:53.560 --> 00:06:55.720
through proper evidentiary procedures.

89
00:06:56.580 --> 00:06:59.120
And if he wants to ask questions about
medical articles

90
00:06:59.120 --> 00:07:01.440
that this witness is familiar with or not
familiar with,

91
00:07:01.620 --> 00:07:02.980
I don't have any quarrel with that.

92
00:07:03.440 --> 00:07:04.440
Let him ask them.

93
00:07:04.940 --> 00:07:07.640
But I am beginning to be a little troubled

94
00:07:07.640 --> 00:07:09.200
by the process that's being used.

95
00:07:10.160 --> 00:07:12.720
Mr. Porter, will you go back to that
question,

96
00:07:12.920 --> 00:07:15.760
repeat it for our benefit?

97
00:07:28.560 --> 00:07:29.960
I'll rephrase the question, Your Honor.

98
00:07:30.020 --> 00:07:31.720
I think I can rephrase it and make it a
little bit more

99
00:07:31.720 --> 00:07:32.720
articulate.

100
00:07:42.970 --> 00:07:48.370
Mr. Sheckler, were you aware any time
prior to April of 1964 that

101
00:07:48.370 --> 00:07:52.270
in November 1953 doctors

102
00:07:52.270 --> 00:07:57.990
Isselbacher, Klaus, and Hardy published an
article entitled Asbestosis and
Bronchogenic

103
00:07:57.990 --> 00:08:03.890
Carcinoma in which they reported their
findings of cases

104
00:08:03.890 --> 00:08:08.530
of asbestosis lung cancer among
occupations

105
00:08:08.530 --> 00:08:14.090
such as weavers, pipe insulators, pipe
coverers, mill workers, sorters?

106
00:08:15.310 --> 00:08:17.290
Your Honor, I'm going to object to the
question

107
00:08:17.290 --> 00:08:21.030
because it raises hearsay on what that
article says.

108
00:08:21.350 --> 00:08:24.550
The witness is either informed of the
article and aware of it or he is not.

109
00:08:27.570 --> 00:08:31.590
After that, we can go into the article if
he's read it and relied upon it.

110
00:08:31.670 --> 00:08:32.850
Oh, I'll break it down. I'll withdraw.

111
00:08:33.330 --> 00:08:36.670
We're only going to have until 5.30, so
I'll do it a step at a time.

112
00:08:36.670 --> 00:08:42.570
Prior to April 1964, were you aware that
Drs.

113
00:08:42.570 --> 00:08:48.410
Isselbacher, Klaus, and Hardy in the
American Journal of Medicine published an

114
00:08:48.410 --> 00:08:53.330
article entitled Asbestosis and
Bronchogenic Carcinoma in approximately
1953?

115
00:08:55.230 --> 00:08:56.970
No, sir, I was not aware of that.

116
00:08:56.970 --> 00:09:02.810
Prior to April of 1964, were you aware
that there

117
00:09:02.810 --> 00:09:06.030
were any medical articles published in the
50s

118
00:09:06.030 --> 00:09:11.930
that disclosed that asbestosis lung cancer
was found among

119
00:09:11.930 --> 00:09:14.550
insulators and pipe coverers,

120
00:09:14.550 --> 00:09:17.090
as well as weavers, spinners, carters?

121
00:09:21.680 --> 00:09:22.680
No, sir.

122
00:09:33.880 --> 00:09:37.220
Did you ever see the original, let me
rephrase that.

123
00:09:40.160 --> 00:09:41.480
We want record from that.

124
00:09:41.660 --> 00:09:42.660
Sure.

125
00:09:44.490 --> 00:09:48.690
You asked them, not only did you ask them
today, but you asked them Tuesday.

126
00:09:49.150 --> 00:09:50.150
Okay.

127
00:09:49.930 --> 00:09:51.570
Tuesday ain't part of today's transcript.

128
00:09:51.590 --> 00:09:52.590
I understand that.

129
00:09:52.310 --> 00:09:53.310
Or today's videotape.

130
00:09:53.490 --> 00:09:55.190
This is fine.

131
00:09:55.310 --> 00:09:56.310
We can go back on now.

132
00:09:56.210 --> 00:09:57.290
How do you spell that?

133
00:09:57.670 --> 00:09:59.050
B-A-C-H-E-R.

134
00:09:59.150 --> 00:10:00.150
E-L.

135
00:09:59.990 --> 00:10:00.990
B-A-C-H-E-R.

136
00:10:02.130 --> 00:10:03.130
You can trust him.

137
00:10:27.800 --> 00:10:32.900
Were you aware at any time prior to April
1964 that Dr.

138
00:10:32.960 --> 00:10:34.960
Dahl published an article entitled

139
00:10:34.960 --> 00:10:39.340
titled Mortality from Lung Cancer in
Asbestos Workers Sometime in the Fifties.

140
00:11:01.780 --> 00:11:03.220
No, sir, I don't believe so.

141
00:11:04.240 --> 00:11:08.320
Were you aware at any time prior to April
of 1964

142
00:11:10.300 --> 00:11:14.180
that there were any medical studies
published in the fifties

143
00:11:14.180 --> 00:11:19.720
that disclosed asbestosis lung cancer
among occupations

144
00:11:19.720 --> 00:11:22.280
other than minors of asbestos?

145
00:11:29.040 --> 00:11:31.460
yeah i'm

146
00:11:34.790 --> 00:11:40.610
using asbestosis lung cancer to refer to a
condition a disease of the lungs that

147
00:11:40.610 --> 00:11:46.470
consist of asbestosis and lung cancer in
combination yes somebody

148
00:11:51.430 --> 00:11:52.630
knew back here in

149
00:11:52.630 --> 00:11:58.190
december 6 1956 did he might be a woman

150
00:11:58.190 --> 00:12:03.140
you remember the question mr sheckler i

151
00:12:05.060 --> 00:12:06.060
think i do

152
00:12:05.620 --> 00:12:11.540
yes my response to that is

153
00:12:11.540 --> 00:12:17.240
I may have known of isolated cases

154
00:12:17.240 --> 00:12:19.040
or an isolated

155
00:12:19.040 --> 00:12:24.920
case I can't say yes or no okay well were
you aware at any time

156
00:12:24.920 --> 00:12:25.920
prior to

157
00:12:25.300 --> 00:12:30.040
April of 1964 that now we'll try the
question are you

158
00:12:36.850 --> 00:12:37.910
aware at any time prior

159
00:12:37.910 --> 00:12:44.390
to April of 1964 that there was a Journal
of the American Medical

160
00:12:44.390 --> 00:12:49.990
Association editorial that stated that
available

161
00:12:52.940 --> 00:12:54.400
evidence disclosed that the

162
00:12:54.400 --> 00:13:01.900
occurrence of cancer of the lung was
related to pulmonary asbestosis and the

163
00:13:03.230 --> 00:13:08.790
best evidence of what that editorial
states is the editorial itself more

164
00:13:13.680 --> 00:13:17.880
concerned about the witnesses knowledge
than I am about what the what the

165
00:13:17.880 --> 00:13:21.580
articles may say directly I'm concerned
about what he knew at a certain point in

166
00:13:21.580 --> 00:13:27.200
time no sir i i was not aware of that
specific article were you aware

167
00:13:27.200 --> 00:13:30.020
that sometime in the 50s

168
00:13:30.020 --> 00:13:34.160
the journal of the american medical
association published an editorial that
stated

169
00:13:34.160 --> 00:13:35.160
that claims

170
00:13:35.160 --> 00:13:40.200
for compensation will become of increasing
frequency due to the general increase of

171
00:13:40.200 --> 00:13:44.720
carcinoma of the lung no sir at

172
00:13:57.520 --> 00:14:02.400
this time uh iran i'd like to put up
exhibit 5a and 5b

173
00:14:02.400 --> 00:14:07.180
B, which are the blow-ups of 5C and 5D,
respectively,

174
00:14:07.440 --> 00:14:10.420
the two pages we've just been referring
to.

175
00:14:12.880 --> 00:14:18.240
5A is the first page of the December 6,
1956 letter

176
00:14:18.240 --> 00:14:20.900
from Dr. Braun to Hugh Jackson.

177
00:15:10.460 --> 00:15:15.580
We're now putting up 5B, which is a blow-
up of 5D,

178
00:15:15.580 --> 00:15:20.500
the second page of Dr. Braun's December
6th, 1956 letter to Mr.

179
00:15:20.700 --> 00:15:21.700
Jackson.

180
00:16:04.940 --> 00:16:08.980
Mr. Sheckler, would you please refer to
exhibit 6A and B before you?

181
00:16:10.220 --> 00:16:15.280
6A and B, for the record, is a two-page
letter from Mr., I'm sorry,

182
00:16:15.440 --> 00:16:19.860
from Dr. Braun to Mr. Hugh Jackson, dated
August 23rd, 1957.

183
00:16:20.500 --> 00:16:21.780
Do you have those two before you there,
sir?

184
00:16:39.080 --> 00:16:41.500
No, sir, I have 6C and D.

185
00:16:42.480 --> 00:16:44.720
All right, I'm sorry, 6C and D.

186
00:16:45.840 --> 00:16:51.180
No, he's right. It's six C and D. Six A
and B are the blow-ups.

187
00:16:52.780 --> 00:16:54.900
But I did not give you seven D.

188
00:17:04.690 --> 00:17:09.810
Would you look at six C and D, Mr.

189
00:17:09.850 --> 00:17:10.850
Sheckler?

190
00:17:15.340 --> 00:17:21.460
When you became manager of the Industrial
Health Program in 1960,

191
00:17:21.800 --> 00:17:26.280
did Mr. Jackson advise you that he had
received correspondence from Dr.

192
00:17:26.580 --> 00:17:29.280
Braun in 1957

193
00:17:30.840 --> 00:17:37.760
that again summarized some of the medical
literature on asbestosis lung cancer did

194
00:17:40.290 --> 00:17:45.310
mr. Jackson ever advise you prior to the
date of your retirement in 1977 that he

195
00:17:45.310 --> 00:17:46.310
had received

196
00:17:45.730 --> 00:17:51.530
a letter from dr. Braun or any other
doctor in the 50s that summarized

197
00:17:51.530 --> 00:17:52.950
some of the medical

198
00:17:52.950 --> 00:17:57.830
articles dealing with asbestosis lung
cancer no sir did

199
00:17:59.140 --> 00:18:02.640
you see an original or a copy let

200
00:18:02.640 --> 00:18:03.640
Let me rephrase that.

201
00:18:03.320 --> 00:18:09.120
When you took over Mr. Jackson's job as
manager of the industrial health program
in 1960,

202
00:18:09.660 --> 00:18:15.220
did he provide or make available to you an
original or a copy of Plaintiffs 6C and D,

203
00:18:16.060 --> 00:18:18.240
the August 23, 1957 letter?

204
00:18:19.180 --> 00:18:21.700
I'll object that calls for speculation and
conclusion.

205
00:18:28.560 --> 00:18:29.840
Explain that for the record, sir.

206
00:18:30.120 --> 00:18:31.120
I'll rephrase it.

207
00:18:31.320 --> 00:18:32.320
Sure.

208
00:18:31.900 --> 00:18:34.960
You know, it may have been sitting in a
drawer somewhere,

209
00:18:35.240 --> 00:18:38.940
and whether that would be making it
available to this witness or not, I don't
know.

210
00:18:39.200 --> 00:18:44.400
if he didn't know it was there it's the
term available yes sir i'll refresh the
question

211
00:18:44.400 --> 00:18:48.520
when you became manager when you took over
mr jackson's job as manager of the

212
00:18:48.520 --> 00:18:49.520
industrial health

213
00:18:49.040 --> 00:18:54.760
program in 1960 did mr jackson personally
hand you or give to you an original or

214
00:18:54.760 --> 00:18:56.180
copy of plaintiffs

215
00:18:56.180 --> 00:19:01.940
6c and d the august 23rd 1957 letter from
dr braun to mr jackson no sir

216
00:19:01.940 --> 00:19:05.700
okay and when dr smith

217
00:19:06.440 --> 00:19:11.980
made those files available to you that he
made available to you when you became

218
00:19:11.980 --> 00:19:17.160
manager of the industrial health program
in 1960 did those files that you

219
00:19:17.160 --> 00:19:22.940
reviewed include an original or a copy of
plaintiff 6c and 6d the files I

220
00:19:22.940 --> 00:19:28.500
reviewed and did you ever see an original
or a copy

221
00:19:28.500 --> 00:19:31.120
of 6c and 6d prior to

222
00:19:31.120 --> 00:19:34.580
your retirement from Johns-Manville in
1977? No, sir.

223
00:19:35.000 --> 00:19:38.640
Were you aware at any time prior to

224
00:19:39.280 --> 00:19:44.770
April of 1964 that of

225
00:19:44.770 --> 00:19:50.090
99 asbestosis lung cancer cases that were
reported in the literature up to

226
00:19:50.090 --> 00:19:55.470
1955, 80 appeared to have occurred in
asbestos workers other than miners?

227
00:19:55.850 --> 00:19:56.850
Can

228
00:20:06.320 --> 00:20:07.320
I have the question

229
00:20:06.900 --> 00:20:12.980
back please. I'll rephrase the question.

230
00:20:13.700 --> 00:20:19.560
Were you

231
00:20:19.560 --> 00:20:20.980
aware Mr. Sheckler any time

232
00:20:20.980 --> 00:20:26.880
prior to April of 1964 that of a number
of,

233
00:20:27.140 --> 00:20:29.620
let me rephrase that, no I'm gonna

234
00:20:29.620 --> 00:20:34.440
stick with my original question. There's
no way that I can phrase it accurately

235
00:20:34.440 --> 00:20:35.440
without sticking with it.

236
00:20:40.990 --> 00:20:45.050
Were you aware at any time prior to April
of 1964 that

237
00:20:45.050 --> 00:20:51.350
that of 99 asbestosis lung cancer cases
that were reported in the literature up to
1955,

238
00:20:52.230 --> 00:20:53.470
80 appeared...

239
00:20:53.470 --> 00:20:54.470
I'll rephrase it.

240
00:21:00.320 --> 00:21:03.860
Were you aware at any time prior to April
of 1964

241
00:21:06.380 --> 00:21:09.400
that at some time in the 50s, it was Dr.

242
00:21:09.480 --> 00:21:10.480
Brown's opinion,

243
00:21:11.020 --> 00:21:16.620
that of the 99 cases of asbestosis lung
cancer reported in the literature up to
1955,

244
00:21:16.980 --> 00:21:21.040
at least 80 appeared to have occurred in
asbestos workers other than miners?

245
00:21:23.340 --> 00:21:28.300
Were you aware at any time up to April
1964

246
00:21:28.300 --> 00:21:30.920
that the medical literature

247
00:21:36.320 --> 00:21:42.140
in the 1950s disclosed that lung cancer,

248
00:21:42.240 --> 00:21:47.640
asbestosis occurred in a number of women
and in occupations

249
00:21:47.640 --> 00:21:53.200
such as weaver, carter, mattress maker,
lagger, bagger, pipe coverer, spinner.

250
00:21:54.380 --> 00:21:59.140
I will object, Your Honor, because it
assumes a fact not in evidence through
this witness

251
00:21:59.140 --> 00:22:02.020
or, for that matter, in evidence at all.

252
00:22:03.460 --> 00:22:08.400
Mr. O'Reilly apparently refuses to use the
term it had been reported.

253
00:22:09.820 --> 00:22:12.380
He wants to state these things as facts.

254
00:22:12.380 --> 00:22:14.840
Okay, no problem, no problem, no problem.

255
00:22:14.940 --> 00:22:16.020
I'll use the term.

