WEBVTT

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

1
00:00:11.720 --> 00:00:17.140
Very good at answering. I have a couple
more questions on recent.

2
00:00:18.280 --> 00:00:23.160
A couple questions on ATI, probably

3
00:00:25.760 --> 00:00:33.260
about an ACGIH.

4
00:00:47.000 --> 00:00:49.780
About an hour. About an hour.

5
00:00:50.160 --> 00:00:53.320
How much do you have, sir?

6
00:00:54.440 --> 00:00:57.720
Not very much. Yeah, five minutes, eight
minutes.

7
00:00:59.300 --> 00:01:00.540
What about tomorrow morning?

8
00:01:06.320 --> 00:01:08.960
The witness looked askance at that.

9
00:01:09.900 --> 00:01:13.160
So did a lot of other people, I think.

10
00:01:14.240 --> 00:01:18.580
I'd like to take three minutes and talk to
Mr.

11
00:01:18.780 --> 00:01:20.820
Sheckler because he's got no problem
tonight.

12
00:01:23.770 --> 00:01:27.090
Can I get the last question, please? May
I, Your Honor, have that read?

13
00:01:27.610 --> 00:01:28.610
Sure.

14
00:01:28.370 --> 00:01:29.370
Thank you.

15
00:01:54.100 --> 00:01:57.880
When you read this report back, when you
were manager of the Industrial Health

16
00:01:57.880 --> 00:01:59.400
Program for Johns-Manville,

17
00:01:59.400 --> 00:02:04.180
At the time you went, I believe you
indicated, maybe, let me rephrase, when
you

18
00:02:04.180 --> 00:02:07.400
read this report back at Johns-Manville,
when you were manager of the industrial

19
00:02:07.400 --> 00:02:12.280
health program, did you take that into
consideration in your appraisal of this
report?

20
00:02:12.440 --> 00:02:17.440
That is, that only 18.8% of the employees
were employed more than 10 years.

21
00:02:17.700 --> 00:02:20.120
Thank you.

22
00:02:28.780 --> 00:02:33.160
No. Mr. Shuck, we're going to page

23
00:02:39.620 --> 00:02:41.960
90 of the recent report.

24
00:03:00.580 --> 00:03:04.640
At right below the tables, Dr.

25
00:03:04.820 --> 00:03:05.840
Lanza states that,

26
00:03:05.900 --> 00:03:09.500
quotes, the percentage of persons with
asbestosis increases greatly

27
00:03:10.040 --> 00:03:12.860
with increasing length of employment,
close quotes.

28
00:03:13.000 --> 00:03:19.540
Do you see that? And he states, Lanza...

29
00:03:19.540 --> 00:03:23.560
Excuse me. I think that there's some
confusion.

30
00:03:23.580 --> 00:03:25.980
Would you please read the question back?

31
00:03:27.880 --> 00:03:30.000
I think you said Dr. Lanza states.

32
00:03:30.920 --> 00:03:32.140
I may be wrong.

33
00:03:32.420 --> 00:03:34.280
Well, I'll rephrase it.

34
00:03:34.320 --> 00:03:35.320
You don't have to read it back.

35
00:03:35.220 --> 00:03:36.220
I'll take your word for that.

36
00:03:37.540 --> 00:03:40.100
In page 90 of Dr. Dreessen's report,

37
00:03:40.340 --> 00:03:43.080
Dr. Dreessen's report right below the
table,

38
00:03:45.510 --> 00:03:46.510
he states,

39
00:03:47.010 --> 00:03:48.010
quotes,

40
00:03:47.710 --> 00:03:51.190
the percentage of persons with asbestosis
increases greatly

41
00:03:51.190 --> 00:03:53.710
with increasing length of employment,
close quotes.

42
00:03:54.250 --> 00:03:55.250
You see that there?

43
00:03:55.270 --> 00:03:56.270
Yes, sir.

44
00:03:55.930 --> 00:03:57.270
He then states, quotes,

45
00:03:57.270 --> 00:04:01.210
quote, Alonzo McConnell and Fennell
reported a similar trend.

46
00:04:01.390 --> 00:04:03.750
Their percentage values are higher than
these.

47
00:04:04.410 --> 00:04:05.830
There are two explanations.

48
00:04:06.290 --> 00:04:07.710
Wait, let me start again.

49
00:04:08.150 --> 00:04:13.130
He also states, quote, Alonzo McConnell
and Fennell reported a similar trend.

50
00:04:13.250 --> 00:04:15.510
Their percentage values are higher than
these, close quotes.

51
00:04:15.830 --> 00:04:16.830
Do you see that?

52
00:04:16.530 --> 00:04:17.530
Yes, sir.

53
00:04:17.370 --> 00:04:19.850
Then he states, he was on to state, quote,

54
00:04:19.930 --> 00:04:25.050
there are two explanations for the small
number of persons employed 15 years or
more.

55
00:04:25.050 --> 00:04:31.010
This group of asbestos textile factories
has been in operation from 6 to

56
00:04:31.010 --> 00:04:32.010
16 years,

57
00:04:32.090 --> 00:04:36.250
and because of the relatively short life
of the industry in this section of the
country,

58
00:04:36.430 --> 00:04:41.590
comparatively few persons have been
exposed to asbestos dust for a long time.

59
00:04:42.630 --> 00:04:47.250
Another explanation is suggested by the
fact that almost three-fourths of the

60
00:04:47.250 --> 00:04:49.350
workers employed more than 15 years

61
00:04:49.350 --> 00:04:54.190
have the early stages, at least, of a
disabling disease, asbestosis.

62
00:04:54.970 --> 00:04:57.070
Since there is no satisfactory way

63
00:04:59.540 --> 00:05:03.280
locating and examining persons who drop
out of an industry

64
00:05:03.280 --> 00:05:05.940
because of disability incurred therein,

65
00:05:06.660 --> 00:05:11.240
the percentage values of the foregoing
tables are necessarily minimal estimates

66
00:05:11.240 --> 00:05:13.720
of the prevalence of asbestosis, close
quotes.

67
00:05:13.880 --> 00:05:14.880
Did I read that correctly?

68
00:05:14.800 --> 00:05:15.800
Yes, you did, sir.

69
00:05:15.720 --> 00:05:19.280
And that was part of what you read when
you read this report

70
00:05:19.280 --> 00:05:21.960
as part of your duties as manager of the
industrial health program?

71
00:05:22.280 --> 00:05:24.640
I assume I read that, yes, sir.

72
00:05:24.640 --> 00:05:30.160
and he states at the top of page 91,

73
00:05:31.200 --> 00:05:32.200
quotes,

74
00:05:32.380 --> 00:05:36.320
the incidence of asbestosis increases with
increasing dust concentration.

75
00:05:37.100 --> 00:05:38.220
Do you have that?

76
00:05:38.560 --> 00:05:39.560
Yes, sir.

77
00:05:39.220 --> 00:05:42.720
In their report of a similar study carried
on in Pennsylvania,

78
00:05:42.980 --> 00:05:44.500
asbestos textile factories,

79
00:05:44.800 --> 00:05:48.680
Fulton, Dooley, Matthews, and Haught

80
00:05:48.680 --> 00:05:51.380
found that 8% of the workers

81
00:05:51.380 --> 00:05:55.920
exposed to an average dust concentration
of 5 million particles per cubic foot

82
00:05:55.920 --> 00:05:56.920
had asbestosis.

83
00:05:57.700 --> 00:06:01.700
22% of the 17 million particle group

84
00:06:01.700 --> 00:06:05.400
and 57% of the 44 million particle group
had asbestosis.

85
00:06:05.720 --> 00:06:07.540
True? That's what he states, sir?

86
00:06:08.400 --> 00:06:10.120
That's what he states, yes, sir.

87
00:06:10.260 --> 00:06:11.260
I know.

88
00:07:04.340 --> 00:07:09.260
He goes on to state that, quotes,

89
00:07:09.880 --> 00:07:11.560
from a practical standpoint,

90
00:07:11.560 --> 00:07:15.780
point one of the most important results of
a medical and engineering study such

91
00:07:15.780 --> 00:07:19.060
as this is the definition of safe working
conditions in the industry

92
00:07:19.060 --> 00:07:24.220
under study ideally a threshold
concentration of dust should be the

93
00:07:24.220 --> 00:07:28.880
highest dust concentration that would not
produce pneumoconiosis in originally

94
00:07:28.880 --> 00:07:34.320
healthy workmen during their entire
working life the chief difficulty in

95
00:07:34.320 --> 00:07:39.240
this study as in most of the earlier
studies of the public health service is

96
00:07:39.240 --> 00:07:42.560
is that very few workmen are exposed for a
long period of time

97
00:07:42.560 --> 00:07:44.840
to low concentrations of asbestos dust.

98
00:07:45.760 --> 00:07:47.700
Because of the importance of the problem,

99
00:07:47.920 --> 00:07:51.480
it seems to be desirable to use such data
as are at hand

100
00:07:51.480 --> 00:07:55.540
to define tentative, safe working
conditions

101
00:07:55.540 --> 00:08:00.440
that may serve as standard for the
guidance of factory managers and engineers

102
00:08:01.900 --> 00:08:07.820
until more complete data

103
00:08:07.820 --> 00:08:08.820
are available.

104
00:08:08.920 --> 00:08:10.420
Do you see that there?

105
00:08:10.640 --> 00:08:11.640
I do.

106
00:08:11.220 --> 00:08:15.300
And you read that and relied on that when
you read this report

107
00:08:15.300 --> 00:08:18.840
as part of your duties as manager of the
Industrial Health Program for Johns-
Manville?

108
00:08:20.160 --> 00:08:21.160
Yes, sir.

109
00:08:21.160 --> 00:08:22.160
Okay.

110
00:08:22.400 --> 00:08:27.460
And when you saw that, did you give any
thought to what Dr.

111
00:08:27.600 --> 00:08:28.600
Dreesen meant

112
00:08:28.160 --> 00:08:30.820
by the word tentative safe working
conditions?

113
00:08:37.420 --> 00:08:38.960
I think so, yes.

114
00:08:38.960 --> 00:08:44.800
Yes, I must say this, that at the

115
00:08:47.160 --> 00:08:48.580
time I read Dreesen,

116
00:08:52.010 --> 00:08:56.670
I had to assume, and I do at this time
when I read Dreesen,

117
00:08:56.790 --> 00:09:02.170
that he took all of these variations into
consideration when he wrote his
conclusions.

118
00:09:02.870 --> 00:09:08.650
That would be the most logical thing to do
for any author.

119
00:09:08.650 --> 00:09:13.280
Two, Dreesen's

120
00:09:13.280 --> 00:09:19.040
recommendations of threshold

121
00:09:19.040 --> 00:09:25.340
limits for asbestos dust existed for 30
years after he published this paper.

122
00:09:26.180 --> 00:09:31.280
And not only I, but others certainly

123
00:09:31.280 --> 00:09:34.840
must have had the same opinions.

124
00:09:37.910 --> 00:09:44.530
moved to strike everything after yes i did
as non-responsive to the question it's
explanatory

125
00:09:44.530 --> 00:09:50.110
of his answer council i'll let it stand
now did you also note further on in page

126
00:09:50.110 --> 00:09:51.790
91 that dr dreesen

127
00:09:51.790 --> 00:09:56.250
again suggests that five minute particles
per cubic foot may be regarded

128
00:09:56.250 --> 00:09:59.570
tentatively as the

129
00:10:00.450 --> 00:10:05.430
value for asbestos dust exposure i'm sorry
sir i'm not with you now where are you

130
00:10:05.430 --> 00:10:06.430
reading second

131
00:10:05.850 --> 00:10:10.170
paragraph from the bottom in an analysis
because

132
00:10:11.700 --> 00:10:14.000
clean-cut cases yes sir all

133
00:10:14.000 --> 00:10:19.220
right yes sir because clean-cut cases of
asbestosis were found only in dust

134
00:10:19.220 --> 00:10:22.540
concentrations exceeding 5 million
particles per cubic foot and because

135
00:10:22.540 --> 00:10:26.460
they were not found at lower dust
concentrations 5 million particles per

136
00:10:26.460 --> 00:10:32.020
cubic foot may be regarded tentatively as
the dust

137
00:10:34.200 --> 00:10:38.320
threshold value for asbestos

138
00:10:38.320 --> 00:10:42.660
dust exposure until better data are
available close quotes do you see that yes
sir

139
00:10:42.660 --> 00:10:43.680
now when

140
00:10:43.680 --> 00:10:49.000
you read the dreesen study as part of your
duties as manager of the industrial health

141
00:10:49.000 --> 00:10:52.380
program for johns manville did you make
any recommendations or suggestions to

142
00:10:52.380 --> 00:10:53.380
anyone at

143
00:10:52.820 --> 00:10:58.320
johns manville that further study be done
in this particular area in light of dr

144
00:10:58.320 --> 00:10:59.320
dreesen's comments

145
00:10:59.280 --> 00:11:05.260
in his report no sir I did not when I read
Dreesen study in 19

146
00:11:05.260 --> 00:11:08.160
early 1960 the

147
00:11:08.160 --> 00:11:11.900
American Conference of governmental
industrial hygienists had already

148
00:11:11.900 --> 00:11:17.520
accepted as recommendations and carried
them through from 1938

149
00:11:17.520 --> 00:11:19.720
to 1960 with

150
00:11:19.720 --> 00:11:25.360
continuous review well isn't it your

151
00:11:27.090 --> 00:11:32.730
opinion that the five

152
00:11:34.520 --> 00:11:35.520
million particle

153
00:11:36.200 --> 00:11:40.180
standard for asbestos dust was essentially
a meaningless standard

154
00:11:40.180 --> 00:11:44.920
big and ambiguous as to time

155
00:11:44.920 --> 00:11:48.420
argumentative and without foundation

156
00:11:48.420 --> 00:11:51.760
I would try that question for the time
being in

157
00:12:07.830 --> 00:12:10.010
April 1964 when you read dr.

158
00:12:10.010 --> 00:12:14.870
Selikoff's preliminary study that
indicated a prevalence of disease among

159
00:12:14.870 --> 00:12:20.210
insulators you had the understanding that
dr.

160
00:12:20.330 --> 00:12:22.830
Selikoff's let me rephrase that

161
00:12:22.830 --> 00:12:26.850
you had the understanding that the dust
counts that were involved were below the

162
00:12:26.850 --> 00:12:29.970
five million particles is that true not

163
00:12:38.060 --> 00:12:43.440
exactly dr. Selikoff study in

164
00:12:43.440 --> 00:12:47.880
1964 to the

165
00:12:47.880 --> 00:12:51.560
to the best of my knowledge, had very
little reference to dust counts.

166
00:12:51.780 --> 00:12:57.480
Dr. Selikoff had opinions of what the dust
levels

167
00:12:57.480 --> 00:13:00.100
were in the insulating tray.

168
00:13:02.180 --> 00:13:05.600
And he indicated, well, let me rephrase
that.

169
00:13:05.660 --> 00:13:08.760
It was your understanding after reading
Dr. Selikoff's preliminary study

170
00:13:08.760 --> 00:13:13.700
that in Dr. Selikoff's opinion, the dust
counts that these insulators were working
in

171
00:13:13.700 --> 00:13:16.960
were below the five-minute particle
threshold limit value.

172
00:13:17.260 --> 00:13:18.640
Yes, sir. That's true.

173
00:13:18.640 --> 00:13:24.450
And so you were aware, after

174
00:13:24.450 --> 00:13:30.310
reading Dr. Selikoff's preliminary study,
that disease, that is

175
00:13:30.310 --> 00:13:35.310
asbestos-related lung disease, could occur
in

176
00:13:35.310 --> 00:13:40.110
atmospheres where the dust count was below
5 million particles per cubic foot of air.

177
00:13:40.250 --> 00:13:44.070
I will object to that as being
argumentative.

178
00:13:44.070 --> 00:13:47.430
You know, if you want to stick in that it
was Dr.

179
00:13:47.530 --> 00:13:49.290
Selikoff's opinion that that was true,

180
00:13:49.490 --> 00:13:53.670
I want to see how he can make that jump.

181
00:13:54.310 --> 00:14:00.250
Did you believe when you left the
symposium in

182
00:14:00.250 --> 00:14:01.250
November or December

183
00:14:01.130 --> 00:14:04.430
where these various papers were delivered,
including Dr. Selikoff's,

184
00:14:05.250 --> 00:14:11.150
that asbestos-related lung disease could
occur at dust counts below 5

185
00:14:11.150 --> 00:14:12.610
million particles per cubic foot of air?

186
00:14:20.820 --> 00:14:26.800
I became of that opinion

187
00:14:26.800 --> 00:14:31.480
as a result of the Solikov study. I don't
know precisely when,

188
00:14:31.620 --> 00:14:37.360
you know, within, I can't say that I
walked away from that

189
00:14:37.360 --> 00:14:39.080
symposium feeling that way.

190
00:14:39.780 --> 00:14:44.480
Sometime between April 1964, when you read
his preliminary studies, let's say in

191
00:14:44.480 --> 00:14:45.480
one year later,

192
00:14:45.080 --> 00:14:48.960
you were of the opinion that asbestos
disease occurred at dust counts below five
million

193
00:14:48.960 --> 00:14:54.720
particles per cubic foot of air that
became my opinion yes sir okay and

194
00:14:54.720 --> 00:14:57.080
did you govern

195
00:14:58.080 --> 00:15:02.260
your activities as manager of the
industrial health program according to
that

196
00:15:02.260 --> 00:15:03.260
opinion that is

197
00:15:03.220 --> 00:15:09.120
did you rely any longer on feeling safe
with a five million particle

198
00:15:09.120 --> 00:15:10.240
per cubic foot of air

199
00:15:10.240 --> 00:15:16.280
dust count. Do you understand what I mean
by the question?

200
00:15:16.380 --> 00:15:18.800
I understand the question perfectly, yes,
sir.

201
00:15:18.980 --> 00:15:21.920
I then

202
00:15:23.260 --> 00:15:28.820
began to question the value of a five
million

203
00:15:28.820 --> 00:15:32.700
particle per cubic foot of air dust count

204
00:15:34.060 --> 00:15:40.000
and in fact began to question the value of
particle

205
00:15:40.000 --> 00:15:44.960
counts, period. Okay, and was it then

206
00:15:44.960 --> 00:15:50.620
that at some time in 1964 1965 that you
personally began to believe that

207
00:15:50.620 --> 00:15:53.000
fiber counts would be more

208
00:15:53.000 --> 00:15:58.820
accurate than dust counts or particle
counts there was a transition period there
mr

209
00:15:58.820 --> 00:16:00.260
o'reilly when we

210
00:16:00.260 --> 00:16:05.220
were working with the united states i was
working with the united states public

211
00:16:05.220 --> 00:16:06.220
health service

212
00:16:06.080 --> 00:16:11.300
to try and develop some information in
conjunction with fiber counts

213
00:16:11.300 --> 00:16:13.740
and we attempted to get some

214
00:16:15.000 --> 00:16:20.640
some correlation between particle counts
and fiber counts okay at

215
00:16:20.640 --> 00:16:21.640
some time in

216
00:16:21.600 --> 00:16:24.760
1964-1965 in light of Dr.

217
00:16:24.860 --> 00:16:28.460
Selikoff's study did you take any steps at
Johns

218
00:16:28.460 --> 00:16:33.800
Manville to see that the dust count were

219
00:16:33.800 --> 00:16:36.880
lower than five million particles per

220
00:16:36.880 --> 00:16:38.300
cubic foot of air we

221
00:16:51.770 --> 00:16:55.270
remained with the five million particle
per cubic foot of

222
00:16:55.270 --> 00:16:57.790
air standard until approximately

223
00:17:02.240 --> 00:17:06.800
1967 or 68 when we

224
00:17:06.800 --> 00:17:12.300
developed a an entirely different

225
00:17:12.300 --> 00:17:13.480
method of

226
00:17:14.040 --> 00:17:20.000
dust collection and analysis and when you
say we do you mean Johns-Manville i i

227
00:17:20.000 --> 00:17:21.600
will say that

228
00:17:24.280 --> 00:17:29.560
That was my recommendation to the
Industrial Hygiene Laboratory.

229
00:17:30.220 --> 00:17:31.220
Of Johns-Manville?

230
00:17:31.280 --> 00:17:32.280
Yes, sir.

231
00:17:31.880 --> 00:17:37.600
And that was so that even after you had
read Selikoff's preliminary study

232
00:17:37.600 --> 00:17:40.980
and attended the symposium in November and
December 1964,

233
00:17:41.660 --> 00:17:45.720
you still recommended the 5 million
particle per cubic foot of air dust count

234
00:17:45.720 --> 00:17:47.740
as a safe working level.

235
00:17:47.740 --> 00:17:53.160
Well that, yes sir, that was my
recommendation based on ACGIH and

236
00:17:53.160 --> 00:17:55.920
again based, ACGIH had

237
00:17:55.920 --> 00:18:01.700
reviewed that standard in 1964 and
published that review

238
00:18:01.700 --> 00:18:07.260
and that and of course the state

239
00:18:07.260 --> 00:18:11.820
law in New Jersey and many other states at
that time

240
00:18:11.820 --> 00:18:16.520
was five million particles per cubic

241
00:18:16.520 --> 00:18:18.220
cubic foot of air for asbestos dust.

242
00:18:18.640 --> 00:18:24.700
Well, was it your understanding of the
state of New Jersey law at the time you
read

243
00:18:24.700 --> 00:18:29.240
Dr. Selikoff's preliminary study in 1964,
April,

244
00:18:29.400 --> 00:18:34.780
that you could not institute a program

245
00:18:34.780 --> 00:18:38.960
that had dust counts below the five
million particle per cubic foot of air
standard?

246
00:18:38.960 --> 00:18:42.680
Mr. O'Reilly, I did exactly that.

247
00:18:42.760 --> 00:18:48.760
In fact, that had been a program over a
number of years with us.

248
00:18:48.900 --> 00:18:54.480
Instead of counting just asbestos dust, we
counted

249
00:18:54.480 --> 00:19:00.300
total dust within the 5 million particles
per cubic foot

250
00:19:00.300 --> 00:19:03.340
of air range.

251
00:19:03.640 --> 00:19:07.360
That gave us a building safety factor at

252
00:19:09.250 --> 00:19:10.250
all times.

253
00:19:10.170 --> 00:19:15.970
Are you saying that sometime prior to
1964, let me rephrase that, is it your
testimony

254
00:19:15.970 --> 00:19:21.390
that sometime prior to 1964 you had
recommended that

255
00:19:21.390 --> 00:19:23.850
dust counts be maintained at levels lower

256
00:19:23.850 --> 00:19:25.910
than the 5 million particles per cubic
foot of air?

257
00:19:26.210 --> 00:19:31.510
No, but I did make the recommendation in
1960 that

258
00:19:31.510 --> 00:19:33.770
asbestos dust should not be

259
00:19:35.350 --> 00:19:41.570
separated from total dust when dust counts
were taken and the analysis should show

260
00:19:41.570 --> 00:19:47.150
the total dust count. I'm speaking now
where asbestos dust was involved.

261
00:19:47.570 --> 00:19:49.850
Well prior to 1964

262
00:19:49.850 --> 00:19:55.250
did Johns-Manville interpret the five
million particle per cubic foot of air
dust

263
00:19:55.250 --> 00:19:56.550
count such

264
00:19:56.550 --> 00:20:02.990
that Johns-Manville attempted to maintain
the working conditions or the atmospheric
conditions

265
00:20:02.990 --> 00:20:09.150
at its plants at 5 million particles per
cubic foot of air or below for total dust?

266
00:20:09.810 --> 00:20:15.590
That's where there was asbestos dust
present,

267
00:20:15.730 --> 00:20:16.730
yes, sir.

268
00:20:16.210 --> 00:20:21.210
Okay, and so the dust counts that Johns-
Manville took was total dust,

269
00:20:21.390 --> 00:20:23.290
wherever asbestos was used in the process.

270
00:20:23.550 --> 00:20:25.530
That's the way we analyzed it, yes, sir.

271
00:20:25.590 --> 00:20:26.590
Okay.

272
00:20:29.500 --> 00:20:33.160
So the way Johns-Manville did it prior to
1964

273
00:20:33.160 --> 00:20:39.000
1964, was that they would have a count of
the total dust wherein

274
00:20:39.000 --> 00:20:40.120
there was some asbestos

275
00:20:40.120 --> 00:20:45.080
in the atmosphere, and if that total dust
count was at or below 500 particles per
cubic

276
00:20:45.080 --> 00:20:46.400
foot of air, it was okay.