256
00:22:16.020 --> 00:22:17.020
He knows these facts.

257
00:22:16.600 --> 00:22:21.940
I'll use the term it had been reported
sure I will absolutely

258
00:22:21.940 --> 00:22:26.700
every time I'm

259
00:22:26.700 --> 00:22:34.200
wrong I always admit it I've been wrong a
lot today again embarrassing you're

260
00:22:35.040 --> 00:22:38.620
at any

261
00:22:44.000 --> 00:22:48.860
time prior to April of 1964 that

262
00:22:48.860 --> 00:22:50.160
99

263
00:22:54.450 --> 00:22:57.930
cases of asbestosis lung cancer which

264
00:22:57.930 --> 00:23:03.670
have been reported up to 1955 that a
number occurred

265
00:23:03.670 --> 00:23:06.770
in women and in occupations such as

266
00:23:06.770 --> 00:23:12.390
weaving carding mattress making lagging
bagging pipe covering spinning

267
00:23:12.390 --> 00:23:15.190
no sir

268
00:23:18.310 --> 00:23:24.040
women women women you guys

269
00:23:24.040 --> 00:23:25.040
were

270
00:23:41.000 --> 00:23:45.520
you aware at any time prior to 1964 of

271
00:23:47.380 --> 00:23:49.060
any medical articles

272
00:23:49.060 --> 00:23:54.740
that disclosed the incidence of asbestosis
and lung cancer in

273
00:23:54.740 --> 00:23:58.440
England in the 40s or 50s again

274
00:24:03.880 --> 00:24:09.860
I may have been aware of isolated case
histories I

275
00:24:09.860 --> 00:24:13.840
I don't recall well you were at any time
prior

276
00:24:13.840 --> 00:24:17.680
to April of 1964 that in the 1950s dr.

277
00:24:17.840 --> 00:24:22.960
Braun Daniel Braun felt that there were
cases reported

278
00:24:22.960 --> 00:24:25.980
in the literature of asbestosis, lung
cancer in England,

279
00:24:26.120 --> 00:24:29.920
and wherein he felt there was no mining of
asbestos in England.

280
00:24:31.040 --> 00:24:32.040
No, sir.

281
00:24:37.080 --> 00:24:38.700
Can we do that, Your Honor, the blow-ups
now?

282
00:24:38.780 --> 00:24:39.780
Surely.

283
00:24:39.160 --> 00:24:42.060
OK, we're now going to put up Plaintiff's
6A,

284
00:24:43.040 --> 00:24:46.460
which is a blow-up of 6C, the first page
of Dr.

285
00:24:46.720 --> 00:24:47.720
Braun's

286
00:24:48.480 --> 00:24:52.220
August 23rd, 1957 letter to Mr.

287
00:24:52.400 --> 00:24:53.400
Jackson.

288
00:25:44.950 --> 00:25:50.610
Now putting up exhibit 6B, which is a
blow-up of 6D,

289
00:25:50.730 --> 00:25:55.450
the second page of Dr. Braun's August 23,
1957 letter to Mr.

290
00:25:55.610 --> 00:25:56.610
Jackson.

291
00:27:12.310 --> 00:27:16.870
Mr. Sheckler, when you got to New York in
1959 or 1960,

292
00:27:17.190 --> 00:27:21.770
did you begin receiving monthly copies of
the

293
00:27:21.770 --> 00:27:25.110
Industrial Hygiene Digest?

294
00:27:27.280 --> 00:27:29.960
Sometime shortly after I got into New
York,

295
00:27:29.960 --> 00:27:34.520
I received monthly copies of the
Industrial Hygiene Digest, yes, sir.

296
00:27:34.620 --> 00:27:40.520
And would you look over the digest to see
if there were

297
00:27:40.520 --> 00:27:43.700
any matters or articles of particular
concern to your job?

298
00:27:43.980 --> 00:27:49.580
Dr. Smith examined the digest and would
bring to my attention any

299
00:27:49.580 --> 00:27:54.060
articles in the digest that he felt were
pertinent to

300
00:27:54.060 --> 00:27:56.980
my specific function.

301
00:27:56.980 --> 00:28:00.880
Did you ever talk to Mr.

302
00:28:01.020 --> 00:28:04.580
Jackson or Dr. Smith about whether or not
that was the way it was

303
00:28:04.580 --> 00:28:08.520
done while Mr. Jackson was manager of the
Industrial Health Program prior to you?

304
00:28:08.740 --> 00:28:09.900
I did not, no sir.

305
00:28:11.200 --> 00:28:16.260
And the Industrial Hygiene Digest was a
monthly publication of the Industrial

306
00:28:16.260 --> 00:28:17.500
Hygiene Foundation

307
00:28:17.500 --> 00:28:19.920
which is now called the Industrial Health
Foundation.

308
00:28:20.200 --> 00:28:21.200
Is that true?

309
00:28:20.900 --> 00:28:26.780
No sir, I was not under the impression it
was

310
00:28:26.780 --> 00:28:28.020
a monthly publication.

311
00:28:28.020 --> 00:28:33.240
what was your understanding of how often

312
00:28:33.240 --> 00:28:35.380
the Industrial Hygiene Digest was

313
00:28:35.380 --> 00:28:41.020
published well as my memory serves me it
it was published quarterly I

314
00:28:42.720 --> 00:28:43.720
may be

315
00:28:43.100 --> 00:28:48.120
wrong mr. O'Reilly it's been a long while
ago let

316
00:28:58.900 --> 00:29:01.220
me show you a copy of your

317
00:29:01.220 --> 00:29:06.880
testimony in the bum Gardner case November
16

318
00:29:06.880 --> 00:29:09.980
1977 page 24 down at the

319
00:29:09.980 --> 00:29:15.020
the bottom the first couple lines in the
next page see if it refreshes

320
00:29:15.020 --> 00:29:16.460
recollection whether or not it was a
monthly

321
00:30:00.360 --> 00:30:03.780
I'll show it to the witness I

322
00:30:03.780 --> 00:30:07.820
would object to its use if it was my
testimony it wouldn't refresh my record

323
00:30:07.820 --> 00:30:13.120
all right Mr. Motley stated

324
00:30:13.120 --> 00:30:19.100
I don't know well I I am going

325
00:30:19.100 --> 00:30:20.100
to object to the use

326
00:30:19.980 --> 00:30:24.560
of it because it may refresh his
recollection the colloquy well the

327
00:30:24.560 --> 00:30:28.540
The question and answer doesn't really say
it's monthly.

328
00:30:29.460 --> 00:30:30.460
But it is.

329
00:30:30.700 --> 00:30:32.800
It may be. He just said it might be.

330
00:30:32.940 --> 00:30:34.540
Right. Well, I just want to establish it.

331
00:30:34.560 --> 00:30:35.560
Is it a big point?

332
00:30:35.260 --> 00:30:36.260
Quickest way I can. Pardon?

333
00:30:38.400 --> 00:30:40.260
Does that assist you in any way?

334
00:30:40.660 --> 00:30:41.840
It does not. No, sir.

335
00:30:42.040 --> 00:30:43.040
Would you like to read it?

336
00:30:43.140 --> 00:30:44.140
Thank you.

337
00:30:44.760 --> 00:30:49.860
Does referring to Exhibit 7A, the

338
00:30:51.200 --> 00:30:52.200
blow-up over there,

339
00:30:52.120 --> 00:30:54.560
there's a face sheet of the Industrial
Hygiene Digest.

340
00:31:04.390 --> 00:31:06.590
Would you look at that exhibit, Mr.
Sheckler,

341
00:31:06.590 --> 00:31:09.430
or Exhibit 7A and see if that refreshes
your recollection

342
00:31:09.950 --> 00:31:11.990
as to whether or not it's a monthly
publication.

343
00:31:19.640 --> 00:31:21.020
No, sir, it does not.

344
00:31:21.080 --> 00:31:22.080
Okay.

345
00:31:22.220 --> 00:31:26.380
If it will help and assist counsel,

346
00:31:26.580 --> 00:31:30.180
I would infer that in 1957 it was a
monthly publication

347
00:31:31.040 --> 00:31:34.480
based on a volume 27, volume 21, number 6,

348
00:31:34.700 --> 00:31:37.520
and it being June, I would suspect that's
the sixth month.

349
00:31:38.120 --> 00:31:39.660
It's probably the sixth issue that year.

350
00:31:40.660 --> 00:31:41.660
Well, I would assume.

351
00:31:41.580 --> 00:31:47.100
i would assume that's my logic not mr
sheckler i know it

352
00:31:47.100 --> 00:31:48.340
doesn't help me very much

353
00:31:56.360 --> 00:32:00.760
uh mr sheckler looking again at plaintiff
7-8 does that appear to you to be a blow

354
00:32:00.760 --> 00:32:01.760
-up of the

355
00:32:01.200 --> 00:32:05.580
typical format of the face sheet of the
industrial hygiene digest as it appeared

356
00:32:05.580 --> 00:32:09.140
when you began receiving it shortly after
you went to corporate headquarters in 1960

357
00:32:09.140 --> 00:32:13.940
60 yes sir that's uh that's basically the
uh

358
00:32:13.940 --> 00:32:19.580
the format of the digest okay i'd

359
00:32:22.330 --> 00:32:23.330
like to pan

360
00:32:22.710 --> 00:32:28.050
that if i could run it because we don't
have a small copy of this face sheet fine

361
00:33:07.980 --> 00:33:08.980
thank you sir

362
00:33:10.140 --> 00:33:15.840
mr sheckler would you please look at seven
e

363
00:33:15.840 --> 00:33:18.580
and seven f before you there for

364
00:33:22.970 --> 00:33:23.970
the record i'll

365
00:33:23.570 --> 00:33:29.510
identify 7e and 7f as 7e being the index
page of

366
00:33:29.510 --> 00:33:34.230
the june 1957 edition of the industrial
hygiene

367
00:33:34.230 --> 00:33:35.850
digest no

368
00:33:42.220 --> 00:33:47.740
you can uh excuse me you can take that
down we won't go into that now not to blow

369
00:33:47.740 --> 00:33:48.740
up yet

370
00:33:50.280 --> 00:33:53.260
and seven F you

371
00:33:57.380 --> 00:34:01.180
have a small copy of that for me I think

372
00:34:07.840 --> 00:34:13.480
we have another happy around or

373
00:34:13.480 --> 00:34:16.160
somewhere around I just can't find it
right now like I think I'm good you know

374
00:34:16.160 --> 00:34:17.160
where that is

375
00:34:33.980 --> 00:34:35.620
Yeah, why don't we put the blow-up up.

376
00:35:33.650 --> 00:35:39.110
For the record, I think I've identified 7E
as the index page from the 1967

377
00:35:39.110 --> 00:35:40.110
767

378
00:35:41.630 --> 00:35:46.850
June edition of the industrial hygiene
digest and 7f as the page containing

379
00:35:48.530 --> 00:35:52.570
Extract 761 at the bottom on the left hand
side

380
00:35:53.850 --> 00:35:58.210
Mr. Sheckler when you took

381
00:36:01.820 --> 00:36:03.620
over mr. Jackson's job as the

382
00:36:04.460 --> 00:36:07.540
Manager. Well, let me ask you this first.
Let me withdraw. Let me ask you this from

383
00:36:07.540 --> 00:36:10.520
what you see there of 7e and 7f

384
00:36:10.520 --> 00:36:15.240
Does those look like the typical formats
that were utilized by the Industrial

385
00:36:15.240 --> 00:36:16.240
Hygiene Foundation

386
00:36:16.040 --> 00:36:19.800
for their index and actual page sheets?

387
00:36:20.220 --> 00:36:21.220
Yes, sir.

388
00:36:20.780 --> 00:36:21.780
Okay.

389
00:36:22.700 --> 00:36:28.500
And when you took over Mr. Jackson's job
in 1960 as

390
00:36:28.500 --> 00:36:29.980
manager of the Industrial Health Program,

391
00:36:30.260 --> 00:36:35.880
did Mr. Jackson advise you or inform you
that the 1957 edition of the Industrial

392
00:36:35.880 --> 00:36:37.200
Hygiene Digest

393
00:36:37.200 --> 00:36:42.300
contained a summary of a danish study of
shipyard workers

394
00:36:42.300 --> 00:36:43.300
when

395
00:36:49.830 --> 00:36:52.250
you took over mr jackson's job in

396
00:36:52.250 --> 00:36:58.250
1960 did mr jackson advise you or inform
you that there were any studies

397
00:36:58.250 --> 00:37:00.470
done in the 1950s

398
00:37:00.470 --> 00:37:05.970
that purported to be studies of shipyard
workers or insulation

399
00:37:05.970 --> 00:37:09.650
workers in denmark no

400
00:37:17.590 --> 00:37:20.480
sir when you

401
00:37:20.480 --> 00:37:26.000
When you took over Mr. Jackson's job in
1960, did he hand you or provide to you

402
00:37:26.000 --> 00:37:27.040
the original

403
00:37:27.040 --> 00:37:31.500
or copy of the June 1957 edition of the
Industrial Hygiene Digest?

404
00:37:32.860 --> 00:37:34.280
He did not, no sir.

405
00:37:34.840 --> 00:37:39.640
At any time from 1952, let me rephrase
that, at any time from

406
00:37:39.640 --> 00:37:43.440
1957, June of 1957 up until

407
00:37:43.440 --> 00:37:47.720
the date of your retirement from Johns-
Manville, did Mr. Jackson or anyone else
at

408
00:37:47.720 --> 00:37:48.720
Johns-Manville

409
00:37:48.500 --> 00:37:53.320
advise you that Mr. Jackson had received,
in June of 1957,

410
00:37:54.210 --> 00:37:58.300
an edition of the Industrial Hygiene
Foundation Digest

411
00:37:58.300 --> 00:38:00.960
that disclosed the Danish shipyard study.

412
00:38:04.460 --> 00:38:07.560
Perhaps I'm missing something, Mr.
O'Reilly,

413
00:38:07.640 --> 00:38:11.760
but I don't see any reference to a
shipyard study in this digest.

414
00:38:15.910 --> 00:38:19.790
I hope you are missing something, or else
I am.

415
00:38:24.740 --> 00:38:26.060
Item 7617E?

416
00:38:52.530 --> 00:38:54.970
You might be correct, Mr. Sheckler.

417
00:38:55.050 --> 00:39:00.830
I see no indication in this that refers to
shipyards.

418
00:39:01.070 --> 00:39:02.070
You're correct.

419
00:39:01.530 --> 00:39:02.530
That's correct.

420
00:39:02.170 --> 00:39:03.170
You're correct.

421
00:39:03.390 --> 00:39:06.310
That's why I call it the Frost-George
article.

422
00:39:18.290 --> 00:39:24.350
When you took over Mr. Jackson's job in
1960 as manager of the industrial health
program,

423
00:39:24.350 --> 00:39:29.130
Did Mr. Jackson advise you or inform you
that he was aware

424
00:39:29.130 --> 00:39:34.570
of a study done in Denmark on

425
00:39:34.570 --> 00:39:36.190
insulators in the 1950s?

426
00:39:36.210 --> 00:39:37.210
No, sir.

427
00:39:37.290 --> 00:39:42.850
When you took over Mr. Jackson's job in
1960 as manager of the Industrial Health

428
00:39:42.850 --> 00:39:47.770
Program, did Mr. Jackson advise you or
inform you that he had received a copy of

429
00:39:47.770 --> 00:39:48.770
the Industrial

430
00:39:48.330 --> 00:39:54.330
Hygiene Digest in the 1950s that disclosed
a Danish study on insulators.

431
00:39:59.360 --> 00:40:04.380
No, sir. At any time, let me rephrase
that, when you took over Mr.