277
00:20:48.080 --> 00:20:49.080
That's correct.

278
00:20:49.400 --> 00:20:55.740
Now, did Johns-Manville also use fiber
counting prior to 1964?

279
00:20:55.740 --> 00:21:01.710
The fiber counting was used

280
00:21:01.710 --> 00:21:07.030
on an experimental basis during the

281
00:21:07.030 --> 00:21:09.830
time Mr. Jackson was manager

282
00:21:09.830 --> 00:21:15.310
of the industrial health program for a

283
00:21:15.310 --> 00:21:21.030
period of time, and that fiber counting

284
00:21:21.030 --> 00:21:24.730
was not done

285
00:21:24.730 --> 00:21:31.650
in accordance with what we now understand
as fiber counting it was

286
00:21:31.650 --> 00:21:36.490
strictly an experimental program it had
been done for a period of time

287
00:21:36.490 --> 00:21:40.310
but again

288
00:21:40.310 --> 00:21:45.430
not in accord with what we know now as
fiber counting well did

289
00:21:45.430 --> 00:21:47.130
did either mr.

290
00:21:47.250 --> 00:21:53.250
Jackson or dr. Smith at any time in the
50s or 60s advise you or state in your

291
00:21:53.250 --> 00:21:59.370
presence that fiber counting was a more
accurate way of determining the risk of

292
00:21:59.370 --> 00:22:05.550
injury to people working in atmosphere
that contained asbestos fibers that

293
00:22:05.550 --> 00:22:10.330
knowledge was was not available no it

294
00:22:43.130 --> 00:22:46.610
was November or December the symposium

295
00:22:46.610 --> 00:22:54.110
was December December 1964 dr.

296
00:24:25.970 --> 00:24:26.990
Dreessen but

297
00:24:46.410 --> 00:24:47.710
do you have 93 before you mr.

298
00:24:47.710 --> 00:24:51.750
shutter i do yes sir in the first full
paragraph beginning with in comparison do

299
00:24:51.750 --> 00:24:52.750
you see that

300
00:24:52.980 --> 00:24:58.030
yes sir dr dreesen states quotes in
comparison with the three kinds of dust

301
00:24:58.030 --> 00:24:59.030
encountered in

302
00:24:58.910 --> 00:25:04.670
anthracite mines relatively low
concentrations of asbestos dust and

303
00:25:04.670 --> 00:25:05.990
relatively short lengths

304
00:25:05.990 --> 00:25:11.270
of employment in the asbestos textile
industry result in pneumoconiosis close

305
00:25:11.270 --> 00:25:13.090
quotes that's what

306
00:25:13.090 --> 00:25:14.430
states there that's

307
00:25:23.200 --> 00:25:27.160
what it states yes sir and you read that i
relied on that when you read this

308
00:25:27.160 --> 00:25:33.060
report back in 60. well i assume so and
then he states the next

309
00:25:33.060 --> 00:25:34.800
paragraph beginning with quotes

310
00:25:34.800 --> 00:25:40.240
according to table 43 do you see that yes
you're skipping the next paragraph are

311
00:25:40.240 --> 00:25:41.240
you well that

312
00:25:41.000 --> 00:25:46.420
paragraph states quotes that is the
paragraph you refer to quotes there was no
free

313
00:25:46.420 --> 00:25:47.620
silica quartz

314
00:25:47.620 --> 00:25:52.500
in parentheses in the dust encountering
the asbestos textile factories close

315
00:25:52.500 --> 00:25:57.820
quotes and then he states quotes according
to table 43 16

316
00:25:57.820 --> 00:25:59.420
.3 percent of

317
00:25:59.420 --> 00:26:05.240
the 69 former asbestos workers and 378 men
and women employed at the time of

318
00:26:05.240 --> 00:26:10.580
the study in three asbestos textile
factories had asbestosis parentheses

319
00:26:10.580 --> 00:26:15.140
persons who are not exposed to appreciable
quantities of asbestos dust

320
00:26:15.140 --> 00:26:17.200
have not been included, close parentheses.

321
00:26:17.680 --> 00:26:22.120
Eight percent of the 378 workers employed
at the time of the study

322
00:26:22.120 --> 00:26:23.640
had asbestosis, close quotes.

323
00:26:23.780 --> 00:26:24.780
That's what it states there?

324
00:26:24.820 --> 00:26:25.820
It does.

325
00:26:25.540 --> 00:26:28.360
And you read this page when you read the
report back in 1960?

326
00:26:29.040 --> 00:26:30.040
Yes, sir.

327
00:26:29.920 --> 00:26:31.440
And then he states, quotes,

328
00:26:31.640 --> 00:26:35.060
this does not completely represent the
incidence of asbestosis

329
00:26:35.060 --> 00:26:40.020
because about 150 employees were
discharged from these factories

330
00:26:40.020 --> 00:26:43.620
15 months before the present study was
made, close quotes.

331
00:26:43.720 --> 00:26:44.720
Do you see that there?

332
00:26:44.480 --> 00:26:45.480
I do.

333
00:26:45.500 --> 00:26:50.600
He then states, quotes, many of the
discharged asbestos workers had
asbestosis,

334
00:26:50.600 --> 00:26:56.440
as the reports of Schull, S-H-U-L-L,
Donnelly, D

335
00:26:56.440 --> 00:27:02.200
-O-N-N-E-L-L-Y, and McPheeters, capital
M-C, capital P-H-E

336
00:27:02.200 --> 00:27:04.900
-E-T-E-R-S, show.

337
00:27:05.120 --> 00:27:06.120
You see that?

338
00:27:05.920 --> 00:27:06.920
I do.

339
00:27:06.420 --> 00:27:12.400
and he further states quotes although an
attempt was made to examine as many as

340
00:27:12.400 --> 00:27:18.460
possible of these discharge cases only 69
could be examined 43 persons of whom

341
00:27:18.460 --> 00:27:23.600
had asbestosis according to the diagnostic
standards employed in this

342
00:27:23.600 --> 00:27:29.400
study close quotes you see that I do and
you read that when you read

343
00:27:30.870 --> 00:27:31.870
this report

344
00:27:31.390 --> 00:27:34.610
back in 1960? I assume I did, yes sir.

345
00:27:34.990 --> 00:27:38.100
On page

346
00:27:46.160 --> 00:27:47.840
94, under

347
00:27:52.350 --> 00:27:53.350
the caption entitled

348
00:27:53.190 --> 00:27:56.290
incidents of asbestosis in different
occupations.

349
00:27:56.470 --> 00:27:58.650
See that? I do, yes sir.

350
00:27:58.950 --> 00:28:03.840
Quotes, the percentage of persons affected
by asbestosis varies in

351
00:28:03.840 --> 00:28:07.560
different occupations. The numbers of
persons employed in many of the

352
00:28:07.560 --> 00:28:11.860
occupational groups are so small that
caution must be exercised in making

353
00:28:11.860 --> 00:28:15.760
comparisons, but the data seemed to be of
sufficient interest to warrant

354
00:28:15.760 --> 00:28:21.400
publication classified by departments the
preparation department as the

355
00:28:21.400 --> 00:28:27.300
highest percentage percent

356
00:28:27.300 --> 00:28:30.240
the preparation department is the highest

357
00:28:30.240 --> 00:28:36.260
percentage of asbestosis asbestotic
persons carding is the principal

358
00:28:36.260 --> 00:28:42.380
occupation in this department although
only eight of the 72 Carter's had been

359
00:28:42.380 --> 00:28:47.580
employed more than ten years twenty nine
point two percent had asbestosis eleven

360
00:28:47.580 --> 00:28:49.980
11 carters had advanced asbestosis.

361
00:28:50.220 --> 00:28:54.240
No other occupational group had so large a
proportion of advanced cases.

362
00:28:54.600 --> 00:28:55.600
Close quotes.

363
00:28:55.440 --> 00:28:56.440
Did I read that correctly?

364
00:28:56.680 --> 00:28:57.680
Yes, sir.

365
00:28:57.460 --> 00:29:02.020
And you read and relied on that when you
read this study back in 1960?

366
00:29:02.260 --> 00:29:03.260
Yes, sir.

367
00:29:32.600 --> 00:29:36.360
Would you go down to table 46, which is on
page 94?

368
00:29:36.680 --> 00:29:37.680
It's entitled,

369
00:29:38.360 --> 00:29:41.180
Number and Percentage of Workers Having
Asbestosis,

370
00:29:41.400 --> 00:29:43.940
Classified According to Department and
Occupation.

371
00:29:44.340 --> 00:29:45.340
You see that?

372
00:29:45.420 --> 00:29:46.420
I do, yes, sir.

373
00:29:46.260 --> 00:29:48.820
And it is on the left-hand side,
Department and Occupation?

374
00:29:49.720 --> 00:29:50.720
Yes, sir.

375
00:29:55.240 --> 00:29:59.800
And then you go down to Superintendents
and Utility.

376
00:29:59.820 --> 00:30:00.820
Do you see that?

377
00:30:00.700 --> 00:30:01.700
I do.

378
00:30:01.480 --> 00:30:07.300
You go over to Number Employed, Number of
Superintendents and Utility

379
00:30:07.300 --> 00:30:08.300
People Employed?

380
00:30:08.840 --> 00:30:09.840
Yes, sir.

381
00:30:09.520 --> 00:30:11.260
And what does it say there? How many were
employed?

382
00:30:11.500 --> 00:30:12.500
Twenty-nine.

383
00:30:12.240 --> 00:30:14.400
Twenty-nine that were included in the
study?

384
00:30:16.200 --> 00:30:17.640
That's what it says, yes, sir.

385
00:30:17.840 --> 00:30:22.620
And how many had, what was the percent
with asbestosis?

386
00:30:23.600 --> 00:30:24.760
three. Did

387
00:30:33.750 --> 00:30:37.310
you read that when you read this report
back in 1960?

388
00:30:38.230 --> 00:30:39.730
I assume I did. The tables.

389
00:30:39.950 --> 00:30:45.950
Okay. Now, he also states that the next

390
00:30:49.500 --> 00:30:52.520
paragraph quotes, in the spinning,
twisting, and winding

391
00:30:52.520 --> 00:30:58.140
department, the mule and ring spinners
have a higher proportion of asbestotic

392
00:30:58.140 --> 00:30:59.140
persons than the

393
00:30:59.100 --> 00:31:05.100
average, 24.6 percent. Twenty of the 65
male and ring spinners have been

394
00:31:05.100 --> 00:31:06.100
employed more than 10

395
00:31:06.040 --> 00:31:11.760
years close close 70 65 mule that is mule

396
00:31:11.760 --> 00:31:16.980
and ring spinners what did i call them
male oh i'm sorry

397
00:31:16.980 --> 00:31:21.880
okay thank you quotes 20 of the 65 mule
and ring spinners have been employed more

398
00:31:21.880 --> 00:31:22.880
than 10 years

399
00:31:22.500 --> 00:31:27.960
close quotes true yes and he then states
quotes a third occupation with an excess

400
00:31:27.960 --> 00:31:29.140
extensive or

401
00:31:29.140 --> 00:31:33.900
is that excessive excessive quotes a third
occupation with an excessive prevalence
rate

402
00:31:33.900 --> 00:31:39.000
for asbestosis is cloth weaving in which
25.6 percent of the workers are affected

403
00:31:39.000 --> 00:31:40.000
did i have

404
00:31:39.500 --> 00:31:44.740
the right percentage yes sir only three of
the 43 workers have been employed more

405
00:31:44.740 --> 00:31:45.740
than 10 years

406
00:31:45.420 --> 00:31:49.780
close quotes you read and considered that
back in 1960 when you read this report i

407
00:31:49.780 --> 00:31:50.840
assume i did yes

408
00:31:50.840 --> 00:31:56.760
sir now on page 95 at the top your honor
i'm going to

409
00:31:56.760 --> 00:32:00.980
object at this point when i asked for a

410
00:32:00.980 --> 00:32:06.020
representation from mr. O'Reilly sometime
back he said either and I could

411
00:32:06.020 --> 00:32:11.940
I'll say both so I don't miss quote over a
question Andresa well earlier

412
00:32:11.940 --> 00:32:12.940
you said

413
00:32:12.540 --> 00:32:16.820
two and that was a half hour ago I got one
more

414
00:32:16.820 --> 00:32:21.560
there aren't any questions the

415
00:32:21.560 --> 00:32:27.060
questions have been am i reading it
accurately and did you read it

416
00:32:31.160 --> 00:32:36.620
attempting to show the store of knowledge
that this witness has and the

417
00:32:36.620 --> 00:32:40.960
way he's showing it is by quotations from
the work which reportedly this

418
00:32:40.960 --> 00:32:45.420
witness examined. I understand that, Your
Honor, but if it's foundational and we're

419
00:32:45.420 --> 00:32:48.600
going somewhere, fine, it would have a
purpose, but I don't...

420
00:32:48.600 --> 00:32:50.120
it's about a

421
00:32:50.120 --> 00:32:54.200
hundred, if I remember correctly, a
hundred and twenty-six page report. Well,
I gather

422
00:32:54.200 --> 00:32:58.180
Now, the counsel says he has, what, one or
two more questions?

423
00:32:58.260 --> 00:32:59.260
One more question, sir.

424
00:32:59.180 --> 00:33:00.180
One more question.

425
00:33:01.020 --> 00:33:02.020
Go ahead, counsel.

426
00:33:02.060 --> 00:33:03.060
Thank you.

427
00:33:03.800 --> 00:33:08.360
Now, on top of page 95, under caption,

428
00:33:10.010 --> 00:33:12.650
Asbestosis in Great Britain and in the
United States.

429
00:33:12.770 --> 00:33:14.030
Do you have that, Mr. Chairman?

430
00:33:14.030 --> 00:33:15.030
I do, yes, sir.

431
00:33:14.830 --> 00:33:15.970
He states, quote,

432
00:33:16.750 --> 00:33:19.210
Lanza has called attention to a point of
interest,

433
00:33:19.410 --> 00:33:24.810
mainly that British investigators have
found asbestosis more severe and menacing

434
00:33:24.810 --> 00:33:27.470
than it was in the United States.

435
00:33:27.910 --> 00:33:32.650
He adds that this difference is probably
more apparent than real.

436
00:33:33.490 --> 00:33:36.390
Lynch and Smith have reported three fatal
cases

437
00:33:36.390 --> 00:33:39.110
whose duration of employment in asbestos
textile mills

438
00:33:39.430 --> 00:33:43.570
was 11 1⁄2, 17, and 21 years in
occupations

439
00:33:43.570 --> 00:33:46.430
having dust exposures of the order of dry
weaving.

440
00:33:47.250 --> 00:33:50.710
Stock reported a fatal case in a man 27
years of age

441
00:33:50.710 --> 00:33:53.350
who worked eight years as a carter in an
asbestos plant.

442
00:33:54.170 --> 00:33:59.350
Egbert has also given complete findings of
similar case in a man 30 years of age

443
00:33:59.350 --> 00:34:04.330
who had worked 13 years as a carter and
who died four years after onset of
symptoms

444
00:34:04.330 --> 00:34:07.410
and three and a half years after
discontinuing work."

445
00:34:08.490 --> 00:34:10.230
Next paragraph, quote,

446
00:34:10.390 --> 00:34:13.650
These examples of American fatalities,
some in young individuals,

447
00:34:13.870 --> 00:34:19.330
suggest that the period of dust exposure
before disability or death ensues

448
00:34:19.330 --> 00:34:23.530
is as short as in the case in silicosis,
close quotes.

449
00:34:23.650 --> 00:34:24.650
Did I read that correctly?

450
00:34:25.130 --> 00:34:28.870
Is as short as in the case of silicosis,
sir.

451
00:34:28.870 --> 00:34:31.790
Is as short as in the case of silicosis,
close quotes.

452
00:34:32.010 --> 00:34:33.010
Yes, sir.

453
00:34:32.330 --> 00:34:34.990
And you read and relied on that back in
1960 when you read this report.

454
00:34:35.310 --> 00:34:36.310
Yes, sir.

455
00:35:07.180 --> 00:35:10.440
Now, when you read the report back in
1960,

456
00:35:11.900 --> 00:35:16.240
did you read also or did you refer to the
bibliography

457
00:35:16.240 --> 00:35:19.880
at the end of the report that summarized

458
00:35:20.520 --> 00:35:24.080
a number of medical articles on asbestosis

459
00:35:24.080 --> 00:35:27.000
that have been published to the date of
this report?

460
00:35:30.660 --> 00:35:31.780
I do

461
00:35:39.140 --> 00:35:40.140
not think so.

462
00:35:40.360 --> 00:35:43.860
Do you have the bibliography attached to
your copy of the report, Mr.

463
00:35:43.920 --> 00:35:44.920
Shepard?

464
00:35:44.820 --> 00:35:49.180
It begins on page about 118, annotated
bibliography.

465
00:35:49.540 --> 00:35:54.120
First you have engineering reports, and
then medical reports.

466
00:35:54.300 --> 00:35:55.300
Yes, sir.

467
00:35:54.680 --> 00:36:00.680
your answer stands yes

468
00:36:00.680 --> 00:36:05.720
sir you did not uh read or refer to the
bibliography containing all the

469
00:36:05.720 --> 00:36:10.260
medical articles and the summaries to the
best of my knowledge i did not

470
00:36:10.260 --> 00:36:12.020
necessarily read the

471
00:36:12.020 --> 00:36:17.220
bibliography in 1960. did you ever refer
to or read the bibliography that was

472
00:36:17.220 --> 00:36:18.220
attached to the

473
00:36:17.760 --> 00:36:22.720
recent report i'm particularly talking
about the medical bibliography the medical
articles

474
00:36:22.720 --> 00:36:26.800
on asbestosis i don't think so no sir okay
are

475
00:36:31.240 --> 00:36:33.920
are we finished with this now do

476
00:36:58.600 --> 00:36:59.600
you have before

477
00:36:59.200 --> 00:37:04.580
you exhibit number the Fleischer-Drinker
report i believe it's exhibit number

478
00:37:07.220 --> 00:37:11.630
c c entitled

479
00:37:14.900 --> 00:37:18.060
the health survey of pipe covering
operations and constructing naval vessels

480
00:37:18.060 --> 00:37:22.400
i have it yes sir can you tell us
approximately what it was that you read
the

481
00:37:22.400 --> 00:37:23.400
Fleischer-Drinker

482
00:37:23.140 --> 00:37:28.420
report as part and parcel of your duties
as uh manager of the industrial health

483
00:37:28.420 --> 00:37:29.420
program for

484
00:37:28.880 --> 00:37:33.960
johns manville it would be in and about
the same time that i read the other
reports sir

485
00:37:33.960 --> 00:37:39.620
sometime after i went into new york city
in 1959 60.

486
00:37:40.620 --> 00:37:42.960
and when you read the Dreessen report did
you

487
00:37:42.960 --> 00:37:48.900
read the first paragraph that states well
i'm sorry thank you when you read the

488
00:37:48.900 --> 00:37:49.900
Fleischer-Drinker

489
00:37:49.580 --> 00:37:54.300
report did you read the first paragraph
which states an industrial health

490
00:37:54.300 --> 00:37:55.300
inspection of an

491
00:37:55.160 --> 00:37:59.100
important u.s navy contract yard

492
00:37:59.100 --> 00:38:03.700
indicated that dustiness from
miscellaneous pipe covering

493
00:38:03.700 --> 00:38:08.560
operations was considerable and that a few
of the employees had what appeared to be
asbestosis

494
00:38:09.280 --> 00:38:14.340
this is a well-known industrial disease
caused by only one thing dash prolonged

495
00:38:14.340 --> 00:38:15.340
breathing of

496
00:38:15.020 --> 00:38:19.520
asbestos dust the clinical manifestations
are shortness of breath and an unusual

497
00:38:19.520 --> 00:38:20.520
chest picture

498
00:38:20.220 --> 00:38:25.560
by x-ray in industry the disease is often
disabling but it is much less frequent
than

499
00:38:25.560 --> 00:38:31.000
silicosis with which it is very properly
with which it very properly is

500
00:38:31.000 --> 00:38:32.320
classed close quotes

501
00:38:32.320 --> 00:38:39.080
you read that yes sir i assume i wrote
that and did you note when you read the

502
00:38:39.080 --> 00:38:44.720
The Fleischer-Drinker report that on page
10, the authors of the report

503
00:38:44.720 --> 00:38:48.240
classified the

504
00:38:48.240 --> 00:38:53.540
operations they saw at the shipyard that
they considered part of pipe covering
operations.

505
00:38:55.420 --> 00:38:59.080
It would be under caption number one,
description of operations and working

506
00:38:59.080 --> 00:39:00.880
environment about

507
00:39:01.580 --> 00:39:04.320
right down near the bottom where he's got
them numbered one through seven.

508
00:39:04.520 --> 00:39:05.520
I have it.

509
00:39:05.240 --> 00:39:06.240
Yes, sir.

510
00:39:05.580 --> 00:39:10.560
And what the authors did is they stated,

511
00:39:10.740 --> 00:39:14.500
quotes, pipe covering may be divided into
seven different operations as follows.

512
00:39:15.240 --> 00:39:17.380
One, laying out and cutting.

513
00:39:17.540 --> 00:39:18.980
Two, bandsaw cutting.

514
00:39:19.140 --> 00:39:22.600
Three, sewing and preparation of boots and
jackets.

515
00:39:23.260 --> 00:39:26.980
Four, cement mixing.

516
00:39:27.160 --> 00:39:28.520
Five, molding.

517
00:39:28.560 --> 00:39:29.600
Six, grinding.

518
00:39:30.080 --> 00:39:32.180
Seven, installation on board ship.

519
00:39:32.660 --> 00:39:33.660
Close quotes.

520
00:39:34.080 --> 00:39:35.080
Installation, sir.

521
00:39:35.080 --> 00:39:36.700
Yes, sir. Installation on board ship.

522
00:39:36.800 --> 00:39:37.800
Close quotes.

523
00:39:37.480 --> 00:39:41.860
you read and saw that when you read this
report back around 1960 yes sir and

524
00:39:44.130 --> 00:39:45.130
when you read this

525
00:39:44.650 --> 00:39:49.470
report back in 1960 did you recall that

526
00:39:49.470 --> 00:39:54.510
you saw dust being created when your
construction people

527
00:39:54.510 --> 00:40:00.470
in 46 to 52 cut or saw pipe covering and
block i was aware

528
00:40:00.470 --> 00:40:03.070
of that fact and the same thing with

529
00:40:03.070 --> 00:40:07.550
respect to cement mixing you were aware of
that but you also observed that back in

530
00:40:07.550 --> 00:40:08.550
46 i was aware

531
00:40:08.210 --> 00:40:09.310
I'm aware of that fact, yes, sir.

532
00:40:10.450 --> 00:40:12.550
And when you read the Fleischer Drinker
report,

533
00:40:13.310 --> 00:40:18.870
did you note that the report did not refer
to or address rip-out or tear-out

534
00:40:18.870 --> 00:40:20.130
operations aboard ship?

535
00:40:20.470 --> 00:40:22.790
I did notice that, yes, sir.

536
00:40:23.590 --> 00:40:28.570
And you recalled from your time
supervising construction, 46 to 52,

537
00:40:28.890 --> 00:40:33.210
that visible dust was created during rip-
out or tear-out operations, true?

538
00:40:34.170 --> 00:40:35.170
Yes, sir.

539
00:40:34.890 --> 00:40:39.850
I assume the report did not carry that
particular phase of the work, because
that's

540
00:40:39.850 --> 00:40:41.370
a very periodic

541
00:40:41.370 --> 00:40:45.630
type of thing and probably not being done
at the time of the survey.

542
00:40:46.010 --> 00:40:47.010
Okay.

543
00:40:47.230 --> 00:40:49.630
Move to strike is now in response to
everything after no.

544
00:40:49.810 --> 00:40:50.810
It is.

545
00:40:58.300 --> 00:41:00.540
You don't have an answer then, Counsel?

546
00:41:03.340 --> 00:41:06.180
He actually started his answer with yes,
sir.

547
00:41:06.220 --> 00:41:07.560
I think I'd say, yes, I did notice it.

548
00:41:07.740 --> 00:41:08.740
Period.