432
00:40:04.520 --> 00:40:05.820
Jackson's job in

433
00:40:07.520 --> 00:40:13.020
1960, did Mr. Jackson advise you or inform
you that there was a study

434
00:40:13.020 --> 00:40:18.540
published in the 1950s that disclosed an
incident, the incidence of asbestosis

435
00:40:18.540 --> 00:40:22.780
among insulators no sir when

436
00:40:24.890 --> 00:40:27.430
you took over mr. Jackson's job in 1960
did he

437
00:40:27.430 --> 00:40:33.090
hand you or make available to you a copy
of the June 1957

438
00:40:33.090 --> 00:40:34.850
edition of the

439
00:40:34.850 --> 00:40:37.070
Industrial Hygiene Digest but

440
00:40:40.330 --> 00:40:43.690
I think I had shipyard thing in there
that's why

441
00:40:43.690 --> 00:40:46.630
I'm changing it I think I said that
disclosed a shipyard study and that's

442
00:40:46.630 --> 00:40:51.850
what he corrected me so I'll rephrase it
I'll be asked the question when you

443
00:40:51.850 --> 00:40:54.990
became manager of the industrial health
program in 1960 did mr.

444
00:40:55.130 --> 00:40:56.190
Jackson hand you

445
00:40:56.190 --> 00:41:02.310
or provide personally to you a copy of the
June 1957 edition of the Industrial

446
00:41:02.310 --> 00:41:07.690
Hygiene Digest no did you at any time from
June of

447
00:41:07.690 --> 00:41:09.610
1957 up until the date of

448
00:41:09.610 --> 00:41:15.430
your retirement in 1977 ever see the
original or a copy of those

449
00:41:15.430 --> 00:41:16.430
pages of the

450
00:41:16.170 --> 00:41:21.810
industrial hygiene digest that are before
you no sir at any time prior to

451
00:41:21.810 --> 00:41:24.510
april 1964 were you aware

452
00:41:24.830 --> 00:41:30.030
that there was a danish study published in
1957 that disclosed

453
00:41:30.030 --> 00:41:33.410
the incidence of asbestosis among

454
00:41:33.410 --> 00:41:35.530
insulators no sir at

455
00:41:46.220 --> 00:41:52.120
any time prior to april of 1964 were you
aware that there was a an article

456
00:41:52.120 --> 00:41:57.420
in the medical literature known as the
Frost-George article dating with

457
00:41:57.420 --> 00:42:03.240
asbestosis and insulators? No, sir. Had
you read

458
00:42:03.240 --> 00:42:05.120
any medical article or any medical

459
00:42:05.120 --> 00:42:09.500
literature purportedly published or
authored by Frost, George, and Moeller at

460
00:42:09.500 --> 00:42:12.560
any time prior to April 1964? No, sir.

461
00:42:15.620 --> 00:42:19.020
Thank you, Mr.

462
00:42:19.100 --> 00:42:22.690
Shetland. Yeah.

463
00:42:22.690 --> 00:42:23.690
Yeah, let's put that.

464
00:42:24.330 --> 00:42:30.130
Like at this time, Ron, if you just take a
minute and put up 7B, no, 7C.

465
00:42:32.690 --> 00:42:34.310
That's it right there, isn't it? 7C?

466
00:42:35.330 --> 00:42:36.510
That's D? It should be C.

467
00:42:37.470 --> 00:42:39.550
Yeah, put up 7C, which

468
00:42:45.180 --> 00:42:50.980
is a blow-up of the extract

469
00:42:50.980 --> 00:42:52.700
number 761

470
00:42:52.700 --> 00:42:56.300
from the June 1957 edition of the
Industrial Hygiene Foundation,

471
00:42:56.300 --> 00:42:59.040
and it is a blow-up of exhibit 7.

472
00:43:03.220 --> 00:43:06.300
You got it. As with others, I would object
to this.

473
00:43:09.400 --> 00:43:10.400
It would

474
00:44:15.800 --> 00:44:20.520
be 7B, which is the index page, and all
you have to do is just get one quick shot

475
00:44:20.520 --> 00:44:21.520
of that.

476
00:44:23.830 --> 00:44:29.630
Okay, so would you put up 7B, the index
page, the blow-up of the index page of the

477
00:44:29.630 --> 00:44:31.250
1957 June

478
00:44:31.250 --> 00:44:35.590
edition of the Industrial Hygiene Digest,
and this is a blow-up of 7E.

479
00:44:35.850 --> 00:44:40.200
He's pointing out item

480
00:44:40.200 --> 00:44:46.160
number 761 on the index, entitled
asbestosis

481
00:44:46.160 --> 00:44:47.740
with plural calcification.

482
00:44:57.800 --> 00:44:58.800
Next question.

483
00:45:36.710 --> 00:45:41.110
Mr. Sheckler, would you look at exhibits
8C and 8D?

484
00:45:42.210 --> 00:45:45.050
C and 8D, is it?

485
00:45:45.450 --> 00:45:48.390
Two-page letter from Dr. Kenneth Smith,

486
00:45:48.590 --> 00:45:50.050
medical director of Johns-Manville,

487
00:45:50.150 --> 00:45:53.490
to Ivan Sabourin, St. John's, Quebec,

488
00:45:53.490 --> 00:45:59.190
Beck, dated December 30th, 1957, Ray, the
IHF survey.

489
00:46:02.700 --> 00:46:08.540
It's going to take about two minutes while

490
00:46:08.540 --> 00:46:09.540
she's marking this, because we've been
going

491
00:46:09.540 --> 00:46:10.540
about an hour and 20 minutes.

492
00:46:11.100 --> 00:46:15.240
I don't mind some of these people leaving,
but I don't like the reporter leaving like

493
00:46:15.240 --> 00:46:16.240
that.

494
00:46:22.280 --> 00:46:27.620
Have you had an opportunity, Mr. Sheckler,
to look at Exhibits 8, C, and 8D?

495
00:46:27.760 --> 00:46:28.760
I did not.

496
00:46:28.600 --> 00:46:29.980
Would you please look at those, sir?

497
00:46:31.500 --> 00:46:35.720
For the record, 8C and 8D, a two-page
letter from Dr.

498
00:46:35.900 --> 00:46:37.060
Smith and Mr. Sabourin,

499
00:46:37.120 --> 00:46:38.420
dated December 30, 1957.

500
00:46:39.540 --> 00:46:41.640
Dr. Smith, Medical Director of Johns-
Manville.

501
00:47:10.590 --> 00:47:11.590
Yes, sir.

502
00:47:11.930 --> 00:47:12.930
Okay.

503
00:47:12.370 --> 00:47:18.320
Were you aware, prior to April of

504
00:47:18.320 --> 00:47:24.780
1964, that sometime in the 1950s, Dr.

505
00:47:25.020 --> 00:47:30.640
Braun did a study at the request of Quebec

506
00:47:30.640 --> 00:47:31.940
Asbestos Mining Association?

507
00:47:33.440 --> 00:47:34.480
At what point?

508
00:47:34.700 --> 00:47:35.880
Sometime in the 50s.

509
00:47:36.040 --> 00:47:38.020
Was he aware in the 50s?

510
00:47:38.040 --> 00:47:39.400
Prior to April 1964.

511
00:47:39.840 --> 00:47:41.460
Oh, I'm sorry. I missed that.

512
00:47:41.780 --> 00:47:42.780
Yes, sir.

513
00:47:42.400 --> 00:47:47.620
Okay. And were you aware prior to April of
1964

514
00:47:47.620 --> 00:47:52.380
that the study that Dr.

515
00:47:52.420 --> 00:47:57.700
Braun did at the request of the Quebec
Asbestos Mining Association in the 50s

516
00:47:57.700 --> 00:48:02.760
was made available to member companies of
the Asbestos Textile Institute

517
00:48:02.760 --> 00:48:05.500
when it was published?

518
00:48:05.940 --> 00:48:06.940
No, sir.

519
00:48:11.240 --> 00:48:16.600
Were you aware at any time prior to April
of 1964

520
00:48:17.300 --> 00:48:22.560
that the study being done by Dr.

521
00:48:22.580 --> 00:48:23.580
Braun

522
00:48:22.820 --> 00:48:26.280
for the Quebec Asbestos Mining Association
in the 50s

523
00:48:27.080 --> 00:48:30.500
became known as the Braun-Truan study when
it was published?

524
00:48:31.180 --> 00:48:32.180
Yes, sir.

525
00:48:32.400 --> 00:48:34.360
Braun-Truan, T-R-U-A-N.

526
00:48:34.540 --> 00:48:40.380
And is the Braun-Truan study

527
00:48:40.380 --> 00:48:41.880
that Dr. Braun did

528
00:48:41.880 --> 00:48:45.320
for the Quebec Asbestos Mining Association
in the 50s,

529
00:48:45.340 --> 00:48:49.900
the same Braun-Truan study that you relied
on in doing your job

530
00:48:49.900 --> 00:48:52.600
as manager of the industrial health
program for Johns-Manville.

531
00:48:53.240 --> 00:48:54.240
Yes, sir.

532
00:48:57.230 --> 00:49:02.210
And I believe it was your interpretation
of the Braun-Truan study

533
00:49:03.370 --> 00:49:07.490
that the Braun-Truan study disclosed that
there was no increased risk

534
00:49:07.490 --> 00:49:12.330
of asbestosis, lung cancer among, in
miners,

535
00:49:12.470 --> 00:49:13.950
any more than in the general population.

536
00:49:14.230 --> 00:49:15.230
Is that true?

537
00:49:15.010 --> 00:49:20.070
general population of the province yes sir
okay

538
00:49:20.070 --> 00:49:22.810
and that was the way you interpreted the
braun

539
00:49:22.810 --> 00:49:25.530
truant study when you read it while you
were manager of the industrial health

540
00:49:25.530 --> 00:49:26.530
program that

541
00:49:26.290 --> 00:49:31.950
is that it disclosed that the asbestos
miners in quebec did not show

542
00:49:31.950 --> 00:49:33.830
an incidence of asbestos of

543
00:49:33.830 --> 00:49:38.430
lung cancer higher than the general
population of quebec is that true yes sir
were

544
00:49:40.990 --> 00:49:41.990
you aware

545
00:49:41.370 --> 00:49:46.730
Were you aware at any time prior to April
of 1964 that Mr.

546
00:49:46.930 --> 00:49:52.570
Jackson and your superior, Dr. Smith, the
medical director of Johns

547
00:49:52.570 --> 00:49:58.470
Manville, had reviewed a condensation of
the Braun-Truan study before it

548
00:49:58.470 --> 00:49:59.470
was published?

549
00:50:00.250 --> 00:50:01.250
No, sir.

550
00:50:00.950 --> 00:50:06.710
were you aware at any time prior to april
of 1964 that after

551
00:50:06.710 --> 00:50:10.610
their review of a condensation of the

552
00:50:11.170 --> 00:50:15.970
Braun-Truan study dr smith wrote to mr
Sabourin

553
00:50:15.970 --> 00:50:18.910
of the quebec asbestos mining association

554
00:50:19.650 --> 00:50:24.370
suggesting certain changes be made before
the study was published again i will

555
00:50:24.370 --> 00:50:25.370
reject your

556
00:50:25.070 --> 00:50:29.750
Your Honor, on one of the questions, Mr.
O'Reilly is stating these things as if

557
00:50:29.750 --> 00:50:30.750
they were facts.

558
00:50:30.550 --> 00:50:32.410
I'll rephrase it. I'll rephrase it.

559
00:50:32.630 --> 00:50:34.710
Well, I think that is a fact, but I'll
rephrase it.

560
00:50:35.990 --> 00:50:39.070
I'm concerned about your use of the term
condensation.

561
00:50:39.330 --> 00:50:42.570
That's okay. I understand.

562
00:50:42.990 --> 00:50:44.270
I understand. That's what he said.

563
00:50:46.550 --> 00:50:50.370
Were you aware at any time prior to April
of 1964

564
00:50:51.990 --> 00:50:57.930
that Dr. Kenneth Smith, as medical
director for Johns-Manville in 1957,

565
00:50:58.870 --> 00:51:02.710
wrote a letter to Mr. Sabourin of the
Quebec Asbestos Mining Association

566
00:51:03.230 --> 00:51:06.130
suggesting certain changes or
modifications

567
00:51:06.130 --> 00:51:08.670
in the Braun-Truan study before it was
published.

568
00:51:09.310 --> 00:51:10.310
No, sir.

569
00:51:10.390 --> 00:51:16.230
Were you aware at any time prior to April
1964

570
00:51:17.190 --> 00:51:19.570
that on December 30, 1957,

571
00:51:20.730 --> 00:51:24.150
Dr. Kenneth Smith, the medical director of
Johns-Manville,

572
00:51:24.150 --> 00:51:29.870
believed that the Braun-Truan study would
be

573
00:51:29.870 --> 00:51:32.250
subjected to criticism when it was
published

574
00:51:32.250 --> 00:51:38.690
because all other authors at that time
correlated lung cancer with cases of
asbestosis.

575
00:51:38.970 --> 00:51:41.830
I will object on two grounds this time.

576
00:51:41.990 --> 00:51:45.850
One, that it appears to incorporate
hearsay reference

577
00:51:45.850 --> 00:51:49.190
within the question,

578
00:51:49.270 --> 00:51:52.750
and two, it calls for speculation and
conclusion within the hearsay

579
00:51:52.750 --> 00:51:54.950
as to what was believed.

580
00:51:59.390 --> 00:52:02.950
I'll rephrase the question in light of the
last objection,

581
00:52:03.690 --> 00:52:06.110
because even though he wrote it, he may
not have believed it.

582
00:52:07.370 --> 00:52:10.850
Were you aware at any time prior to April
1964

583
00:52:12.350 --> 00:52:15.110
that on December 30, 1957,

584
00:52:16.830 --> 00:52:20.570
the medical director of Johns-Manville,
Dr. Kenneth Smith,

585
00:52:20.570 --> 00:52:26.330
Smith wrote that the Braun-Truan report
would be

586
00:52:26.330 --> 00:52:27.890
subjected to criticism when it

587
00:52:27.890 --> 00:52:32.790
was published because all other authors at
that time correlated lung cancer with

588
00:52:32.790 --> 00:52:34.610
cases of asbestosis. Are

589
00:52:40.690 --> 00:52:45.710
you aware at any time prior to April of
1964

590
00:52:47.280 --> 00:52:51.610
that Dr.

591
00:52:51.750 --> 00:52:56.360
Braun had written letters to Mr.

592
00:52:56.520 --> 00:53:00.840
Jackson in the 50s indicating that minors
might

593
00:53:00.840 --> 00:53:06.140
not be the control group for an accurate
study on asbestosis lung cancer.

594
00:53:06.280 --> 00:53:07.280
Let me

595
00:53:06.860 --> 00:53:12.140
rephrase the question. Were you aware at
any time prior to April of 1964 that Dr.

596
00:53:12.300 --> 00:53:18.540
Braun had written letters to Mr. Jackson
in the 50s suggesting that asbestos

597
00:53:18.540 --> 00:53:24.240
miners was not an appropriate group for a
study to determine the connection

598
00:53:24.240 --> 00:53:28.360
between asbestosis and lung cancer? I know
of no such letters.

599
00:53:28.620 --> 00:53:33.290
Were you aware at any time

600
00:53:33.290 --> 00:53:38.110
prior to April of 1964, then on December
30th, 1957,

601
00:53:38.610 --> 00:53:42.750
after his review of the Braun-Truan

602
00:53:42.750 --> 00:53:48.690
study, Dr. Smith wrote a letter suggesting
that the study

603
00:53:48.690 --> 00:53:52.250
language be changed to contain

604
00:53:52.250 --> 00:53:58.190
a statement stating, however, having found
just

605
00:53:58.190 --> 00:54:01.290
12 cases, we are not above this level

606
00:54:01.290 --> 00:54:06.810
and therefore the hypotheses that asbestos
miners do not have a higher mortality

607
00:54:06.810 --> 00:54:07.810
from lung cancer

608
00:54:07.770 --> 00:54:11.870
than does the general population cannot be
rejected, close quotes.

609
00:54:12.150 --> 00:54:15.750
I was not aware of this letter.

610
00:54:16.350 --> 00:54:21.910
At any time from December 30, 1957

611
00:54:21.910 --> 00:54:24.510
until the date of your retirement in 1977,

612
00:54:25.390 --> 00:54:27.930
were you aware, let me rephrase that,

613
00:54:28.050 --> 00:54:32.750
had you ever seen the original or a copy
of Exhibits 8C and 8D before you?

614
00:54:33.050 --> 00:54:34.490
The Dr. Smith letter to Mr. Sabourin.

615
00:54:34.630 --> 00:54:35.630
No, sir.

616
00:54:35.510 --> 00:54:40.470
Did Dr. Smith at any time from December
30, 1957

617
00:54:40.470 --> 00:54:45.710
up until 1966 or 67 when he left the
company

618
00:54:45.710 --> 00:54:50.310
ever advise you or state in your presence
that he had made suggestions

619
00:54:50.310 --> 00:54:54.570
to change certain statements in the Braun-
Truan study before it was published?

620
00:54:55.270 --> 00:54:56.270
No, sir.

621
00:55:06.840 --> 00:55:12.540
Did anyone at Johns-Manville ever advise
you or inform you at any time prior

622
00:55:12.540 --> 00:55:14.540
to the date of your retirement in 1977

623
00:55:15.260 --> 00:55:20.620
that Dr. Smith had written a letter
recommending that changes be made in the
Braun

624
00:55:20.620 --> 00:55:22.000
-Truant study before it was published?

625
00:55:22.960 --> 00:55:23.960
No, sir.

626
00:55:23.740 --> 00:55:27.400
At this time, do you know? Let me
rephrase. I will draw that question.

627
00:55:28.060 --> 00:55:29.740
Can we put folks to do that at the end,
right?

628
00:55:30.900 --> 00:55:33.580
At this point in time, we're not going to
put up the blobs because I think we're

629
00:55:33.580 --> 00:55:34.580
going to do it at the end,

630
00:55:34.340 --> 00:55:36.020
and then they're just going to splice it
in.

631
00:55:36.060 --> 00:55:37.060
No problem if you do it that way.

632
00:55:37.780 --> 00:55:41.420
Well, I have an objection to splicing it
in, but no, the procedure's fine.

633
00:55:41.660 --> 00:55:43.140
Your objection won't be that it spliced
in.

634
00:55:43.780 --> 00:55:44.780
That's correct.

635
00:55:44.680 --> 00:55:45.680
Okay.

636
00:56:42.380 --> 00:56:44.780
But asbestos fibers were toxic, true?

637
00:56:45.000 --> 00:56:46.000
Yes, sir.

638
00:56:45.920 --> 00:56:51.380
Were you aware when you became manager of
the industrial health program in 1960

639
00:56:51.380 --> 00:56:56.200
that Johns-Manville had facilities in
Canada where asbestos fibers were mined?

640
00:56:56.780 --> 00:56:57.780
Yes, sir.

641
00:56:57.400 --> 00:57:03.320
Were you, did you believe at any time
prior to April 1964 that

642
00:57:03.320 --> 00:57:05.680
there was some

643
00:57:05.680 --> 00:57:10.840
asbestos-related lung disease that
occurred in employees at the J.

644
00:57:11.060 --> 00:57:12.060
Johns

645
00:57:11.600 --> 00:57:14.220
Manville mine in Asbestos, Quebec, in
miners?

646
00:57:23.400 --> 00:57:25.220
Segregating miners from millers?

647
00:57:25.240 --> 00:57:30.200
Yes, sir. I can't answer that question.

648
00:57:30.320 --> 00:57:33.940
I don't remember. Okay. Were you aware in

649
00:57:33.940 --> 00:57:39.760
in 1960 that asbestos-related lung
disease, let me rephrase that, in 1960

650
00:57:39.760 --> 00:57:40.760
when you became

651
00:57:40.320 --> 00:57:44.960
manager of the Industrial Health Program,
Johns-Manville also had mills in Canada
where

652
00:57:44.960 --> 00:57:48.020
asbestos fibers were separated from rock.
Is that true?

653
00:57:48.300 --> 00:57:50.820
Yes, sir. And did you believe

654
00:57:50.820 --> 00:57:56.240
in 1960 when you became manager of the
Industrial Health Program that employees

655
00:57:56.240 --> 00:57:57.660
who worked as

656
00:57:57.660 --> 00:58:05.160
millers had contacted asbestos-related
lung disease J-M employees I'm gonna

657
00:58:06.320 --> 00:58:10.420
object to the form of that I'll rephrase
it sounds all-inclusive I'll rephrase it

658
00:58:10.420 --> 00:58:16.110
were you aware in 1960 when you became
manager of the industrial health program

659
00:58:16.110 --> 00:58:21.710
that J-M employees who worked as millers
in

660
00:58:21.710 --> 00:58:24.690
the mills in Canada were at risk of

661
00:58:24.690 --> 00:58:28.430
contracting asbestos-related lung disease
from their occupation no

662
00:58:37.680 --> 00:58:38.680
sir not

663
00:58:38.420 --> 00:58:40.540
Not necessarily in 1960.

664
00:58:42.320 --> 00:58:46.020
Did you at some point in time come to the
opinion

665
00:58:46.020 --> 00:58:49.560
that J-M employees who worked at the mills
in Canada

666
00:58:49.560 --> 00:58:51.660
separating asbestos fiber from rock

667
00:58:51.660 --> 00:58:54.720
were at risk of contracting asbestos-
related lung disease?

668
00:58:55.160 --> 00:58:56.160
Yes, sir.

669
00:58:55.820 --> 00:58:58.660
When did you first come to that opinion or
conclusion, Mr. Sheckler?

670
00:58:58.660 --> 00:59:00.480
Sometime subsequent to 1960.

671
00:59:01.140 --> 00:59:05.380
Is it sometime subsequent to 1964, or was
it prior to 1964?

672
00:59:05.740 --> 00:59:06.740
Or don't you remember?

673
00:59:06.640 --> 00:59:12.620
i'm sorry would you read the question back
perhaps i'm i'm which question

674
00:59:12.620 --> 00:59:14.480
the last the last question

675
00:59:14.480 --> 00:59:20.760
i think you need the last two without a
difference the last one wasn't very
significant

676
00:59:28.780 --> 00:59:33.630
when did you first become when did you
first come to that opinion or conclusion
mr sheffield

677
00:59:33.630 --> 00:59:38.690
answer sometimes subsequent to 1960.
question was it sometimes subsequent to
1964

678
00:59:38.690 --> 00:59:39.850
or was it prior

679
00:59:39.850 --> 00:59:42.330
prior to 1964, or don't you remember?

680
00:59:43.590 --> 00:59:45.450
Let's go back to the one on four.

681
00:59:45.650 --> 00:59:46.650
Let's go back to three.

682
00:59:47.310 --> 00:59:48.510
I forgot one.

683
00:59:48.910 --> 00:59:51.450
Did you at some point in time come to the
opinion

684
00:59:51.450 --> 00:59:54.530
that J-M employees who worked at the mills
in Canada

685
00:59:54.530 --> 00:59:57.150
separating asbestos fiber from rock

686
00:59:57.150 --> 01:00:00.450
were at risk of contracting asbestos-
related lung disease?

687
01:00:00.710 --> 01:00:01.710
Answer, yes, sir.

688
01:00:03.510 --> 01:00:07.030
When did you first come to opinion or
conclusion, Mr.

689
01:00:07.070 --> 01:00:08.070
Scheffler?

690
01:00:07.490 --> 01:00:09.150
Answer, sometimes subsequent to 1960.

691
01:00:09.150 --> 01:00:14.730
question, was it sometime subsequent to
1964, or was it prior to 1964,

692
01:00:15.230 --> 01:00:16.230
or don't you remember?

693
01:00:28.010 --> 01:00:31.470
I would say sometime 65,

694
01:00:36.530 --> 01:00:39.050
66 period.

695
01:00:42.140 --> 01:00:48.000
And when you became manager of the
Industrial Health Program for Johns-
Manville in 1960,

696
01:00:48.520 --> 01:00:54.400
were you aware that the asbestos fibers
posed a

697
01:00:54.400 --> 01:00:56.960
risk of contracting asbestos-related lung

698
01:00:56.960 --> 01:01:02.060
disease to those people who worked at, let
me rephrase that with another question, in

699
01:01:02.060 --> 01:01:07.860
addition to J-M owning mines where
asbestos fibers were mined and mills where
the fiber

700
01:01:07.860 --> 01:01:14.300
was separated from a rock, did J-M also
own plants in the United States in 1960
where

701
01:01:14.300 --> 01:01:17.380
asbestos fibers were used to make thermal
insulating products?

702
01:01:18.240 --> 01:01:19.240
Yes, sir.

703
01:01:19.080 --> 01:01:24.140
That is where the asbestos fibers were
components along with other components
utilized

704
01:01:24.140 --> 01:01:26.500
specialized to make asbestos-containing
pipe covering and block?

705
01:01:27.860 --> 01:01:28.860
Yes, sir.

706
01:01:28.840 --> 01:01:33.420
And were you aware in 1960, when you
became manager of the Industrial Health
Program,

707
01:01:33.680 --> 01:01:38.280
that employees who worked for J-M in
manufacturing plants

708
01:01:38.280 --> 01:01:41.640
wherein asbestos fibers were used to make
thermal insulation products

709
01:01:41.640 --> 01:01:44.440
were at risk of contracting asbestos-
related lung disease?

710
01:01:48.100 --> 01:01:49.100
Yes, sir.

711
01:01:48.980 --> 01:01:55.400
And were you aware in 1960, when you
became manager of the Industrial Health
Program,

712
01:01:56.700 --> 01:02:02.260
that when these asbestos containing
thermal insulating products such as pipe

713
01:02:02.260 --> 01:02:03.260
covering block

714
01:02:07.780 --> 01:02:13.560
that when these asbestos containing
thermal insulating products such as pipe

715
01:02:13.560 --> 01:02:14.560
covering block

716
01:02:14.520 --> 01:02:20.360
cement no pipe covering and block were cut
and sawed by the end-users that

717
01:02:20.360 --> 01:02:21.460
airborne asbestos

718
01:02:21.460 --> 01:02:27.240
fibers were created yes sir and were you
aware

719
01:02:27.240 --> 01:02:29.540
in 1960 when you became manager of the
industrial

720
01:02:29.540 --> 01:02:35.540
health program that when asbestos
containing cement was used by consumers

721
01:02:35.540 --> 01:02:40.240
or users in the field airborne asbestos
fibers were created no

722
01:02:54.190 --> 01:02:55.570
sir in

723
01:03:02.740 --> 01:03:03.740
1906 you

724
01:03:03.720 --> 01:03:08.780
became manager of the industrial health
program you did not believe that the use

725
01:03:08.780 --> 01:03:13.940
of asbestos containing cement in the field
created airborne asbestos fibers I

726
01:03:13.940 --> 01:03:19.360
I think you injected the word consumers in
your last question, sir.

727
01:03:20.220 --> 01:03:22.720
Now you're asking me another question.

728
01:03:25.400 --> 01:03:27.380
Do you want to rephrase the question?

729
01:03:27.460 --> 01:03:28.460
I'll try.

730
01:03:28.180 --> 01:03:29.180
I'm sorry.

731
01:03:29.120 --> 01:03:30.120
No problem.

732
01:03:29.800 --> 01:03:31.020
By consumer, I meant user.

733
01:03:31.900 --> 01:03:37.340
Were you aware in 1960 that when
purchasers of JM,

734
01:03:37.560 --> 01:03:42.380
especially containing cement, used or
mixed that with water in the field,

735
01:03:42.650 --> 01:03:45.580
that airborne asbestos fibers were created
that

736
01:03:50.380 --> 01:03:53.360
would be an assumption on my part mr riley

737
01:04:00.380 --> 01:04:06.280
was it your opinion let me rephrase it was
it your knowledge in

738
01:04:06.280 --> 01:04:08.580
1960 when you became manager

739
01:04:08.580 --> 01:04:14.220
of the industrial health program that it
was airborne asbestos fibers that

740
01:04:14.220 --> 01:04:16.120
were creating

741
01:04:16.120 --> 01:04:21.940
creating, or could create, pulmonary
disease, asbestos-related lung disease, in
JAM employees

742
01:04:21.940 --> 01:04:25.600
who worked in manufacturing plants where
asbestos-containing thermal insulating

743
01:04:25.600 --> 01:04:27.180
products were manufactured?

744
01:04:28.200 --> 01:04:29.200
Yes, sir.

745
01:04:29.240 --> 01:04:30.240
Okay.

746
01:04:29.980 --> 01:04:36.340
And in 1960, when you became manager of
the industrial health program, you did not
believe

747
01:04:36.340 --> 01:04:41.580
that the users who used this asbestos-
containing pipe covering block and cement

748
01:04:41.580 --> 01:04:42.620
were at risk

749
01:04:42.620 --> 01:04:45.940
of contracting asbestos related lung
disease from the inhalation of airborne

750
01:04:45.940 --> 01:04:47.720
asbestos fibers no sir

751
01:04:47.720 --> 01:04:52.560
did you believe that they were not at risk
or didn't you think about it one way or

752
01:04:52.560 --> 01:04:53.560
the other

753
01:04:54.660 --> 01:05:00.440
in at that particular time i had

754
01:05:00.440 --> 01:05:06.080
no responsibility or reason to think about
the

755
01:05:06.080 --> 01:05:07.460
users of those

756
01:05:07.460 --> 01:05:08.780
those products. By

757
01:05:13.640 --> 01:05:17.160
users, sir, you mean consumers? Yes, sir.
I

758
01:05:40.900 --> 01:05:42.800
want to go

759
01:05:42.800 --> 01:05:47.060
back to the Dr. Lanza study. I believe
that's Exhibit 1 before you, Mr.

760
01:05:47.200 --> 01:05:48.780
Sheckler. It's the one at the bottom.

761
01:06:03.770 --> 01:06:05.310
Yes, sir.

762
01:06:15.420 --> 01:06:17.740
You've already testified that this

763
01:06:17.740 --> 01:06:21.960
exhibit, Exhibit 1, the Lanza, I'm sorry,
is it Exhibit A?

764
01:06:23.160 --> 01:06:25.040
Exhibit A, the Lanza study.

765
01:06:25.040 --> 01:06:30.720
exhibit a yes sir that was one of the
reports that you read and relied on as
part

766
01:06:30.720 --> 01:06:31.720
of your

767
01:06:31.160 --> 01:06:35.960
performance of your duties as manager of
the industrial health program from 1960 to
1967.