549
00:41:08.380 --> 00:41:09.380
Well, may that stand.

550
00:41:09.380 --> 00:41:10.380
Yes, sir.

551
00:41:09.660 --> 00:41:11.160
thank you mr

552
00:41:20.050 --> 00:41:25.690
sheckler going to page 15 of the fleischer
drinker report

553
00:41:25.690 --> 00:41:27.310
which to everybody's

554
00:41:27.310 --> 00:41:32.350
merriment is the last page did you notice

555
00:41:32.350 --> 00:41:38.120
in table four i'm sorry did you

556
00:41:38.120 --> 00:41:39.460
notice in table five

557
00:41:41.040 --> 00:41:43.480
that of the 1

558
00:41:48.660 --> 00:41:53.000
,074 people who were X-rayed, 51

559
00:41:54.570 --> 00:41:57.830
had 10 or more years exposure.

560
00:42:25.690 --> 00:42:26.690
Yes, sir.

561
00:42:27.330 --> 00:42:30.290
And when you read this report back in
1960,

562
00:42:30.410 --> 00:42:35.810
did you note that the three cases of
asbestosis that were found

563
00:42:35.810 --> 00:42:37.850
by the authors of this report

564
00:42:37.850 --> 00:42:42.250
all occurred in those workers who had

565
00:42:42.250 --> 00:42:45.950
ten or more years in the pipe covering
industry.

566
00:42:54.380 --> 00:42:59.860
Well, that's not, no, sir, that's not what
the conclusions read.

567
00:43:01.580 --> 00:43:05.840
The conclusions read, sir, since each of
the three cases of asbestosis

568
00:43:05.840 --> 00:43:10.220
had worked with asbestos pipe covering in
the shipyards for more than 20 years,

569
00:43:10.220 --> 00:43:15.200
it may be concluded that such pipe
covering is not a dangerous occupation.

570
00:43:15.940 --> 00:43:21.580
It's on page number 16, item 4, under
conclusions.

571
00:43:22.180 --> 00:43:23.620
I know what's there, Mr. Sheckler.

572
00:43:23.680 --> 00:43:25.780
Going back to page 15, table 5.

573
00:43:27.100 --> 00:43:30.300
Excuse me, sir, but wasn't that not your
question?

574
00:43:30.820 --> 00:43:32.540
Well, I don't think so.

575
00:43:32.580 --> 00:43:34.600
I was talking about table 5, but that's
all right.

576
00:43:36.580 --> 00:43:38.160
Going back to table 5.

577
00:43:39.840 --> 00:43:45.380
table five breaks down the employee the
number of employees in each of the four

578
00:43:45.380 --> 00:43:46.540
shipyards into

579
00:43:46.540 --> 00:43:52.380
their years and pipe covering industry
correct it does yes sir and the first
column

580
00:43:52.380 --> 00:43:53.560
is zero to

581
00:43:53.560 --> 00:43:58.720
two years yes sir second column two to
five years that's correct third column
five

582
00:43:58.720 --> 00:43:59.720
to ten years

583
00:43:59.360 --> 00:44:04.000
correct fourth column ten or more years
that's correct and the three cases of

584
00:44:04.000 --> 00:44:05.360
asbestosis occurred

585
00:44:05.360 --> 00:44:07.800
occurred in the column ten or more years.

586
00:44:08.020 --> 00:44:09.020
True?

587
00:44:08.620 --> 00:44:09.640
That is correct.

588
00:44:09.800 --> 00:44:10.800
Yes, sir.

589
00:44:10.300 --> 00:44:15.980
And they found no disease manifesting
itself in any of the pipe

590
00:44:15.980 --> 00:44:18.840
coverers that had not spent

591
00:44:18.840 --> 00:44:20.900
ten or more years in the pipe covering
industry.

592
00:44:21.080 --> 00:44:22.080
True?

593
00:44:28.480 --> 00:44:29.580
I'm sorry.

594
00:44:29.800 --> 00:44:30.800
I'll rephrase the question.

595
00:44:31.100 --> 00:44:36.460
The table discloses that the authors found
no incidence of a specialist-related lung

596
00:44:36.460 --> 00:44:41.580
disease in any of the people who were not
employed ten or more years in the pipe
covering

597
00:44:41.580 --> 00:44:47.160
industry true that is correct yes sir now
when you read that particular table

598
00:44:47.160 --> 00:44:53.020
back in 1960 did you think that you would
not expect to find any because of

599
00:44:53.020 --> 00:44:55.340
the latency period of 10 years I

600
00:45:02.890 --> 00:45:07.730
would I would have relied on the report
because

601
00:45:07.730 --> 00:45:13.570
the latency period is there's a number of
people of 10 plus years

602
00:45:13.570 --> 00:45:14.570
on this

603
00:45:14.070 --> 00:45:18.650
report who were found not to have disease.

604
00:45:20.010 --> 00:45:24.430
This is in the table itself. He found
three

605
00:45:24.430 --> 00:45:28.110
three people who had exposure over 20
years.

606
00:45:29.690 --> 00:45:33.910
There were 3, 25,

607
00:45:35.110 --> 00:45:40.550
35, 42, 48

608
00:45:40.550 --> 00:45:48.050
people, 51 people,

609
00:45:51.880 --> 00:45:53.140
not 48.

610
00:45:53.140 --> 00:45:54.800
No, three out of fifty-one.

611
00:45:54.840 --> 00:46:00.120
There were three out of fifty-one people
who had over ten years of exposure,

612
00:46:00.380 --> 00:46:02.920
and three

613
00:46:02.920 --> 00:46:06.520
out of that fifty-one had disease, so that
left forty-eight

614
00:46:06.520 --> 00:46:10.780
people who had no disease

615
00:46:11.280 --> 00:46:15.680
but had over ten years of exposure,
according to his table.

616
00:46:15.900 --> 00:46:16.900
Right.

617
00:46:16.240 --> 00:46:21.740
Well, are you saying, Mr. Sheckler, that
an

618
00:46:21.740 --> 00:46:27.720
incidence of disease of 3 out of 51, or
approximately 6%,

619
00:46:27.720 --> 00:46:31.680
indicates to you that there's no hazard in
that particular group of people?

620
00:46:31.920 --> 00:46:33.520
Well, just a second.

621
00:46:35.220 --> 00:46:37.920
I'll object on grounds that it's
argumentative.

622
00:46:37.920 --> 00:46:40.800
I'll also object on grounds that there's
no foundation.

623
00:46:40.800 --> 00:46:42.740
Okay. I'll rephrase the question.

624
00:46:42.740 --> 00:46:47.780
as an occupational health consultant is an
incidence of disease

625
00:46:47.780 --> 00:46:50.080
of three out of

626
00:46:50.080 --> 00:46:56.040
51 an acceptable level of disease three
out

627
00:46:56.040 --> 00:46:58.500
of 51 in my opinion

628
00:47:00.020 --> 00:47:05.600
are you speaking now of this table sir or
are you speaking

629
00:47:05.600 --> 00:47:08.580
of generalities I'm

630
00:47:08.580 --> 00:47:13.440
speaking of generalities and as an
occupational health consultant would you

631
00:47:13.440 --> 00:47:19.140
consider an incidence of disease that had
a disease occurring in three out of

632
00:47:19.140 --> 00:47:24.580
every 51 people in a particular occupation
as an acceptable level of

633
00:47:24.580 --> 00:47:29.140
disease indicating it's a safe occupation
mr. O'Reilly I wait a minute

634
00:47:29.140 --> 00:47:33.410
wait a minute can I have the question back

635
00:47:33.410 --> 00:47:38.050
it had a little phrase at the end

636
00:47:38.050 --> 00:47:44.010
of it changed my objection it's a safe
occupation I understand

637
00:47:44.010 --> 00:47:45.010
that that's why

638
00:47:44.810 --> 00:47:49.290
i wanted to hear it i'm speaking in
generalities as an occupational health

639
00:47:49.290 --> 00:47:50.350
consultant would you

640
00:47:50.350 --> 00:47:55.410
consider an incidence of disease that had
a disease occurring in three out of every
51

641
00:47:55.410 --> 00:48:01.270
people in a particular occupation as an
acceptable level of disease indicating
it's

642
00:48:01.270 --> 00:48:02.270
a safe occupation

643
00:48:04.980 --> 00:48:10.320
i'm going to object on foundational
grounds i don't know at this point and
it's

644
00:48:10.320 --> 00:48:11.320
vague and

645
00:48:10.680 --> 00:48:16.260
ambiguous and uncertain we've had no
definition that or understanding in this

646
00:48:16.260 --> 00:48:17.260
record that there

647
00:48:17.120 --> 00:48:20.660
is any any level of acceptable disease

648
00:48:20.660 --> 00:48:26.380
constituting quote safe occupation unquote
i

649
00:48:26.380 --> 00:48:27.380
don't know what

650
00:48:26.960 --> 00:48:31.780
all that means and the witness hasn't
testified that he knows what all that
means

651
00:48:31.780 --> 00:48:32.780
if there is some

652
00:48:33.640 --> 00:48:39.400
acceptability and safety uh not
necessarily two terms which uh

653
00:48:39.400 --> 00:48:40.400
synonymous counsel

654
00:48:40.380 --> 00:48:46.000
you interpreted the fleischer drinker

655
00:48:46.000 --> 00:48:50.520
report as the authors stating that the
incidence of

656
00:48:50.520 --> 00:48:56.300
disease of three cases of asbestosis out
of 1057 indicated

657
00:48:56.300 --> 00:48:58.240
that it was a relatively safe

658
00:48:58.240 --> 00:49:05.740
occupation true I accepted that conclusion
of the author yes sir I'm

659
00:49:08.360 --> 00:49:12.180
sorry let me ask the question again I use
the wrong number thousand seventy

660
00:49:12.180 --> 00:49:17.420
fifty seven okay three cases out of

661
00:49:17.420 --> 00:49:23.020
1074 yes sir yes sir

662
00:49:23.020 --> 00:49:24.100
oh

663
00:49:28.740 --> 00:49:29.800
so you interpreted

664
00:49:29.800 --> 00:49:35.240
of the fleischer drinker report as the
authors stating that three cases of

665
00:49:35.240 --> 00:49:37.480
asbestosis out of 1074

666
00:49:38.200 --> 00:49:44.520
people indicated that pipe covering was a
relatively safe occupation true i accepted

667
00:49:44.520 --> 00:49:50.340
his conclusion yes sir now as an
occupational health consultant if the

668
00:49:50.340 --> 00:49:51.540
group of pipe covers

669
00:49:51.540 --> 00:49:57.380
was 51 and there were three cases of
asbestosis out of 51 people

670
00:49:57.380 --> 00:49:58.800
with 10 or more years exposure

671
00:49:58.800 --> 00:50:03.660
exposure, would you consider, as an
occupational health consultant, that to be
a relatively

672
00:50:03.660 --> 00:50:04.740
safe occupation?

673
00:50:05.660 --> 00:50:06.660
MR.

674
00:50:07.060 --> 00:50:12.260
Are you assuming, you know, asking him to
assume that hypothetical posed to him

675
00:50:12.260 --> 00:50:13.260
today?

676
00:50:12.860 --> 00:50:13.860
MR.

677
00:50:13.000 --> 00:50:14.000
Yes.

678
00:50:13.240 --> 00:50:14.240
MR.

679
00:50:13.500 --> 00:50:14.500
1981?

680
00:50:14.220 --> 00:50:15.220
MR.

681
00:50:14.300 --> 00:50:15.300
Yes.

682
00:50:14.560 --> 00:50:15.560
MR.

683
00:50:14.920 --> 00:50:15.920
Strike that, 1982.

684
00:50:16.420 --> 00:50:17.420
MR.

685
00:50:16.960 --> 00:50:20.060
Do you understand my question, Mr.

686
00:50:20.100 --> 00:50:21.100
Secretary?

687
00:50:20.440 --> 00:50:21.440
Yes, I do.

688
00:50:21.180 --> 00:50:22.500
Am I to answer?

689
00:50:22.660 --> 00:50:23.660
MR.

690
00:50:23.080 --> 00:50:24.080
Yes.

691
00:50:23.420 --> 00:50:29.400
I would be reluctant to provide

692
00:50:29.400 --> 00:50:31.520
you an answer, Mr. O'Reilly.