768
01:06:36.500 --> 01:06:42.420
yes sir and the lanza study on page one in

769
01:06:42.420 --> 01:06:47.480
the introduction states does it not that
in 1929

770
01:06:47.480 --> 01:06:52.220
the metropolitan life insurance company
was approached by officials representing
the

771
01:06:52.220 --> 01:06:57.040
asbestos industry in the united states who
were desirous of ascertaining whether

772
01:06:57.040 --> 01:06:58.040
asbestos dust

773
01:06:57.860 --> 01:07:02.320
was an occupational hazard in their
establishments and if so what was the
nature of

774
01:07:02.320 --> 01:07:03.320
this hazard and

775
01:07:03.000 --> 01:07:07.320
what should be done to prevent or control
it is that true you've read the first
paragraph

776
01:07:07.320 --> 01:07:12.420
and you read that when you read and relied
on this report true yes sir and

777
01:07:12.420 --> 01:07:14.780
the first sentence of the

778
01:07:14.780 --> 01:07:20.560
The last paragraph on page one states as
follows,

779
01:07:20.800 --> 01:07:25.080
quotes, the name asbestosis has been
applied to the pneumoconiosis caused by

780
01:07:25.080 --> 01:07:26.080
asbestos dust

781
01:07:25.820 --> 01:07:27.400
and it will be so used in this report.

782
01:07:27.680 --> 01:07:29.340
You read that when you read this report?

783
01:07:29.740 --> 01:07:30.740
Yes, sir.

784
01:07:34.700 --> 01:07:37.820
I'm going to page two of Dr. Lanza's
report.

785
01:07:39.040 --> 01:07:41.820
The first full paragraph beginning with,
it should.

786
01:07:42.000 --> 01:07:43.000
Do you see that?

787
01:07:50.900 --> 01:07:51.900
Yes, sir, I do.

788
01:07:52.460 --> 01:07:54.680
And it states, quotes,

789
01:07:54.880 --> 01:07:57.540
it should be borne in mind that silicosis,
parentheses,

790
01:07:58.020 --> 01:08:00.600
and presumably asbestosis, close
parentheses,

791
01:08:01.300 --> 01:08:05.660
develops fairly slowly, fairly very
slowly,

792
01:08:05.820 --> 01:08:11.660
taking from 5 to 15 and even 20 or 25
years to become

793
01:08:11.660 --> 01:08:13.620
established, close quotes.

794
01:08:14.260 --> 01:08:16.820
You read that when you read and relied on
this report

795
01:08:16.820 --> 01:08:19.580
as part of your duties as manager of the
industrial health program?

796
01:08:19.580 --> 01:08:25.000
I assume so yes and it further states
quotes

797
01:08:25.000 --> 01:08:29.180
this rate of progress is influenced mainly
by the dosage

798
01:08:29.180 --> 01:08:34.240
of silica which the lungs receive and this
dosage in turn depends upon three

799
01:08:34.240 --> 01:08:37.120
variables dash the

800
01:08:37.120 --> 01:08:42.960
amount of silica in the dust comment the
quantity of dust in the air and the length

801
01:08:42.960 --> 01:08:43.960
of exposure

802
01:08:43.480 --> 01:08:48.500
exposure, period. Individual idiosyncrasy
might be included as a fourth variable.

803
01:08:48.920 --> 01:08:49.920
However,

804
01:08:49.520 --> 01:08:53.860
little is known of the variations in
susceptibility in those exposed to dust.

805
01:08:54.500 --> 01:08:55.600
It might well be

806
01:08:55.600 --> 01:09:00.220
assumed that similar variables would
influence the occurrence of asbestosis,
close quotes.

807
01:09:00.900 --> 01:09:04.400
You read that when you read and relied on
this report as part of your duties as
manager

808
01:09:04.400 --> 01:09:07.460
of the Industrial Health Program. True? I
assume. Okay.

809
01:09:07.880 --> 01:09:09.240
What do you mean when you say

810
01:09:09.240 --> 01:09:14.800
say i assume i assume i read it this is a
1935 publication

811
01:09:14.800 --> 01:09:19.180
sir and i read it in 1960 which is

812
01:09:19.740 --> 01:09:24.890
22 years ago and it

813
01:09:32.310 --> 01:09:38.190
also states in the third full paragraph
page two quotes the industrial

814
01:09:38.190 --> 01:09:42.850
health service of the metropolitan life
insurance company undertook the following
investigation

815
01:09:42.850 --> 01:09:48.690
during the period from October 1929 to
January 1931 which included one

816
01:09:48.690 --> 01:09:49.870
a study

817
01:09:49.870 --> 01:09:54.470
of dust conditions and asbestos mines and
mills in Canada and in fabricating

818
01:09:54.470 --> 01:09:58.710
plants along the Atlantic seaboard in the
United States to physical

819
01:09:58.710 --> 01:10:03.010
examinations of asbestos workers including
x-ray films three a study of

820
01:10:03.010 --> 01:10:06.810
dust exhaust systems designed to eliminate
asbestos dust now you read

821
01:10:06.810 --> 01:10:11.010
that when you read of a line on this study
back in 1960 yes sir I assume I

822
01:10:11.010 --> 01:10:16.810
did right and it also states quotes data
on the fabricating plants only are

823
01:10:16.810 --> 01:10:17.810
included in this study

824
01:10:17.650 --> 01:10:23.630
and are designated in the report as plants
a b c d and d close quotes you read

825
01:10:23.630 --> 01:10:25.110
that when you uh

826
01:10:25.110 --> 01:10:30.750
read and relied on this study back in
1960. i assume so so you were aware were
you

827
01:10:30.750 --> 01:10:31.750
aware back

828
01:10:31.170 --> 01:10:37.050
in 1960 after you read the lanza report
that the lanza study covered fabricating
plants

829
01:10:40.710 --> 01:10:45.110
Yes, sir, I think I so testified that it
covered textile plants.

830
01:10:45.470 --> 01:10:50.710
Well, is it your testimony that your
understanding of the Lanza study is such
that

831
01:10:50.710 --> 01:10:51.710
he covered

832
01:10:51.430 --> 01:10:54.550
textile plants in his study and only
textile plants?

833
01:10:54.930 --> 01:10:59.950
It was my impression he covered textile
plants

834
01:10:59.950 --> 01:11:03.870
and basically textile plants.

835
01:11:04.610 --> 01:11:07.350
Can you tell us where you got that
impression from?

836
01:11:07.350 --> 01:11:12.470
page if you look at the table on page four

837
01:11:12.470 --> 01:11:17.850
you will see

838
01:11:17.850 --> 01:11:21.430
preparation card room ring frame spinning

839
01:11:21.430 --> 01:11:26.410
room mule spinning twisting weaving felt
department sheet insulation molded brake

840
01:11:26.410 --> 01:11:27.850
band and clutch

841
01:11:28.390 --> 01:11:34.230
those are all part of the textile type of
operations so

842
01:11:35.920 --> 01:11:38.380
it is your reading of the lines

843
01:11:38.380 --> 01:11:43.100
study, and it was in 1960, that the Lanza
study covered only textile plants.

844
01:11:43.240 --> 01:11:44.240
Is that

845
01:11:43.480 --> 01:11:44.480
true?

846
01:11:43.740 --> 01:11:47.360
It's my reading that it basically covered
textile plants, yes.

847
01:11:49.360 --> 01:11:51.040
I have no way of knowing

848
01:11:51.040 --> 01:11:53.580
what Dr. Lanza did or had in mind.

849
01:11:54.780 --> 01:12:00.460
Okay. Now, on that same page that you've
just referred to, page

850
01:12:00.460 --> 01:12:03.800
4, it states right

851
01:12:03.800 --> 01:12:09.020
under the table, quotes, whereas the dust
in the preparation room is practically all

852
01:12:09.020 --> 01:12:13.220
due to asbestos, the contrary is the case
in the other departments.

853
01:12:13.820 --> 01:12:15.080
In the carding,

854
01:12:15.080 --> 01:12:20.680
spinning, and weaving rooms, asbestos
comprises about 25% of the material used.

855
01:12:21.560 --> 01:12:25.800
On special jobs, the percentage of
asbestos may be higher, but in general

856
01:12:25.800 --> 01:12:29.200
the figure quoted is approximately
correct. The other material consisting

857
01:12:29.200 --> 01:12:34.740
principally of cotton. In the insulating
departments of Plant A, asbestos is but

858
01:12:34.740 --> 01:12:37.120
but 5% of the total material used.

859
01:12:37.680 --> 01:12:41.240
In the molded, brake lining, and clutch
division of Plant D,

860
01:12:41.460 --> 01:12:44.340
asbestos comprises about 25% of the total
material.

861
01:12:44.940 --> 01:12:47.900
The actual exposure to asbestos dust,
therefore,

862
01:12:48.020 --> 01:12:51.640
is considerably less than is indicated in
the dust counts in Table 1.

863
01:12:51.900 --> 01:12:52.900
Close quotes.

864
01:12:52.920 --> 01:12:55.120
Now, you read and relied on that in 1960

865
01:12:55.680 --> 01:12:58.580
as part of your duties of manager of the
Industrial Health Program

866
01:12:58.580 --> 01:12:59.940
corporate-wide for Johns-Manville?

867
01:13:00.180 --> 01:13:01.420
I assume so, yes, sir.

868
01:13:01.660 --> 01:13:04.140
And did you also look at the table?

869
01:13:04.140 --> 01:13:09.540
Table 1, entitled Maximum and Minimum Dust
Counts in Million Particles per Cubic

870
01:13:09.540 --> 01:13:10.540
Foot of Air

871
01:13:10.020 --> 01:13:13.480
by Plant and Department, on page 4, when
you read of a light on this study.

872
01:13:14.360 --> 01:13:16.140
I assume I did, yes, sir.

873
01:13:16.200 --> 01:13:17.200
Okay.

874
01:13:17.760 --> 01:13:23.640
And did you notice that the chart showed
that in Plant A, in the

875
01:13:23.640 --> 01:13:24.640
preparation room,

876
01:13:24.680 --> 01:13:29.240
the dust counts varied from a minimum of
one-half million particles per cubic foot

877
01:13:29.240 --> 01:13:32.140
to a maximum of one-and-a-half million
particles per cubic foot?

878
01:13:34.140 --> 01:13:39.440
Those are particles under 10 microns per
cubic foot of air, is that what you're
reading,

879
01:13:39.500 --> 01:13:40.500
sir?

880
01:13:39.820 --> 01:13:40.820
Yes.

881
01:13:42.150 --> 01:13:47.810
I can't make out, I have a rather bad
photostatic copy here,

882
01:13:47.870 --> 01:13:50.890
and I can't make out the fractions.

883
01:13:51.530 --> 01:13:52.710
Do you have another?

884
01:13:52.790 --> 01:13:53.890
I'll have it, I'll...

885
01:13:55.530 --> 01:13:56.530
Yeah, I have mine.

886
01:13:56.870 --> 01:14:02.350
Why don't you exhibit that to him, the
system with the figures, he'll read it to
you.

887
01:14:02.350 --> 01:14:03.350
Sure.

888
01:14:02.850 --> 01:14:03.850
Well, I'm sure of that.

889
01:14:03.670 --> 01:14:05.050
I just got all my little notes on it.

890
01:14:05.210 --> 01:14:06.210
No problem.

891
01:14:06.670 --> 01:14:09.010
I don't have anything worth prodding on
page four.

892
01:14:11.010 --> 01:14:14.650
We can go off camera, so I ain't spotted
in my Rutgers University jersey.

893
01:14:22.740 --> 01:14:24.620
I'm in the wrong chair, Charlie.

894
01:14:24.640 --> 01:14:25.900
I'm still

895
01:14:35.540 --> 01:14:38.780
working on a paper.

896
01:14:41.760 --> 01:14:44.800
Mr. Sheckler, do you have a more legible
copy of the table there?

897
01:14:44.920 --> 01:14:45.920
I do, yes, sir.

898
01:14:45.840 --> 01:14:46.840
Yes, sir.

899
01:14:46.640 --> 01:14:51.660
Now, just prior to Table 1, beginning at
the bottom of page 3, Dr.

900
01:14:51.720 --> 01:14:52.720
Alonzo's report

901
01:14:52.320 --> 01:14:58.000
states, quotes, Table 1 shows by plants
and by departments the maximum

902
01:14:58.000 --> 01:14:59.120
and minimum dust

903
01:14:59.120 --> 01:15:01.620
counts in million particles per cubic foot
of air.

904
01:15:02.180 --> 01:15:07.180
Although the counts in Plan D are of
particles 10 microns and under, particles

905
01:15:07.180 --> 01:15:09.160
10 microns

906
01:15:09.160 --> 01:15:14.720
and under, and in the other plants are for
all particles, direct comparison is
possible

907
01:15:14.720 --> 01:15:19.940
as in no sample taken where the number of
particles 10 microns and under less than

908
01:15:19.940 --> 01:15:21.780
94% of the whole.

909
01:15:22.100 --> 01:15:23.400
Is that what it states there?

910
01:15:23.660 --> 01:15:24.660
It does, yes, sir.

911
01:15:24.720 --> 01:15:28.760
And when you were reading this report back
in 1960, you read and relied on that

912
01:15:28.760 --> 01:15:29.760
also, did you not?

913
01:15:31.420 --> 01:15:32.420
Yes, sir.

914
01:15:32.260 --> 01:15:33.260
Okay.

915
01:15:32.740 --> 01:15:35.100
And Table 1, Plant A.

916
01:15:36.260 --> 01:15:41.740
Table 1 entitled Maximum and Minimum Dust
Counts in Million Particles per Cubic

917
01:15:41.740 --> 01:15:43.520
Foot of Air by Plant and Department.

918
01:15:43.520 --> 01:15:49.020
what was the dust count for plant a
preparation room one

919
01:15:50.710 --> 01:15:53.230
half to one are you asking me the

920
01:15:53.230 --> 01:15:58.050
question sir one half to one and a half
million particles per cubic foot of air

921
01:15:58.050 --> 01:16:00.590
under 10 microns

922
01:16:00.590 --> 01:16:05.750
and that is the only dust count they have
listed there for plant a true

923
01:16:05.750 --> 01:16:10.460
that is under 10 microns

924
01:16:10.460 --> 01:16:15.500
in length well their their

925
01:16:15.500 --> 01:16:20.400
evaluation of airborne particles

926
01:16:20.400 --> 01:16:23.460
in plant a were

927
01:16:23.460 --> 01:16:28.260
measured via that means and the

928
01:16:30.570 --> 01:16:34.370
lines a study table one indicates that
they took

929
01:16:34.370 --> 01:16:41.820
five different samples of dust counts in
the preparation room correct yes sir

930
01:16:41.820 --> 01:16:47.560
Okay. And Plant A, the dust count, million

931
01:16:47.560 --> 01:16:53.260
particles per cubic foot of air, 10
microns and under, for the card room, was

932
01:16:53.260 --> 01:16:55.380
what range?

933
01:16:58.820 --> 01:17:04.500
One-half to, it appears to me to be one
and

934
01:17:04.500 --> 01:17:08.900
two-thirds.

935
01:17:09.980 --> 01:17:10.980
Pardon?

936
01:17:10.800 --> 01:17:13.360
It looks like one and two-thirds, yes,
sir.

937
01:17:14.620 --> 01:17:20.360
And in the ring-frame spinning room, the
dust count for Plant A was one-half to

938
01:17:20.360 --> 01:17:23.880
three-quarter million particles under 10
microns per cubic foot of air?

939
01:17:24.040 --> 01:17:25.040
Yes, sir.

940
01:17:24.640 --> 01:17:27.220
And now in

941
01:17:31.090 --> 01:17:34.070
Plant B, they took a total dust count.

942
01:17:34.110 --> 01:17:35.110
Did they not?

943
01:17:34.550 --> 01:17:37.730
A million particles per cubic foot of air,
regardless of size?

944
01:17:39.510 --> 01:17:41.630
That's my impression.

945
01:17:41.950 --> 01:17:45.470
I presume that's what they did.

946
01:17:46.670 --> 01:17:52.010
And what did they find to be the dust
count in the preparation room of plant B
with

947
01:17:52.010 --> 01:17:53.270
nine different samples taken?

948
01:17:53.850 --> 01:17:58.850
One half to eight million particles per
cubic foot of air.

949
01:17:59.010 --> 01:18:01.810
What did they find the dust count to be in
the card room in plant B?

950
01:18:02.390 --> 01:18:08.250
Three quarter to four and, very difficult,
four and three quarters

951
01:18:08.250 --> 01:18:09.250
it appears.

952
01:18:10.050 --> 01:18:11.050
Million particles?

953
01:18:11.610 --> 01:18:13.670
Yeah, is that correct, three quarters?

954
01:18:13.670 --> 01:18:17.670
Yeah, well I'm reading from your legible,
yours is a little bit lighter, but it
looks

955
01:18:17.670 --> 01:18:21.270
like it's three quarters to four and three
quarters million particles per cubic foot

956
01:18:21.270 --> 01:18:26.150
of air was the range that Dr. Lanza found
in the five samples on plant B in the card

957
01:18:26.150 --> 01:18:27.150
room.

958
01:18:27.190 --> 01:18:28.790
Is that what it appears like to you?

959
01:18:28.970 --> 01:18:30.130
That's what it appears like.

960
01:18:30.330 --> 01:18:36.170
And what dust counts did they obtain with
the five samples done in plant B in the
mule

961
01:18:36.170 --> 01:18:37.170
spinning room?

962
01:18:37.230 --> 01:18:38.910
One third to one.

963
01:18:40.350 --> 01:18:42.050
Million particles per cubic foot of air?

964
01:18:42.050 --> 01:18:46.370
million particles per cubic foot of air
what do they find in plant b the weaving

965
01:18:46.370 --> 01:18:47.690
room one-eighth

966
01:18:47.690 --> 01:18:49.310
to four

967
01:18:56.190 --> 01:19:01.860
-fifths could be uh i i just

968
01:19:01.860 --> 01:19:06.440
can't i can't decipher that one it appears
to be a four

969
01:19:06.440 --> 01:19:11.960
as part of the fraction four fifths i
would guess in any event the low

970
01:19:11.960 --> 01:19:14.180
and the uh high

971
01:19:14.180 --> 01:19:17.980
dust counts obtained at plant b and the
weaving departments were both below a

972
01:19:17.980 --> 01:19:18.980
million particles

973
01:19:18.540 --> 01:19:24.400
per cubic foot of air true I'm sorry sir
yes the low and

974
01:19:24.400 --> 01:19:25.680
the high dust counts

975
01:19:25.680 --> 01:19:30.920
taken in Plan B in the weaving department
were below 1 million

976
01:19:30.920 --> 01:19:36.390
particles per cubic foot of air true
they're both fractions of yes or both

977
01:19:36.390 --> 01:19:40.690
fractions okie-dokie and you read and
relied on that when you read this report

978
01:19:40.690 --> 01:19:44.430
back in 1960 is that true I assume so yes
sir

979
01:20:02.770 --> 01:20:05.770
yes

980
01:20:12.650 --> 01:20:19.790
sir sure there you go yeah

981
01:20:19.790 --> 01:20:21.130
three and four fine

982
01:20:30.410 --> 01:20:37.320
now going to page six of the Lanza study
mr.

983
01:20:37.420 --> 01:20:38.420
Sheckler

984
01:20:37.780 --> 01:20:41.400
right at the bottom of the first full
paragraph it

985
01:20:46.870 --> 01:20:48.690
states quotes asbestosis

986
01:20:48.690 --> 01:20:52.630
appears to be pathologically different
from silicosis and the experience so

987
01:20:52.630 --> 01:20:56.690
far does not warrant an attempt to define
a standard of dustiness for especially

988
01:20:56.690 --> 01:20:57.690
excuse me

989
01:20:57.470 --> 01:21:02.610
sir i'm i'm not with you okay page six i
have page six first full paragraph

990
01:21:02.610 --> 01:21:04.570
the last sentence

991
01:21:08.630 --> 01:21:14.070
i see it states aspas quotes asbestosis
appears to be pathologically different
from silicosis

992
01:21:14.070 --> 01:21:17.970
and the experience so far does not warrant
an attempt to define a standard of

993
01:21:17.970 --> 01:21:18.970
dustiness for

994
01:21:18.530 --> 01:21:22.670
asbestos dust close quotes yes sir you
read and relied on that when you read this

995
01:21:22.670 --> 01:21:23.670
in 1960.

996
01:21:23.170 --> 01:21:28.370
60 I read it yes and the bottom of page 6
under physical

997
01:21:28.370 --> 01:21:31.190
examinations dr. Lanza

998
01:21:31.190 --> 01:21:37.050
recounts what the group of people he
x-rayed and examined

999
01:21:37.050 --> 01:21:38.050
and what the

1000
01:21:37.710 --> 01:21:39.670
findings were correct for

1001
01:21:46.200 --> 01:21:50.760
example dr. Lanza states quotes x-ray
films were

1002
01:21:50.760 --> 01:21:56.480
made of 126 persons parentheses 108 men 18
women closed parentheses

1003
01:21:56.480 --> 01:21:57.820
working in

1004
01:21:57.820 --> 01:22:03.420
asbestos plants in the united states close
quotes true yes sir okay

1005
01:22:03.420 --> 01:22:05.740
and he states quotes the cases

1006
01:22:05.740 --> 01:22:10.040
were selected more or less at random from
among those having more than three years

1007
01:22:10.040 --> 01:22:11.040
of employment

1008
01:22:10.560 --> 01:22:16.120
in the asbestos industry close quotes true
yes sir and then the last sentence on

1009
01:22:16.120 --> 01:22:17.120
the bottom of that

1010
01:22:16.680 --> 01:22:22.530
page quotes the interpretations of these
films are based on the

1011
01:22:22.530 --> 01:22:24.110
readings of one competent ready

1012
01:22:24.110 --> 01:22:28.490
rent to genealogist. I don't know how to
pronounce it.

1013
01:22:28.590 --> 01:22:32.930
Thank you. Quotes, the interpretations of

1014
01:22:32.930 --> 01:22:36.570
these films are based on the readings of
one competent roentgenologist, but they

1015
01:22:36.570 --> 01:22:37.570
have been

1016
01:22:36.850 --> 01:22:40.250
reviewed by several others experienced in
this field.

1017
01:22:40.790 --> 01:22:43.170
The differences of opinion were of a minor

1018
01:22:43.170 --> 01:22:48.550
nature, and there was general agreement as
to interpretation. The films were read
conservatively,

1019
01:22:48.550 --> 01:22:53.030
taking into account the physical
examination and the age of the individual,
and

1020
01:22:53.030 --> 01:22:54.030
were classed as

1021
01:22:53.730 --> 01:22:57.230
positive only when there was no major
disagreement close quotes that what it

1022
01:22:57.230 --> 01:23:03.230
says there it does yes and you read that
back in 1960 when you first read this

1023
01:23:03.230 --> 01:23:07.370
report as part of your duties manager of
the industrial health program true I

1024
01:23:07.370 --> 01:23:12.090
assume I did yes sir okay and then he
further states quotes the films classed

1025
01:23:12.090 --> 01:23:16.090
as negative for asbestosis were further
subdivided into doubtful and negative

1026
01:23:16.710 --> 01:23:20.570
only time can tell whether the individuals
classed as doubtful are

1027
01:23:20.570 --> 01:23:25.110
progressing towards a definite asbestosis
close quotes states that there yes sir

1028
01:23:25.110 --> 01:23:26.110
you missed one

1029
01:23:25.950 --> 01:23:31.400
sentence yes all examiner all

1030
01:23:31.400 --> 01:23:33.760
examiners were guided by their experience
in silicosis and

1031
01:23:33.760 --> 01:23:38.000
other types of pneumoconiosis right okay
now all these statements that i'm reading

1032
01:23:38.000 --> 01:23:39.000
to you from this

1033
01:23:38.800 --> 01:23:42.500
report were statements that you read when
you read this report back in 1960.

1034
01:23:42.820 --> 01:23:44.240
i assume i did yes sir

1035
01:23:44.240 --> 01:23:49.960
okay and the beginning of the next
paragraph quotes the cases of

1036
01:23:49.960 --> 01:23:51.180
asbestosis were divided

1037
01:23:51.180 --> 01:23:57.180
into two classes first stage and second
stage the first stage

1038
01:23:57.180 --> 01:23:59.080
embraces those who show by x-ray

1039
01:23:59.080 --> 01:24:04.780
examination definite lung pathology
sufficient an extent to warrant a
diagnosis of pneumoconiosis

1040
01:24:04.780 --> 01:24:09.460
but who have no definite symptoms the
second stage cases exhibit more extensive

1041
01:24:09.460 --> 01:24:10.480
lung pathology and

1042
01:24:10.480 --> 01:24:15.180
also definite symptoms true that's what it
says there that's correct yes sir okay

1043
01:24:15.180 --> 01:24:16.660
and then

1044
01:24:16.660 --> 01:24:21.740
And starting with the second paragraph on
the bottom of the total,

1045
01:24:21.800 --> 01:24:23.620
you see that, of the total of 126?

1046
01:24:24.940 --> 01:24:25.940
Yes, sir.

1047
01:24:26.060 --> 01:24:29.000
Of the total of 126 X-ray examinations,

1048
01:24:29.220 --> 01:24:32.040
four were diagnosed as second-degree
asbestosis,

1049
01:24:33.120 --> 01:24:37.600
63 as first-degree, 39 as doubtful, and 20
as negative.

1050
01:24:37.680 --> 01:24:38.960
You read that back in 1960.

1051
01:24:39.460 --> 01:24:40.720
I assume so, yes, sir.

1052
01:24:41.040 --> 01:24:45.080
Now, excuse me, you're taking these
paragraphs out of context.

1053
01:24:45.080 --> 01:24:50.980
you you're doing that intentionally I
think you you skip a paragraph

1054
01:24:50.980 --> 01:24:53.480
as all in all these

1055
01:24:53.480 --> 01:24:59.240
individuals were actively engaged in
factory work did you mean to skip that

1056
01:24:59.240 --> 01:25:02.920
or well I'll read it I

1057
01:25:02.920 --> 01:25:06.760
I don't think I'm taking anything out well
I just moved to strike the response as

1058
01:25:06.760 --> 01:25:07.760
now responsive to

1059
01:25:07.540 --> 01:25:12.720
a question thank you yeah there's a
paragraph that states all these
individuals

1060
01:25:12.720 --> 01:25:13.720
were actively

1061
01:25:13.480 --> 01:25:17.160
engaged in factory work and it was not
practical to make any distinction on the

1062
01:25:17.160 --> 01:25:23.150
basis of working ability or disability had
any individuals been found who

1063
01:25:23.150 --> 01:25:26.030
exhibited extensive pulmonary involvement
and marked physical

1064
01:25:26.030 --> 01:25:29.650
disability or total disability they would
have been classified as third

1065
01:25:29.650 --> 01:25:35.650
stage but no such cases were found that is
stated in there true and

1066
01:25:35.650 --> 01:25:36.650
you read

1067
01:25:36.250 --> 01:25:40.490
that yes sir and he also states in the
last paragraph quotes there is a

1068
01:25:40.490 --> 01:25:44.090
definite increase in the percentage
diagnosed as positive in relation to the

1069
01:25:44.090 --> 01:25:49.330
years of exposure as shown in table two
small numbers make it impossible to

1070
01:25:49.330 --> 01:25:50.330
determine how far

1071
01:25:50.210 --> 01:25:55.710
the factor of age enters into this
increase close quotes correct that's
correct

1072
01:25:55.710 --> 01:25:56.710
that's right and

1073
01:25:56.470 --> 01:26:02.330
then Dr. Lanza's table two discloses that
people with over 15 years

1074
01:26:02.330 --> 01:26:05.750
of exposure there was 13

1075
01:26:05.750 --> 01:26:11.370
positive which was 87 percent of the
people with over 15 years exposure true

1076
01:26:11.370 --> 01:26:13.990
yes sir and people

1077
01:26:13.990 --> 01:26:18.470
with 10 to 15 years exposure there were
seven positive which was a 58 percent

1078
01:26:18.470 --> 01:26:19.990
positive finding

1079
01:26:19.990 --> 01:26:25.770
people with 10 to 15 years exposure true
yes sir people with five to ten years
exposure

1080
01:26:26.350 --> 01:26:32.310
fifty percent of those were positive which
was 30 in number true yes

1081
01:26:32.310 --> 01:26:33.590
sir and then under five

1082
01:26:33.590 --> 01:26:39.090
years exposure 43 percent were positive
which meant 17 in number

1083
01:26:39.090 --> 01:26:46.590
true yes sir okay now going

1084
01:26:51.010 --> 01:26:56.790
Going to page 8 at the bottom, the last
paragraph, each

1085
01:26:56.790 --> 01:26:58.970
roentgenologist, do you see that?

1086
01:27:01.710 --> 01:27:03.570
Each roentgenologist, yes, sir.

1087
01:27:03.970 --> 01:27:08.410
Each roentgenologist who reviewed the
X-ray films called attention to the fact
that

1088
01:27:08.410 --> 01:27:11.990
these films indicated a very unusual
incidence of enlargement of the heart.

1089
01:27:12.650 --> 01:27:17.070
It is probable that this is a compensatory
enlargement due to the additional work

1090
01:27:17.070 --> 01:27:21.390
put upon the heart in efforts to pump
blood through the fibrosed lungs.

1091
01:27:22.070 --> 01:27:26.270
It is possible that not sufficient
attention has been paid to the effects of
the

1092
01:27:26.270 --> 01:27:27.970
pneumoconiosis upon the heart.

1093
01:27:28.270 --> 01:27:30.350
True? That's what it states there?

1094
01:27:30.490 --> 01:27:31.490
That's what it says written, yes, sir.

1095
01:27:31.330 --> 01:27:35.330
And you relied on that as well, or you
read and relied on that as well when you

1096
01:27:35.330 --> 01:27:37.110
read this report in 1960, true?

1097
01:27:37.330 --> 01:27:38.630
I assume so, yes, sir.

1098
01:27:45.520 --> 01:27:51.440
Going to Dr. Lanza's conclusions on page
10, under his

1099
01:27:51.440 --> 01:27:52.640
first conclusion he states,

1100
01:27:52.640 --> 01:27:57.780
prolonged exposure do you have a term mr.

1101
01:27:57.860 --> 01:28:00.800
Sheppard I do yes sir prolonged

1102
01:28:00.800 --> 01:28:05.460
exposure to asbestos dust caused a
pulmonary fibrosis of a type different

1103
01:28:05.460 --> 01:28:09.800
from silicosis and demonstrable and x-ray
films clinically from this study

1104
01:28:09.800 --> 01:28:13.920
it appears to be of a type marvin and
silicosis you read of a light on that in

1105
01:28:13.920 --> 01:28:19.800
1960 yes sir did anybody at any time
before the date of

1106
01:28:19.800 --> 01:28:20.800
your retirement in

1107
01:28:20.700 --> 01:28:26.500
1977 advise you or inform you that an
attorney employed by jm

1108
01:28:26.500 --> 01:28:32.480
in 1934 wrote a letter to dr lanza

1109
01:28:33.070 --> 01:28:38.740
suggesting that dr lanza used that
language quotes clinically from this study
it appears

1110
01:28:38.740 --> 01:28:44.340
to be of a type milder than silicosis
close quotes no sir okay there

1111
01:29:05.140 --> 01:29:06.140
we go

1112
01:29:05.380 --> 01:29:11.040
on the record by Mr.