693
00:50:31.580 --> 00:50:35.160
I'm not an epidemiologist, nor am I a
biostatistician,

694
00:50:35.160 --> 00:50:41.160
and I think this is an area of very
specific expertise,

695
00:50:42.040 --> 00:50:48.360
especially in conjunction with what is an
acceptable level of disease.

696
00:50:48.500 --> 00:50:50.900
And I would be very reluctant to answer
that.

697
00:50:50.900 --> 00:50:55.100
But I think that's completely out of my
line.

698
00:50:55.900 --> 00:50:58.740
As an occupational health consultant,

699
00:50:58.960 --> 00:51:03.160
are you concerned with the incidence of
disease in occupational groups?

700
00:51:04.360 --> 00:51:05.360
Yes, sir.

701
00:51:05.540 --> 00:51:09.000
And are you concerned, let me rephrase
that,

702
00:51:09.720 --> 00:51:15.460
in your view, does the percentage of
diseased people in a given occupational
group

703
00:51:15.460 --> 00:51:19.040
have anything to do with your opinion as
to whether or not it's a safe occupation?

704
00:51:19.040 --> 00:51:22.120
patient. Can I have that back? Yes, sir.

705
00:51:22.560 --> 00:51:28.440
And are you

706
00:51:28.440 --> 00:51:29.740
concerned, let me rephrase that,

707
00:51:29.800 --> 00:51:34.800
in your view, does the percentage of
deceased people in a given occupational
group have

708
00:51:34.800 --> 00:51:38.860
anything to do with your opinion as to
whether or not it's a safe occupation?

709
00:51:44.680 --> 00:51:45.680
I apologize.

710
00:51:45.660 --> 00:51:49.060
I didn't get it any better the second time
than I did the first. One again, please.

711
00:51:49.720 --> 00:51:50.720
Yes,

712
00:51:50.160 --> 00:51:51.160
sir. In

713
00:51:58.940 --> 00:52:04.340
your view, does the percentage of deceased
people in a given occupational group

714
00:52:04.340 --> 00:52:06.320
have anything to do with your opinion

715
00:52:06.320 --> 00:52:08.800
and whether or not it's a safe
application?

716
00:52:13.800 --> 00:52:15.660
Your Honor, I would object on grounds

717
00:52:15.660 --> 00:52:17.880
that it calls for an opinion without
foundation.

718
00:52:17.920 --> 00:52:20.700
There's actually two opinions of the
witness

719
00:52:21.380 --> 00:52:22.920
framed within the question.

720
00:52:24.860 --> 00:52:27.840
One is characterized as a view, the other
is an opinion,

721
00:52:28.040 --> 00:52:29.720
and I will object on foundation,

722
00:52:29.960 --> 00:52:32.260
particularly in view of his preceding
answer

723
00:52:33.860 --> 00:52:36.000
about his area of expertise.

724
00:52:36.000 --> 00:52:42.000
teased i i think he's already disqualified
himself from having he

725
00:52:42.000 --> 00:52:44.640
can have a view but i don't think

726
00:52:44.640 --> 00:52:50.020
it's a relevant view based upon his own
testimony he

727
00:52:54.530 --> 00:52:56.470
testified as an occupational health
consultant

728
00:52:56.830 --> 00:53:01.670
well yeah and you've given that some
characterization that the witness hasn't

729
00:53:02.570 --> 00:53:08.870
maybe if you would define how you want him
to think of himself in that regard

730
00:53:12.270 --> 00:53:18.230
I mean, counsel seems to think that that
makes him a biostatistician or something

731
00:53:18.230 --> 00:53:19.270
else that

732
00:53:19.270 --> 00:53:20.270
he's already said he's not.

733
00:53:21.830 --> 00:53:26.790
I gather, counsel, you wish to inquire
whether he believes

734
00:53:26.790 --> 00:53:28.010
he

735
00:53:32.300 --> 00:53:34.680
has to make a conclusion or

736
00:53:34.680 --> 00:53:40.680
come to a conclusion as to safety as part
of

737
00:53:40.680 --> 00:53:44.020
or within the parameter of his duties as

738
00:53:44.020 --> 00:53:45.020
a consultant.

739
00:53:44.720 --> 00:53:45.720
Right.

740
00:53:45.120 --> 00:53:46.120
Is that what you're trying to say?

741
00:53:46.240 --> 00:53:50.260
Some conclusion as to occupational health
in his capacity as an occupational health

742
00:53:50.260 --> 00:53:51.260
consultant.

743
00:53:51.020 --> 00:53:52.020
Yeah.

744
00:53:53.460 --> 00:53:54.460
Well, yeah.

745
00:53:54.400 --> 00:53:56.460
Is that, uh, do you understand that,
Counsel?

746
00:53:56.700 --> 00:53:58.840
I, sort of, and sort of not.

747
00:53:59.000 --> 00:54:05.040
I, I don't see, you know, if, if, if I, I
did hear what Mr.

748
00:54:05.360 --> 00:54:07.840
Sheckler does when he testified

749
00:54:07.840 --> 00:54:11.520
testified on direct, and to some extent
what he testified to on cross,

750
00:54:11.840 --> 00:54:15.100
and particularly

751
00:54:15.100 --> 00:54:19.820
in terms of what he does today as an
occupational health consultant, it doesn't

752
00:54:19.820 --> 00:54:21.320
strike me that

753
00:54:21.320 --> 00:54:25.420
he had to make any conclusions about what
is or is not safe.

754
00:54:25.780 --> 00:54:26.780
Okay.

755
00:54:26.360 --> 00:54:28.920
I'll ask that question.

756
00:54:29.180 --> 00:54:30.200
No, it is not his job.

757
00:54:30.260 --> 00:54:31.260
Okay.

758
00:54:31.260 --> 00:54:32.400
I'm trying to shorten it.

759
00:54:32.420 --> 00:54:33.420
I'll just rephrase the question.

760
00:54:33.420 --> 00:54:34.600
See if I can go to it this way.

761
00:54:34.600 --> 00:54:40.580
perhaps counsel what you're trying to find
out as and i

762
00:54:40.580 --> 00:54:41.580
asking mr

763
00:54:41.560 --> 00:54:47.340
do you believe that part of your duties as
a consultant

764
00:54:49.000 --> 00:54:54.860
one of your duties as a consultant is to
make it to secure or render or

765
00:54:54.860 --> 00:54:56.620
reach an opinion as to the

766
00:54:56.620 --> 00:55:02.540
the safety whether an occupation is safe
that's really yes

767
00:55:02.540 --> 00:55:05.780
sir yes sir from exactly exposure to

768
00:55:05.780 --> 00:55:11.560
occupational disease otherwise it becomes
a question i'll ask the question go ahead
mr

769
00:55:11.560 --> 00:55:16.500
sheckler as an occupational health
consultant is one of your concerns
determining

770
00:55:16.500 --> 00:55:17.520
the incidence

771
00:55:17.520 --> 00:55:22.120
or prevalence of a given disease in a
given occupation that

772
00:55:28.070 --> 00:55:31.410
is a function of an epidemiologist

773
00:55:31.410 --> 00:55:35.450
Not an occupational health consultant.

774
00:55:35.630 --> 00:55:41.370
An occupational health consultant, Mr.
O'Reilly, accepts the findings of

775
00:55:41.370 --> 00:55:42.530
an epidemiologist

776
00:55:42.530 --> 00:55:48.450
or a biostatistician who makes the
analysis and makes

777
00:55:48.450 --> 00:55:53.090
a determination as to whether 100

778
00:55:56.070 --> 00:56:01.170
A hundred cases of lung cancer from
smoking is excessive

779
00:56:01.170 --> 00:56:03.730
or nonexcessive

780
00:56:03.730 --> 00:56:07.150
in a population of a half million people.

781
00:56:07.410 --> 00:56:11.470
That's not an occupational health
consultant's job.

782
00:56:11.690 --> 00:56:17.530
An occupational health consultant's job is
to administer programs

783
00:56:18.230 --> 00:56:24.570
set down by specialists such as a
biostatistician or an epidemiologist.

784
00:56:24.570 --> 00:56:30.110
Well, part of your duties with Johns-
Manville from 1952

785
00:56:30.110 --> 00:56:31.430
through 1957

786
00:56:32.230 --> 00:56:38.270
involved also recommending changes in a
safety program if you did not deem it
effective.

787
00:56:38.690 --> 00:56:39.690
Is that true?

788
00:56:39.670 --> 00:56:40.870
Yes, sir, that is true.

789
00:56:41.130 --> 00:56:46.970
Now, are you saying that if you found an
incidence or prevalence

790
00:56:46.970 --> 00:56:47.970
of disease

791
00:56:47.550 --> 00:56:52.850
of 1% of the occupational group that you
were responsible for

792
00:56:52.850 --> 00:56:57.890
and found an incidence or prevalence of
disease in another occupation group

793
00:56:57.890 --> 00:57:00.230
you were responsible for of 40%,

794
00:57:00.230 --> 00:57:03.030
that you would not do anything about that
data

795
00:57:03.030 --> 00:57:06.770
unless some biostatistician said, hey,
that's significant?

796
00:57:07.050 --> 00:57:10.710
I would argue that I'm going to object on
grounds that it's argumentative.

797
00:57:11.710 --> 00:57:13.130
I don't think it's argumentative.

798
00:57:13.730 --> 00:57:16.230
I just can object. I don't get the rule.

799
00:57:18.840 --> 00:57:19.840
Answer the question.

800
00:57:21.100 --> 00:57:25.900
i would take that dated to the united
states public health service as i have
done

801
00:57:25.900 --> 00:57:26.900
in the past

802
00:57:26.560 --> 00:57:32.560
or or the university of pittsburgh or to
the proper people who

803
00:57:32.560 --> 00:57:34.320
i felt could give me those

804
00:57:34.320 --> 00:57:39.480
answers and ask them whether or not
there's any reason for concern i would ask
them

805
00:57:39.480 --> 00:57:40.480
what their

806
00:57:39.980 --> 00:57:44.860
opinions are yes sir i would get their
their assistance now

807
00:58:05.400 --> 00:58:08.480
is it your testimony that

808
00:58:08.480 --> 00:58:12.460
that regardless of the incidence or
prevalence of a disease

809
00:58:12.460 --> 00:58:17.020
in a given population of occupational
workers that you were responsible for,

810
00:58:17.720 --> 00:58:21.180
you would go to the public health service
with the data

811
00:58:21.180 --> 00:58:23.920
to find out whether or not it was
significant?

812
00:58:24.380 --> 00:58:26.660
Well, I think I just answered that
question.

813
00:58:26.880 --> 00:58:28.140
Okay. The answer would be yes?

814
00:58:28.360 --> 00:58:29.900
No, the answer's not yes.

815
00:58:29.960 --> 00:58:32.060
You singled out the public health service,

816
00:58:32.100 --> 00:58:36.540
and I pointed out that you can go there or
to an epidemiologist,

817
00:58:36.540 --> 00:58:41.820
to a university, to some research group,
and ask them to look at the problem.

818
00:58:42.060 --> 00:58:43.760
You would go somewhere to see somebody.

819
00:58:43.940 --> 00:58:44.940
That's right.

820
00:58:44.600 --> 00:58:45.600
Okay.

821
00:58:57.280 --> 00:59:02.040
Now, when you read the Fleischer-Drinker
report back in 1960,

822
00:59:03.220 --> 00:59:09.100
did you yourself think that the minimum 10

823
00:59:09.100 --> 00:59:10.420
-year latency period

824
00:59:10.420 --> 00:59:13.820
that Dr. Smith told you about in the 50s

825
00:59:13.820 --> 00:59:18.740
rendered this report somewhat
questionable.

826
00:59:20.700 --> 00:59:21.700
No, sir.

827
00:59:21.600 --> 00:59:22.600
Okay.

828
00:59:38.900 --> 00:59:43.180
Going to exhibit number D.

829
00:59:56.830 --> 00:59:57.890
Exhibit number D.

830
00:59:57.990 --> 00:59:58.990
Thank you, Your Honor.

831
00:59:58.810 --> 01:00:02.150
Dr. Selikoff's report entitled

832
01:00:03.400 --> 01:00:07.200
The Occurrence of Asbestosis Among
Insulation Workers in the United States.

833
01:00:07.300 --> 01:00:09.500
I.J. Selikoff, Churg, Hammond, etc.