1113
01:29:14.140 --> 01:29:19.900
O'Reilly, then I'd like, I would move at
this point, Your Honor, for

1114
01:29:19.900 --> 01:29:23.400
The document still isn't identified,
Counsel. Make the motion after that.

1115
01:29:23.760 --> 01:29:27.020
Yes. Do you know what the document is, Mr.
O'Reilly?

1116
01:29:27.560 --> 01:29:29.420
Do you want me to look at it? Yeah.

1117
01:29:31.340 --> 01:29:32.920
I'm just not sure the address is here.

1118
01:29:32.920 --> 01:29:38.920
after december there's a december 18 1934
letter addressed to apparently

1119
01:29:38.920 --> 01:29:40.880
mr mf judd ray bestest

1120
01:29:40.880 --> 01:29:46.640
manhattan inc and signed or at least
purportedly signed by van

1121
01:29:46.640 --> 01:29:50.260
diever brown attorney reportedly

1122
01:29:50.260 --> 01:29:56.080
there is that's 9a there is a

1123
01:29:56.080 --> 01:30:00.400
9b letter under date of december 21 1934

1124
01:30:00.400 --> 01:30:05.780
34, address Dr. A.J. Lanza, Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company, 1 Madison Avenue,

1125
01:30:05.920 --> 01:30:06.920
New York City.

1126
01:30:07.940 --> 01:30:13.900
There is no signature on this one, but it
shows a typewritten name

1127
01:30:13.900 --> 01:30:15.940
of Vandiver Brown, attorney.

1128
01:30:19.200 --> 01:30:20.200
That's 9B.

1129
01:30:23.610 --> 01:30:26.310
So it's 9A and 9B, is that it?

1130
01:30:26.470 --> 01:30:27.470
Yes, sir.

1131
01:30:26.750 --> 01:30:30.090
9A and 9B, both December 1934 letters,
your honor.

1132
01:30:30.350 --> 01:30:31.350
What's your motion?

1133
01:30:31.070 --> 01:30:36.990
My motion is that the witness be asked the
very simple question of whether he

1134
01:30:36.990 --> 01:30:38.510
has ever seen them before,

1135
01:30:39.630 --> 01:30:44.530
or certainly before he left his employment
at Johns-Manville in 1977.

1136
01:30:45.750 --> 01:30:51.470
If not, I would suggest that a motion to

1137
01:30:51.470 --> 01:30:56.830
preclude further inquiry would be in
order.

1138
01:30:57.630 --> 01:30:59.170
I would join in that.

1139
01:30:59.690 --> 01:31:01.890
Well, that's all I plan on asking him.

1140
01:31:02.610 --> 01:31:05.810
Now, you have 9A and 9B before you, Mr.
Sheckler.

1141
01:31:06.050 --> 01:31:07.050
I have, yes, sir.

1142
01:31:07.010 --> 01:31:10.710
9A is a letter from, purportedly, from a
Mr. Brown to a Mr.

1143
01:31:10.770 --> 01:31:11.770
Judd,

1144
01:31:12.210 --> 01:31:14.290
dated December 19, 1934.

1145
01:31:14.670 --> 01:31:15.670
Yes, sir.

1146
01:31:15.310 --> 01:31:19.470
And 9B dated December 23, 1934,
purportedly from a Mr.

1147
01:31:19.630 --> 01:31:20.630
Brown to Dr. Lanza.

1148
01:31:21.730 --> 01:31:22.970
December 21, I suppose.

1149
01:31:23.130 --> 01:31:24.130
Thank you.

1150
01:31:24.830 --> 01:31:27.830
Now, at any time prior to the date of your
retirement,

1151
01:31:27.830 --> 01:31:32.730
did you see a copy of the original of
either one of those two documents,

1152
01:31:32.850 --> 01:31:34.310
plaintiffs 9A and 9B?

1153
01:31:34.490 --> 01:31:35.490
No, sir.

1154
01:31:35.910 --> 01:31:38.590
At any time prior to the date of your
retirement,

1155
01:31:38.830 --> 01:31:44.610
did anyone at Johns-Manville ever advise
you or inform you

1156
01:31:45.750 --> 01:31:49.610
that Vandiver Brown or any Johns-Manville
employee

1157
01:31:49.610 --> 01:31:55.270
had written to Dr. Lanza in the 30s making
certain suggestions

1158
01:31:55.270 --> 01:31:59.570
as to terminology Dr. Lanza should use in
his report?

1159
01:32:00.730 --> 01:32:01.730
No, sir.

1160
01:32:02.090 --> 01:32:07.130
Did anyone at Johns-Manville advise you at
any time prior to the date of your
retirement

1161
01:32:08.030 --> 01:32:13.790
that Dr. Lanza had adopted almost all of
the recommendations or suggestions

1162
01:32:13.790 --> 01:32:18.150
for changes in his report that were made
by Johns-Manville employees?

1163
01:32:18.490 --> 01:32:21.970
No, sir.

1164
01:32:22.150 --> 01:32:23.150
Okay.

1165
01:32:22.990 --> 01:32:26.770
Did anyone advise you at any time prior to
the date of your retirement

1166
01:32:26.770 --> 01:32:29.970
that any changes have been made in dr.

1167
01:32:29.970 --> 01:32:32.410
Lanza study as a result of suggestions

1168
01:32:32.410 --> 01:32:36.530
or proposals for changes by J-M employees

1169
01:32:36.530 --> 01:32:44.030
oh sure beginning mr.

1170
01:33:13.020 --> 01:33:14.180
Sheckler in the

1171
01:33:14.180 --> 01:33:18.900
same context have you ever seen what
purports to be the original or a copy of

1172
01:33:18.900 --> 01:33:23.160
a letter from an attorney by the name of
Hobart to mr.

1173
01:33:23.260 --> 01:33:24.280
Brown that was dated

1174
01:33:24.280 --> 01:33:28.400
sometime in the 30s that dealt with the
Lanza study I

1175
01:33:31.600 --> 01:33:34.040
have seen Alonzo letters

1176
01:33:34.040 --> 01:33:38.620
and possibly the Hobart letter in various

1177
01:33:40.060 --> 01:33:42.260
occasions conjunction with the

1178
01:33:42.260 --> 01:33:47.520
asbestos litigation not before that time
not before that time now

1179
01:33:47.520 --> 01:33:50.720
have you at any

1180
01:33:50.720 --> 01:33:55.360
time from the date of your first
employment with Johns-Manville in 1936

1181
01:33:55.360 --> 01:34:00.740
up until the date of your retirement in
1977 seen any Johns-Manville documents

1182
01:34:01.280 --> 01:34:05.340
that contained a signature of a Vandiver
Brown?

1183
01:34:08.780 --> 01:34:13.600
Not unless I saw it during asbestos
litigation

1184
01:34:13.600 --> 01:34:16.120
prior to retirement.

1185
01:34:23.180 --> 01:34:24.180
Correct.

1186
01:34:24.720 --> 01:34:26.160
Prior to retirement.

1187
01:34:26.880 --> 01:34:34.380
Can you tell us approximately when the
first time was that you saw any of the Van
Diver,

1188
01:34:36.480 --> 01:34:38.340
any corporate documents purportedly

1189
01:34:38.340 --> 01:34:39.980
containing a signature of Vandiver Brown?

1190
01:34:40.160 --> 01:34:42.100
I'm going to object to this whole line of
questioning.

1191
01:34:42.180 --> 01:34:43.860
That's not a discovery deposition.

1192
01:34:44.480 --> 01:34:45.480
I will try the question.

1193
01:34:46.200 --> 01:34:47.320
I will try the question.

1194
01:34:47.520 --> 01:34:50.500
Well, is it true that the only time

1195
01:34:50.500 --> 01:34:51.880
you've seen any documents

1196
01:34:51.880 --> 01:34:54.120
that purport to contain a signature

1197
01:34:54.120 --> 01:34:56.360
of a Vandiver Brown is when they've been
shown

1198
01:34:56.360 --> 01:34:58.180
to you by attorneys representing
plaintiffs

1199
01:34:58.180 --> 01:34:59.180
in a asbestos litigation?

1200
01:34:59.460 --> 01:35:00.460
Yes, sir.

1201
01:35:09.040 --> 01:35:12.020
You mentioned another report

1202
01:35:13.080 --> 01:35:15.340
that you read and relied on

1203
01:35:15.340 --> 01:35:19.600
as part of the performance of your duties
as the manager of the industrial health

1204
01:35:19.600 --> 01:35:20.600
program for

1205
01:35:20.080 --> 01:35:25.640
johns manville was a report by a dr
dreesen published in approximately

1206
01:35:25.640 --> 01:35:28.160
1938 yes sir can

1207
01:35:28.160 --> 01:35:32.280
you tell us approximately when you read
the dreesen report sometime

1208
01:35:36.880 --> 01:35:40.400
subsequent to 1960

1209
01:35:41.400 --> 01:35:46.540
sometimes subsequent to going into general
headquarters which would have been 59 60.

1210
01:35:48.890 --> 01:35:54.450
Probably the same time I read the

1211
01:35:54.450 --> 01:35:58.250
other report.

1212
01:35:58.910 --> 01:36:00.110
Referring to the Lanza study?

1213
01:36:00.670 --> 01:36:01.670
Possibly, yes.

1214
01:36:19.670 --> 01:36:23.590
Do you have the recent study there before
you, Mr.

1215
01:36:23.670 --> 01:36:24.670
Sheckler?

1216
01:36:24.430 --> 01:36:25.630
The recent study?

1217
01:36:25.790 --> 01:36:29.230
Yes. It's the big thick one there.

1218
01:36:29.490 --> 01:36:31.370
The big one with the rubber band around
it?

1219
01:36:31.430 --> 01:36:32.430
Yeah.

1220
01:36:34.840 --> 01:36:36.360
It stands out.

1221
01:39:21.760 --> 01:39:24.020
Sometime during your employment of Johns-
Manville,

1222
01:39:24.020 --> 01:39:27.400
that there was a concept known as a
latency period

1223
01:39:27.400 --> 01:39:29.680
with respect to asbestos-related disease.

1224
01:39:29.980 --> 01:39:30.980
True?

1225
01:39:31.020 --> 01:39:32.020
Yes, sir.

1226
01:39:31.960 --> 01:39:34.440
Can you tell us when you first became
aware

1227
01:39:34.440 --> 01:39:37.200
of the concept known as the latency period

1228
01:39:37.200 --> 01:39:38.880
with respect to asbestos-related disease?

1229
01:39:41.970 --> 01:39:43.930
Sometime in the 1950s.

1230
01:39:44.350 --> 01:39:47.150
And is it true that the latency period
refers

1231
01:39:47.970 --> 01:39:54.170
to the period of time between the date of
first exposure

1232
01:39:54.170 --> 01:39:55.970
and the onset of disease?

1233
01:40:01.880 --> 01:40:07.140
And is it true that you recognized

1234
01:40:07.140 --> 01:40:12.600
back in the 50s

1235
01:40:12.600 --> 01:40:18.240
that a latency period was characteristic
of asbestos-caused diseases?

1236
01:40:21.630 --> 01:40:23.810
I think that's a reasonable statement.

1237
01:40:23.810 --> 01:40:29.350
And is it true that you recognize that the
latency period

1238
01:40:32.640 --> 01:40:36.460
for the onset of asbestos disease, as you
know it,

1239
01:40:36.520 --> 01:40:39.260
usually requires a minimum of 10 years?

1240
01:40:49.760 --> 01:40:55.140
that you recognize that the latency period
for the onset of asbestos disease as you

1241
01:40:55.140 --> 01:40:56.140
know it

1242
01:40:55.600 --> 01:40:59.040
usually requires a minimum of 10 years
just

1243
01:41:03.300 --> 01:41:07.140
a second i'm going to object because as
framed i

1244
01:41:07.140 --> 01:41:11.880
think it calls for his opinion this time
wasn't

1245
01:41:14.500 --> 01:41:16.360
it your understanding of reading the
literature

1246
01:41:16.360 --> 01:41:21.820
in the 30s and 40s that is literature
published in the 30s and

1247
01:41:21.820 --> 01:41:25.340
40s that a latency period of 10 years

1248
01:41:26.180 --> 01:41:32.420
years applied to asbestos-related disease,
a minimum of 10-year period.

1249
01:41:32.760 --> 01:41:34.080
I think you said usually.

1250
01:41:34.460 --> 01:41:40.140
Let me rephrase the question. I'll
rephrase each one. Is it true that you
gathered from

1251
01:41:40.140 --> 01:41:44.980
your reading of the literature in the 30s
and 40s that asbestos disease

1252
01:41:44.980 --> 01:41:47.600
required a minimum

1253
01:41:47.600 --> 01:41:52.700
of 10 years for its latency period, that
is, from onset of exposure to

1254
01:41:52.700 --> 01:41:53.700
manifestation of

1255
01:41:53.640 --> 01:41:54.640
disease?

1256
01:41:53.920 --> 01:41:58.560
All right. Just a second. I'm going to
object as framed that it's vague and

1257
01:41:58.560 --> 01:41:59.560
ambiguous as

1258
01:41:59.320 --> 01:42:05.320
to when he read what literature. The way
you framed it,

1259
01:42:05.400 --> 01:42:06.800
it sounded like he read literature

1260
01:42:06.800 --> 01:42:08.080
in the 30s and 40s.

1261
01:42:45.320 --> 01:42:50.940
Is it true, Mr. Sheckler, that from your
reading of medical

1262
01:42:50.940 --> 01:42:51.940
literature published

1263
01:42:51.820 --> 01:42:56.220
in the 30s and 40s, you came to the
understanding that

1264
01:42:56.220 --> 01:43:00.820
there was a minimum period of 10-year

1265
01:43:00.820 --> 01:43:06.600
latency period that applied with respect
to a asbestos-related disease that is

1266
01:43:06.600 --> 01:43:12.160
from the date of first exposure to the
date of onset of disease object on

1267
01:43:12.160 --> 01:43:15.560
grounds that it's vague and ambiguous as
to time when the witness allegedly read

1268
01:43:15.560 --> 01:43:19.680
the literature that you came to that
understanding in the 50s

1269
01:43:19.680 --> 01:43:21.960
that I

1270
01:43:21.960 --> 01:43:25.880
rephrase the whole the whole question
because I forget what I'm asking now let

1271
01:43:25.880 --> 01:43:30.120
me rephrase the entire question there's no
foundation at this point that he read

1272
01:43:30.120 --> 01:43:34.860
any literature in the 50s well they may
have but there's no foundation he did well

1273
01:43:34.860 --> 01:43:36.480
is it true that

1274
01:43:37.200 --> 01:43:41.780
the place where you derived this knowledge
in the 50s that there was a latency

1275
01:43:41.780 --> 01:43:43.420
period that was

1276
01:43:43.420 --> 01:43:46.920
characteristic of a specialist related
disease was from your reading of the

1277
01:43:46.920 --> 01:43:47.920
literature that was

1278
01:43:47.780 --> 01:43:52.460
published in the 30s and 40s no sir okay
where did you get that knowledge uh

1279
01:43:52.460 --> 01:43:53.800
primarily that knowledge

1280
01:43:53.800 --> 01:43:59.360
was derived from my association with the
medical director

1281
01:43:59.360 --> 01:44:01.940
and the two plant

1282
01:44:01.940 --> 01:44:06.100
physicians dr. Kenneth Smith dr. Kenneth
Smith dr.

1283
01:44:06.320 --> 01:44:08.520
David DuBois dr. Edwin Merrill

1284
01:44:08.520 --> 01:44:14.160
and they Merrill they told you this

1285
01:44:14.160 --> 01:44:16.660
information in the 1950s while you were

1286
01:44:16.660 --> 01:44:20.120
still at the Manville complex all right
now I will object on grounds that one it

1287
01:44:20.120 --> 01:44:23.940
It is hearsay, and two, it is opinion
hearsay.