834
01:00:11.560 --> 01:00:17.020
you read a preliminary report of this in
april of 1964 yes sir

835
01:00:17.020 --> 01:00:19.620
and is it fair to state that prior to

836
01:00:19.620 --> 01:00:25.420
april of 1964 you had not seen or heard of
any findings by

837
01:00:25.420 --> 01:00:27.620
dr selikov on any of the studies that

838
01:00:27.620 --> 01:00:32.600
he was doing with respect to asbestos or
asbestos asbestos related lung disease to

839
01:00:32.600 --> 01:00:33.600
the best of my

840
01:00:33.220 --> 01:00:39.220
I know that he was doing only one study
which he started in 1963 and I

841
01:00:39.220 --> 01:00:41.300
knew of no analysis that was

842
01:00:41.300 --> 01:00:47.180
made of that up to 1964. So the first
indication that you had of any

843
01:00:47.180 --> 01:00:49.860
findings or conclusions by

844
01:00:49.860 --> 01:00:55.240
Dr. Selikoff on the prevalence or
incidence of disease and what kind of
disease

845
01:00:55.240 --> 01:00:56.460
was your reading

846
01:00:56.460 --> 01:01:00.000
of the preliminary report in April of
1964? That's true.

847
01:01:00.120 --> 01:01:02.300
Is that true? Yes sir. And immediately

848
01:01:02.300 --> 01:01:07.780
Immediately thereafter, you got involved
in devising a warning label to warn
insulators

849
01:01:07.780 --> 01:01:12.000
of the dangers of asbestos-related lung
disease.

850
01:01:12.220 --> 01:01:13.220
Is that true?

851
01:01:12.860 --> 01:01:13.860
Yes, sir.

852
01:01:13.380 --> 01:01:19.280
And was your participation in response to
your recognition of the

853
01:01:19.280 --> 01:01:20.820
danger as disclosed

854
01:01:20.820 --> 01:01:23.880
in Dr. Selikoff's preliminary study that
you read in April 1964?

855
01:01:24.600 --> 01:01:25.600
Yes, sir.

856
01:01:25.360 --> 01:01:30.840
right now you were a member of the

857
01:01:30.840 --> 01:01:33.920
let me rephrase that you went to meetings
of the

858
01:01:33.920 --> 01:01:38.540
asbestos textile institute in the 1960s
true starting

859
01:01:40.490 --> 01:01:47.170
in the sometime in the 1960s let me

860
01:01:47.170 --> 01:01:52.750
rephrase that you went to meetings of the
asbestos textile institute in the 1960s

861
01:01:52.750 --> 01:01:56.430
true starting in

862
01:01:56.430 --> 01:02:02.330
the sometime in the 1960s yes okay and the
asbestos textile institute was

863
01:02:02.330 --> 01:02:03.330
an organization

864
01:02:03.300 --> 01:02:09.170
of asbestos textile companies true yes sir
and john

865
01:02:09.170 --> 01:02:12.650
manville was a member yes sir and did you

866
01:02:12.650 --> 01:02:16.610
start to go let me rephrase that did you
attend the asbestos textile institute

867
01:02:16.610 --> 01:02:17.670
meetings as a

868
01:02:17.670 --> 01:02:22.270
representative of john's manville as one
of their representatives yes sir when did

869
01:02:22.270 --> 01:02:23.890
you begin to

870
01:02:23.890 --> 01:02:29.050
to attend asbestos textile institute
meetings i don't know approximately don't
know the

871
01:02:29.050 --> 01:02:33.590
exact date probably sometime in the early
60s 1961 or 62

872
01:02:33.590 --> 01:02:37.410
somewhere between 60 and then

873
01:02:37.410 --> 01:02:42.890
and did you serve on any committees yes
attending

874
01:02:42.890 --> 01:02:45.790
the asbestos textile institute as a
representative

875
01:02:45.790 --> 01:02:51.210
of Johns-Manville? Yes, sir. What
committees? I recall

876
01:02:52.740 --> 01:02:57.520
what the Safety and Health Committee,

877
01:02:57.720 --> 01:02:59.560
I think it was entitled. Did

878
01:03:09.890 --> 01:03:13.130
you ever serve on the Air Hygiene and
Manufacturing Committee?

879
01:03:13.130 --> 01:03:17.670
I'm sorry, sir. Did you ever serve on the
Air Hygiene and Manufacturing Committee

880
01:03:17.670 --> 01:03:18.670
of the

881
01:03:17.990 --> 01:03:23.030
Asbestos Textile Institute? No, sir. I
don't think that was the name of the

882
01:03:23.030 --> 01:03:24.110
committee I served on.

883
01:03:24.170 --> 01:03:27.350
I think the name of the committee I served
on was the Safety and Health Committee.

884
01:03:28.510 --> 01:03:32.110
Did you ever serve on a committee that was
chaired by J.L.

885
01:03:32.170 --> 01:03:33.170
Mitchell?

886
01:03:34.310 --> 01:03:36.590
Jerry Mitchell or J.L. Mitchell?

887
01:03:37.290 --> 01:03:41.340
I recall Mr.

888
01:03:41.520 --> 01:03:44.600
Mitchell, but I can't answer that
question.

889
01:03:44.780 --> 01:03:45.780
I don't recall.

890
01:03:46.060 --> 01:03:50.940
Did you ever attend any meetings of the
Air Hygiene and Manufacturing Committee

891
01:03:50.940 --> 01:03:54.180
of the Asbestos Textile Institute in the
early 60s?

892
01:04:05.910 --> 01:04:09.770
I don't know, Mr. O'Reilly. I can't answer
the question.

893
01:04:09.770 --> 01:04:12.570
I'm not trying to be evasive, but I just
don't recall.

894
01:04:12.870 --> 01:04:13.870
No problem.

895
01:04:13.570 --> 01:04:18.270
I just know that yesterday one of us got a
little bit confused about the Asbestos
Information

896
01:04:18.270 --> 01:04:22.510
Association and the Asbestos Textile
Institute, and I know you served on the
Health

897
01:04:22.510 --> 01:04:23.510
and Safety

898
01:04:22.830 --> 01:04:28.290
Committee of one industry organization up
until about 19, I think it was changed in

899
01:04:28.290 --> 01:04:29.370
1980 or something like that.

900
01:04:29.430 --> 01:04:30.430
But let me do this.

901
01:04:30.070 --> 01:04:33.230
Let me strike that, because there's not a
question pending there.

902
01:04:33.990 --> 01:04:38.690
Is it true that when you served on a
committee

903
01:04:38.690 --> 01:04:41.630
of the Asbestos Textile Institute in the
early 60s

904
01:04:41.630 --> 01:04:45.790
that someone would take notes of the
meeting

905
01:04:45.790 --> 01:04:48.490
and prepare minutes that would be
circulated

906
01:04:48.490 --> 01:04:50.010
to all the members of that committee?

907
01:04:50.790 --> 01:04:54.070
Mr. Sunbury, who was secretary of the
organization,

908
01:04:55.070 --> 01:05:00.450
would write his version of what transpired
at the meeting

909
01:05:00.450 --> 01:05:03.910
subsequent to the meeting and distribute
them.

910
01:05:04.110 --> 01:05:08.110
And you would receive the notes or copies
of his notes or minutes

911
01:05:08.110 --> 01:05:11.870
within a week or two of the meeting at
your office in corporate headquarters?

912
01:05:12.270 --> 01:05:13.850
I would say so, yes, sir.

913
01:05:14.170 --> 01:05:15.330
Let me...

914
01:05:30.400 --> 01:05:33.440
Are you about to start on a series of ATI
minutes?

915
01:05:34.320 --> 01:05:35.520
Three, four.

916
01:05:37.060 --> 01:05:39.140
Judy has requested a brief break.

917
01:05:43.400 --> 01:05:48.200
How long do you think you'll be now?

918
01:05:48.480 --> 01:05:50.160
Uh, let me see here, John.

919
01:06:09.660 --> 01:06:14.120
Depending how quickly this goes up, this
should take more than about 15 or 20
minutes.

920
01:06:14.180 --> 01:06:15.380
I think probably a half hour.

921
01:06:15.760 --> 01:06:17.140
Five minute recess.

922
01:06:31.610 --> 01:06:37.400
Mr. Sheckler, I've provided you with a

923
01:06:37.400 --> 01:06:39.440
copy of the minutes of the

924
01:06:39.440 --> 01:06:45.580
the Asbestos Textile Institute's Air
Hygiene and Manufacturing Committee
meeting minutes

925
01:06:46.440 --> 01:06:48.900
of, I believe, September 1961?

926
01:06:49.780 --> 01:06:50.780
Yes, sir.

927
01:06:50.740 --> 01:06:53.540
And they've been marked as plaintiffs 10A
and 10B.

928
01:06:53.780 --> 01:06:55.520
Would you take a look at those, please?

929
01:06:55.960 --> 01:06:57.220
I have, yes, sir.

930
01:06:57.260 --> 01:07:02.120
Would you be able to tell us whether or
not they are copies of the minutes or
notes

931
01:07:02.120 --> 01:07:05.800
of the Air Hygiene and Manufacturing
Committee meeting?

932
01:07:07.100 --> 01:07:10.720
Yes, sir. They're copies of the notes of
the meeting, yes, sir.

933
01:07:10.760 --> 01:07:15.740
And does that refresh your recollection
that you were a member of the Air Hygiene

934
01:07:15.740 --> 01:07:18.960
and Manufacturing Committee of the
Asbestos Textile Institute?

935
01:07:19.820 --> 01:07:22.980
Let me rephrase the question. Let me
withdraw that question.

936
01:07:23.160 --> 01:07:27.480
Does that refresh your recollection that
you were one of John Manville's
representatives

937
01:07:28.080 --> 01:07:32.920
on the Air Hygiene and Manufacturing
Committee of the Asbestos Textile
Institute in 1961?

938
01:07:32.920 --> 01:07:37.860
Yes, sir. That refreshes my recollection
that that was the name of the committee,

939
01:07:38.040 --> 01:07:39.040
yes, sir.

940
01:07:38.560 --> 01:07:41.520
And you were a representative of Johns-
Manville on that committee?

941
01:07:41.760 --> 01:07:42.760
Yes, sir.

942
01:07:42.260 --> 01:07:44.260
Approximately how many years were you on
that committee?

943
01:07:49.290 --> 01:07:52.050
I don't really know, Mr. O'Reilly.

944
01:07:53.750 --> 01:07:57.130
Are we talking about like two, three years
or more than five years?

945
01:07:58.070 --> 01:07:59.750
Probably more than five years.

946
01:07:59.750 --> 01:08:05.440
Now, you received

947
01:08:05.440 --> 01:08:10.980
a copy of those minutes that you have
before you sometime within two or three
weeks

948
01:08:10.980 --> 01:08:14.420
after the meeting of September 1961. Is
that a fair statement?

949
01:08:15.120 --> 01:08:16.780
Yes, sir, that's a fair statement.

950
01:08:17.040 --> 01:08:20.780
And did you file them somewhere in your
offices at corporate headquarters in New
York?

951
01:08:22.660 --> 01:08:23.660
Yes, sir.

952
01:08:23.340 --> 01:08:28.840
Okay. I'd like to show you plaintiffs

953
01:08:34.030 --> 01:08:37.950
without markers, plaintiffs 11, A, B, and
C,

954
01:08:45.070 --> 01:08:50.050
three pages of Air Hygiene and
Manufacturing Committee meeting minutes
dated March

955
01:08:50.050 --> 01:08:51.290
8, 1962.

956
01:09:37.560 --> 01:09:38.560
Thank you, sir.

957
01:09:39.240 --> 01:09:41.760
And I ask you if you'd look at those,
please, Mr. Sheckler,

958
01:09:41.880 --> 01:09:47.500
sufficiently to be able to tell us whether
or not they are copies of the minutes of

959
01:09:47.500 --> 01:09:49.620
the March 8, 1962 meeting

960
01:09:49.620 --> 01:09:52.400
of the Air Hygiene and Manufacturing
Committee which you attended.

961
01:09:56.760 --> 01:09:57.760
Yes, sir.

962
01:09:58.240 --> 01:09:59.600
Okay. They are?

963
01:10:00.160 --> 01:10:01.160
They are.

964
01:10:01.060 --> 01:10:04.680
Okay. And you attended that meeting also,
did you not?