1288
01:44:24.260 --> 01:44:27.660
Did Dr.

1289
01:44:27.860 --> 01:44:30.840
Smith advise you in the 1950s,

1290
01:44:30.840 --> 01:44:34.680
that is the medical director of Johns-
Manville at that time,

1291
01:44:34.820 --> 01:44:39.200
that there was a latency period that was
characteristic of a asbestos-related
disease?

1292
01:44:43.660 --> 01:44:44.660
Yes, sir.

1293
01:44:44.900 --> 01:44:49.160
And did Dr. Kenneth Smith also advise you
that by latency period,

1294
01:44:49.260 --> 01:44:54.540
he meant the period of time from onset of
first exposure to manifestation of
disease?

1295
01:44:54.540 --> 01:44:59.370
that's my understanding yes sir and the
dr.

1296
01:44:59.450 --> 01:45:03.090
Smith at that time advise you that the
minimum

1297
01:45:03.090 --> 01:45:08.310
latency period that usually applied with
respect to asbestos disease was 10 years

1298
01:45:08.310 --> 01:45:12.520
that would be

1299
01:45:12.520 --> 01:45:18.100
an approximation of a minimum latency

1300
01:45:18.100 --> 01:45:22.600
period there's no fixed number right and
dr.

1301
01:45:22.760 --> 01:45:23.760
Smith

1302
01:45:23.040 --> 01:45:28.400
advised you in the 1950s that the minimum
latency period associated with

1303
01:45:28.400 --> 01:45:33.420
asbestos disease was 10 years and it could
go up beyond that to 15 to 20

1304
01:45:33.420 --> 01:45:37.940
years true yes sir that's a first and is

1305
01:45:40.600 --> 01:45:46.020
it also true that you recognized

1306
01:45:46.020 --> 01:45:48.680
in the

1307
01:45:48.680 --> 01:45:55.600
the 50s that the medical literature from
the 30s to the early 40s essentially

1308
01:45:55.600 --> 01:45:59.260
stated the same thing a minimum latency
period of 10 years and up for

1309
01:45:59.260 --> 01:46:03.160
asbestos-related disease I will object it
there's no foundation in fact that he

1310
01:46:03.160 --> 01:46:08.640
was aware of any medical literature in the
50s and on that ground I would I'll

1311
01:46:10.270 --> 01:46:14.350
just interpose the objections there's no
foundation he's never made that's

1312
01:46:14.350 --> 01:46:19.450
argumentative on the record as it stands
now I'll rephrase the question I'll

1313
01:46:19.450 --> 01:46:25.720
rephrase the question is it true that from
time to time during your employment

1314
01:46:25.720 --> 01:46:29.520
from Johns-Manville you have reviewed
medical literature some of it published

1315
01:46:29.520 --> 01:46:34.920
in the 30s and early 40s yes sir that is
true and is it true that from your

1316
01:46:34.920 --> 01:46:38.960
reading of this medical literature
published in the 30s and 40s that you

1317
01:46:38.960 --> 01:46:44.640
arrived at the understanding that there
was a latency period associated with

1318
01:46:44.640 --> 01:46:50.500
asbestos disease that had a minimum of 10
years no sir that's

1319
01:46:50.500 --> 01:46:52.140
not true i'm sorry okay

1320
01:46:53.940 --> 01:46:59.760
objection i had before which was it's very
ambiguous and uncertain as to

1321
01:46:59.760 --> 01:47:00.760
time when he

1322
01:47:00.740 --> 01:47:06.450
allegedly read it now urging the

1323
01:47:06.450 --> 01:47:12.690
objection to this inquiry council as to
time when he read

1324
01:47:12.690 --> 01:47:17.830
the literature allegedly read written in
the 30s and 40s yes that's it's vague and
ambiguous

1325
01:47:17.830 --> 01:47:20.830
i'll rephrase the question i'll rephrase
the question from

1326
01:47:26.940 --> 01:47:28.620
your review of the medical

1327
01:47:28.620 --> 01:47:34.560
literature is it your understanding that
the medical literature

1328
01:47:34.560 --> 01:47:36.840
in the 30s and early 40s

1329
01:47:40.550 --> 01:47:46.390
discussed a latency period of 10 years
minimum with respect to asbestos related
disease

1330
01:47:49.320 --> 01:47:55.160
are you asking me as of today yes sir
that's my understanding

1331
01:47:55.160 --> 01:47:59.940
as to what the 30s and 40 medical

1332
01:47:59.940 --> 01:48:03.460
literature suggested okay

1333
01:48:09.350 --> 01:48:11.850
is it also true is

1334
01:48:15.720 --> 01:48:16.720
it when

1335
01:48:38.520 --> 01:48:42.100
you read the Dreesen study that you
testified

1336
01:48:42.100 --> 01:48:45.980
about on direct exhibit

1337
01:48:52.570 --> 01:48:53.890
B study

1338
01:49:59.330 --> 01:50:01.490
as part of your employment with Johns-
Manville

1339
01:50:02.510 --> 01:50:07.530
did you note that the author remarked

1340
01:50:07.530 --> 01:50:11.230
that about a 15 months before the study

1341
01:50:11.230 --> 01:50:16.790
was begun approximately 150 workers in the
asbestos textile

1342
01:50:16.790 --> 01:50:18.950
factories that were

1343
01:50:18.950 --> 01:50:23.370
to undergo the study were replaced by
workers with little or no previous

1344
01:50:23.370 --> 01:50:29.250
asbestos exposure and I'll refer you Mr.
Sheckler to page 46 of the

1345
01:50:29.250 --> 01:50:30.250
Dreesen study.

1346
01:50:53.300 --> 01:50:56.440
See that comparison with other industrial
workers?

1347
01:50:56.720 --> 01:50:57.720
I'm reading it sir.

1348
01:51:07.840 --> 01:51:13.630
Yes sir. Dr. Dreesen noted in his report

1349
01:51:13.630 --> 01:51:17.770
on page 46 that 150 workers in the

1350
01:51:17.770 --> 01:51:22.610
asbestos textile factories that were being
studied by Dr. Dreesen were

1351
01:51:22.610 --> 01:51:26.970
replaced by workers with little or no
previous asbestos exposure about 15

1352
01:51:26.970 --> 01:51:33.710
months before the study was to begin where
are you at now sir page 46 under

1353
01:51:33.710 --> 01:51:38.310
the caption comparison with other
industrial workers the last paragraph on

1354
01:51:38.310 --> 01:51:40.890
that page the beginning of the last
paragraph he's

1355
01:51:44.220 --> 01:51:45.220
saying that a hundred and

1356
01:51:45.220 --> 01:51:50.480
fifty workers in the asbestos textile
factories were replaced by workers with

1357
01:51:50.480 --> 01:51:55.220
little or no previous asbestos exposure
he's talking about those in the factories

1358
01:51:55.220 --> 01:51:58.960
Right. Yeah. About 15 months before the
study was to begin.

1359
01:52:00.100 --> 01:52:02.760
Yes, sir. And he further states

1360
01:52:02.760 --> 01:52:08.460
that partly as a result of these personnel
changes, the

1361
01:52:08.460 --> 01:52:11.060
group of employees examined in this study

1362
01:52:11.060 --> 01:52:14.260
had an unusually low average age. True.

1363
01:52:14.500 --> 01:52:15.500
And

1364
01:52:20.670 --> 01:52:23.750
he also states that there was, quotes,

1365
01:52:23.890 --> 01:52:29.090
there was an abnormally large percentage
of workers with less than five years
employment

1366
01:52:29.090 --> 01:52:32.330
in the asbestos textile industry. True?

1367
01:52:35.470 --> 01:52:38.050
I'm going to. I will.

1368
01:52:38.190 --> 01:52:39.190
All right.

1369
01:52:40.150 --> 01:52:41.730
Does he state that in his report?

1370
01:52:42.010 --> 01:52:43.730
As part of that sentence, yes, sir.

1371
01:52:43.730 --> 01:52:44.930
Right. He states, quotes,

1372
01:52:45.070 --> 01:52:47.450
there was an abnormally large percentage
of workers

1373
01:52:47.450 --> 01:52:50.850
with less than five years' employment in
the asbestos textile industry

1374
01:52:51.390 --> 01:52:54.210
and an abnormally small percentage of
persons

1375
01:52:54.210 --> 01:52:57.550
who had worked ten years or more in this
industry. True?

1376
01:52:57.870 --> 01:52:59.070
That's true, yes, sir.

1377
01:52:59.070 --> 01:53:04.330
Now, when you read that in the Dreessen
report, when

1378
01:53:04.330 --> 01:53:10.250
you were manager of the industrial health

1379
01:53:10.250 --> 01:53:15.030
program for Johns-Manville, did you think
that those comments,

1380
01:53:15.230 --> 01:53:18.170
well, did those comments

1381
01:53:18.170 --> 01:53:21.990
cause you to be a little bit skeptical in
your reading of this report?

1382
01:53:26.420 --> 01:53:31.240
Mr. O'Reilly, I wouldn't be able to tell
you yes or no at this point.

1383
01:53:31.320 --> 01:53:32.940
That's 20-some years ago.

1384
01:53:33.180 --> 01:53:34.180
Okay.

1385
01:53:33.580 --> 01:53:39.410
Okay. On page

1386
01:53:39.410 --> 01:53:45.250
47, Dr. Dreesen has three

1387
01:53:45.250 --> 01:53:46.250
tables depicted.

1388
01:53:46.230 --> 01:53:47.230
True?

1389
01:53:47.470 --> 01:53:48.570
Yes, he has.

1390
01:53:49.390 --> 01:53:55.090
And the first table is table number 21,
age distribution in asbestos workers.

1391
01:53:55.190 --> 01:53:56.190
True?

1392
01:53:55.650 --> 01:53:56.650
Yes, sir.

1393
01:53:56.610 --> 01:53:59.470
And right below that, Dr. Dreesen states,

1394
01:53:59.710 --> 01:54:05.110
the low average age of this group of
asbestos textile workers must be kept in
mind

1395
01:54:05.110 --> 01:54:08.710
in making comparisons of health conditions
in these factories

1396
01:54:09.130 --> 01:54:11.710
with health conditions in American
industry in general.

1397
01:54:11.970 --> 01:54:12.970
True?

1398
01:54:13.030 --> 01:54:14.030
Yes, sir.

1399
01:54:13.710 --> 01:54:15.990
And you read that and relied on that when
you read this report

1400
01:54:15.990 --> 01:54:20.250
back in between 1960 and 1967, whenever
you first read it?

1401
01:54:20.510 --> 01:54:21.710
I assume so, yes, sir.

1402
01:54:57.080 --> 01:55:00.980
Table 23 at the bottom of page 47 is
entitled

1403
01:55:00.980 --> 01:55:03.800
Length of Employment in the Asbestos
Textile Industry.

1404
01:55:03.960 --> 01:55:04.980
Do you see that, Mr. Sheckler?

1405
01:55:05.140 --> 01:55:06.140
Yes, sir.

1406
01:55:05.540 --> 01:55:10.140
and then he has years employed in asbestos
textile industry

1407
01:55:10.140 --> 01:55:13.140
and on the left-hand column it has

1408
01:55:15.350 --> 01:55:20.730
sex and race i believe sex and color sex
and color

1409
01:55:20.730 --> 01:55:24.310
okay and then the total number of people

1410
01:55:24.310 --> 01:55:28.930
511 and then how many are white males how
many are white females and how many are

1411
01:55:28.930 --> 01:55:29.930
black males

1412
01:55:29.450 --> 01:55:35.530
correct yes sir and then then he has at
the cross the top how many of those

1413
01:55:35.530 --> 01:55:40.050
people have been employed less than one
year in the asbestos industry how many

1414
01:55:40.050 --> 01:55:45.110
from one to four point nine and how many
from five to nine point nine correct yes

1415
01:55:45.110 --> 01:55:49.270
sir now out of the 511 people that dr.

1416
01:55:49.350 --> 01:55:52.110
Dreessen was examining in his study these

1417
01:55:52.110 --> 01:55:57.370
textile plants in 1938 how many of those
people were employed less than

1418
01:55:57.370 --> 01:55:58.370
10 year

1419
01:55:58.370 --> 01:56:04.130
period of time according to the chart
according to his chart well so the chart

1420
01:56:04.130 --> 01:56:05.150
speaks for itself

1421
01:56:05.790 --> 01:56:09.750
no i i understand that mr Sheckler by
wondering if you could just tabulate those

1422
01:56:09.750 --> 01:56:10.750
figures in those

1423
01:56:11.210 --> 01:56:15.790
three columns less than one one to four
point nine and five to nine point nine

1424
01:56:15.790 --> 01:56:21.700
the totals what is the question again how

1425
01:56:21.700 --> 01:56:27.800
many dad yeah what is the question how
many of the people

1426
01:56:28.600 --> 01:56:33.480
the asbestos workers involved in Dr.
Dreesen's study were employed less than

1427
01:56:33.480 --> 01:56:35.220
10 years in the asbestos industry.

1428
01:56:38.880 --> 01:56:42.220
Approximately 400. I don't know.

1429
01:56:42.300 --> 01:56:44.540
I don't have my calculator with me.

1430
01:56:45.240 --> 01:56:50.040
So 400 out of the 511 were employed 10
years or less in the asbestos

1431
01:56:50.040 --> 01:56:57.540
textile industry. And does Dr.

1432
01:56:59.480 --> 01:57:05.080
Dreesen state, top of

1433
01:57:05.080 --> 01:57:06.720
page 48 quotes

1434
01:57:13.640 --> 01:57:18.420
correspondingly the average length of
employment in the asbestos textile
industry

1435
01:57:18.420 --> 01:57:24.140
is relatively short only 18.8 percent of
the employees have been

1436
01:57:24.140 --> 01:57:25.760
employed in the asbestos

1437
01:57:25.760 --> 01:57:31.060
textile industry more than 10 years this
close quotes does it state that there it

1438
01:57:31.060 --> 01:57:32.060
does and you

1439
01:57:31.900 --> 01:57:37.380
read that and relied on that when you
reviewed this report i read it yes sir did

1440
01:57:38.660 --> 01:57:39.660
you take that

1441
01:57:39.180 --> 01:57:43.740
into consideration when you read this
report that is that dr dreesen was saying

1442
01:57:43.740 --> 01:57:45.440
that only 18.8 percent

1443
01:57:45.440 --> 01:57:50.660
of these people had more than 10 years
experience in the asbestos textile
industry

1444
01:57:52.660 --> 01:57:58.420
i'm i'm sorry i i lost the first part of
your question yes when you read this

1445
01:57:58.420 --> 01:57:59.420
report back in

1446
01:58:00.460 --> 01:58:04.220
when you were manager of the industrial
health program for johns manville at the

1447
01:58:04.220 --> 01:58:05.220
time you read

1448
01:58:05.120 --> 01:58:10.000
i believe you indicated maybe let me
rephrase it when you read this report back
at john's

1449
01:58:10.000 --> 01:58:13.880
manva when you were manager of the
industrial health program did you take
that into consideration

1450
01:58:13.880 --> 01:58:18.900
in your appraisal of this report that is
that only 18.8 percent of the employees

1451
01:58:18.900 --> 01:58:19.900
were employed

1452
01:58:19.360 --> 01:58:24.280
more than 10 years i assume i did mr riley
because i was reading a report published

1453
01:58:24.280 --> 01:58:25.280
in 35

1454
01:58:24.980 --> 01:58:30.660
in 1960 when there was a lot of additional
information available and when you