965
01:10:04.720 --> 01:10:08.020
The one of March 8, 1962 that's reflected
in those minutes?

966
01:10:08.360 --> 01:10:10.260
As reflected in the minutes, yes, sir.

967
01:10:25.320 --> 01:10:29.940
I'd like to show you another set of
minutes of the Air Hygiene and
Manufacturing Committee

968
01:10:29.940 --> 01:10:33.200
that shows you an attendance dated June 6,
1963,

969
01:10:34.020 --> 01:10:39.060
marked these two pages of minutes as 12A
and 12B.

970
01:11:35.100 --> 01:11:39.520
And, Mr. Sheckler, if you look at 12A and
B sufficiently to tell us

971
01:11:39.520 --> 01:11:43.540
if they are also copies of minutes of the
June 6, 1963,

972
01:11:43.980 --> 01:11:47.160
Air Hygiene and Manufacturing Committee
meeting which you attended.

973
01:12:10.360 --> 01:12:14.400
These are minutes of the Air Hygiene
Committee,

974
01:12:15.120 --> 01:12:19.030
and they show me in attendance.

975
01:12:19.550 --> 01:12:20.990
That's June 6, 1963?

976
01:12:21.410 --> 01:12:22.650
June 6, 1963.

977
01:12:23.470 --> 01:12:25.270
And I believe you said Air Hygiene
Committee.

978
01:12:25.370 --> 01:12:27.090
Did you mean Air Hygiene and Manufacturing
Committee?

979
01:12:27.090 --> 01:12:28.770
Air Hygiene and Manufacturing Committee.

980
01:12:29.030 --> 01:12:34.270
and the normal custom at that time was
such that after the meeting was over,

981
01:12:34.410 --> 01:12:38.990
the minutes would be prepared and sent to
all members of the committee, correct?

982
01:12:40.530 --> 01:12:43.810
After the meeting of the Air Hygiene and
Manufacturing Committee was over,

983
01:12:44.610 --> 01:12:47.810
let me rephrase that, after the meeting of
the Air Hygiene and Manufacturing

984
01:12:47.810 --> 01:12:49.050
Committee was over,

985
01:12:49.790 --> 01:12:54.790
the minutes would be prepared and a copy
sent to every one of the members of the
committee.

986
01:12:55.030 --> 01:12:58.590
They weren't minutes per se, they were
notes of the meeting.

987
01:13:02.050 --> 01:13:03.330
I'll rephrase the question.

988
01:13:03.430 --> 01:13:04.430
I'll rephrase the question.

989
01:13:04.610 --> 01:13:09.850
The format was such at that time that
after the Air Hygiene and Manufacturing

990
01:13:09.850 --> 01:13:10.870
Committee meeting was over,

991
01:13:11.030 --> 01:13:14.830
these minutes or notes were prepared and a
copy sent to you

992
01:13:14.830 --> 01:13:17.090
as a representative of Johnson Manville on
that committee.

993
01:13:17.310 --> 01:13:18.310
True?

994
01:13:17.910 --> 01:13:18.910
Yes, sir.

995
01:13:18.290 --> 01:13:19.290
Okay.

996
01:13:20.580 --> 01:13:25.180
Now, if you'll note on the first page,
12A,

997
01:13:25.180 --> 01:13:30.890
At the bottom of the June 6,

998
01:13:31.010 --> 01:13:35.150
1963 meeting of the Air Hygiene and
Manufacturing Committee,

999
01:13:35.310 --> 01:13:39.050
the paragraph captioned, Asbestos-Related
Lung Cancer Study.

1000
01:13:39.170 --> 01:13:40.170
Do you see that?

1001
01:13:39.910 --> 01:13:40.910
Yes, sir, I do.

1002
01:13:41.410 --> 01:13:43.290
And that states that, quote,

1003
01:13:43.350 --> 01:13:47.250
the committee was advised that a Dr.
Selikoff will read at the next meeting

1004
01:13:47.250 --> 01:13:50.270
of the American Medical Association in
about 30 days

1005
01:13:50.270 --> 01:13:53.670
a paper on a study he has made of about
1,500 workers,

1006
01:13:53.670 --> 01:13:59.570
largely in asbestos insulation
applications, showing a very large
incidence of

1007
01:13:59.570 --> 01:14:01.210
lung cancer over normal expectancy.

1008
01:14:02.350 --> 01:14:06.450
How scientific this study has been in
selecting the group and the full depth of
the

1009
01:14:06.450 --> 01:14:07.710
study remains to be determined,

1010
01:14:07.890 --> 01:14:10.810
but admittedly it will be damaging to the
industry."

1011
01:14:10.810 --> 01:14:12.190
Did I read that correctly?

1012
01:14:12.450 --> 01:14:13.450
You read it correctly.

1013
01:14:13.710 --> 01:14:18.850
Now, after this meeting, did you advise
anybody at Johns-Manville

1014
01:14:18.850 --> 01:14:23.570
that Dr. Salikoff was going to be
presenting a paper in about 30 days

1015
01:14:23.570 --> 01:14:28.750
that was going to show a very large
incidence of lung cancer in insulation
workers.

1016
01:14:32.220 --> 01:14:36.260
In the opinion of the person who wrote
this paper,

1017
01:14:37.000 --> 01:14:42.890
any correspondence that

1018
01:14:42.890 --> 01:14:46.850
I would receive like this would be
distributed.

1019
01:14:46.950 --> 01:14:50.490
Any correspondence that Dr. Smith received
would come to me.

1020
01:14:50.790 --> 01:14:54.470
Correspondence that I would receive would
go to Dr. Smith.

1021
01:14:55.030 --> 01:15:00.270
So Dr. Smith, who was my immediate
superior, would have been

1022
01:15:00.270 --> 01:15:03.850
sent a copy of such a paper?

1023
01:15:03.930 --> 01:15:04.930
Yes, sir.

1024
01:15:04.370 --> 01:15:10.230
Are you saying that when you received
these minutes or notes of the June 6,

1025
01:15:10.410 --> 01:15:11.550
1963 meeting

1026
01:15:11.550 --> 01:15:15.810
of the Air Hygiene and Manufacturing
Committee, that Dr. Smith would also
receive a copy?

1027
01:15:16.230 --> 01:15:18.850
He would receive my copy.

1028
01:15:19.010 --> 01:15:20.090
Okay, after you read it.

1029
01:15:20.130 --> 01:15:23.190
He would have an opportunity to see my
copy after I read it.

1030
01:15:23.210 --> 01:15:24.210
After you read it?

1031
01:15:23.930 --> 01:15:24.930
Okay.

1032
01:15:24.390 --> 01:15:30.050
Well, during the time between the June 6,
1963,

1033
01:15:30.350 --> 01:15:34.990
and the date that you received your copy
of these minutes,

1034
01:15:35.150 --> 01:15:40.830
did you make any recommendations or
suggestions to Johns-Manville that

1035
01:15:40.830 --> 01:15:43.190
indicated, let me rephrase that,

1036
01:15:43.850 --> 01:15:49.090
between the time of this meeting of June
6, 1963, and the time you received your

1037
01:15:49.090 --> 01:15:50.230
copy of these minutes

1038
01:15:50.230 --> 01:15:54.590
minutes in the normal course of events,
did you advise or inform anyone at Johns-
Manville

1039
01:15:55.250 --> 01:16:00.030
that Mr. Mitchell of H.K.

1040
01:16:00.050 --> 01:16:04.010
Porter Company, the chairman of the Air
Hygiene and Manufacturing

1041
01:16:04.010 --> 01:16:09.690
Committee, had advised that, let me
rephrase that,

1042
01:16:09.890 --> 01:16:13.190
I gotta withdraw that, between the time

1043
01:16:13.190 --> 01:16:18.170
of this meeting on June 6, 1963 and the
time you received your copy of these

1044
01:16:18.170 --> 01:16:19.170
minutes in

1045
01:16:18.630 --> 01:16:23.030
normal course of events did you advise
anyone at johns manville that

1046
01:16:23.030 --> 01:16:26.050
someone at the committee

1047
01:16:26.050 --> 01:16:31.690
meeting advised that a dr selikoff would
be reading a paper before the american
medical

1048
01:16:31.690 --> 01:16:37.550
association on a study he had made of
approximately 1500 workers largely in

1049
01:16:37.550 --> 01:16:38.550
asbestos insulation

1050
01:16:38.370 --> 01:16:43.430
applications which studies showed a very
large incidence of lung cancer over normal
expectancy

1051
01:16:47.780 --> 01:16:52.220
I advise dr. Smith yes I advise dr.

1052
01:16:52.420 --> 01:16:54.960
Smith did you advise anyone else no sir

1053
01:16:54.960 --> 01:17:00.000
okay now did you make any suggestions or
recommendations to anyone at Johns

1054
01:17:00.000 --> 01:17:06.040
Manville following this meeting of June 6
1963 that perhaps warning labels

1055
01:17:06.040 --> 01:17:09.900
should be placed on Johns-Manville's
asbestos containing insulation products

1056
01:17:10.700 --> 01:17:16.600
advising of the dangers I did not make
that recommendation at that particular

1057
01:17:16.600 --> 01:17:22.660
time no sir after you received your copy
of these minutes in the normal course of

1058
01:17:22.660 --> 01:17:28.340
events did you advise or inform anyone at
Johns-Manville

1059
01:17:28.340 --> 01:17:29.840
of what transpired at

1060
01:17:29.840 --> 01:17:34.920
this meeting with respect to dr. Salik off
study other than passing the minutes

1061
01:17:34.920 --> 01:17:36.780
on to dr. Smith I

1062
01:17:40.880 --> 01:17:46.690
don't recall mr. O'Reilly I don't really
know when you

1063
01:17:46.690 --> 01:17:51.210
received your copy of the minutes of this
June 6 1963 meeting did you advise

1064
01:17:51.210 --> 01:17:54.270
or recommend or suggest to anyone at
Johns-Manville

1065
01:17:54.270 --> 01:17:56.370
that perhaps a warning label be devised

1066
01:17:56.370 --> 01:17:59.350
to place on asbestos-containing insulation
products

1067
01:17:59.350 --> 01:18:00.490
to advise of the dangers?

1068
01:18:01.090 --> 01:18:04.750
Not, uh, I made no such recommendation

1069
01:18:04.750 --> 01:18:07.730
on the basis of the notes by Mr. Mitchell

1070
01:18:07.730 --> 01:18:11.470
because Dr. Solikov's study only started
in 1963,

1071
01:18:12.150 --> 01:18:15.030
and to the best of my knowledge, there was
no analysis.

1072
01:18:15.530 --> 01:18:18.900
I move the strike is now responsive.

1073
01:18:24.800 --> 01:18:26.020
Yes, it is striking.

1074
01:18:26.540 --> 01:18:27.540
Fire answers.

1075
01:18:27.740 --> 01:18:33.640
thank you sir but the question again when
you received a

1076
01:18:33.640 --> 01:18:35.560
copy of these minutes in a normal

1077
01:18:35.560 --> 01:18:39.300
course of events would you advise or
recommend or suggest to anyone at John's

1078
01:18:39.300 --> 01:18:40.980
Manville that a

1079
01:18:40.980 --> 01:18:44.920
warning label should be devised to place
on a special containing insulation

1080
01:18:44.920 --> 01:18:45.920
products to one

1081
01:18:45.920 --> 01:18:51.560
of the dangers not at this time though sir
next

1082
01:19:27.940 --> 01:19:31.780
two-page document titled air hygiene and

1083
01:19:31.780 --> 01:19:36.840
manufacturing committee october 3rd 1963
they've been marked as 13a and 13b

1084
01:19:42.840 --> 01:19:46.640
i just happened to see mrs addison out
there i got carried away

1085
01:19:49.660 --> 01:19:50.660
it's understandable

1086
01:20:00.040 --> 01:20:02.040
are we still on yes

1087
01:20:08.600 --> 01:20:14.000
move to strike my old cabin is that a word
a whistle are you aware of the fact that

1088
01:20:14.000 --> 01:20:15.000
he does

1089
01:20:14.760 --> 01:20:19.140
not show as an attendee of this man yes
this

1090
01:20:25.380 --> 01:20:30.860
one october

1091
01:20:30.860 --> 01:20:34.820
3rd 1963 can

1092
01:20:51.340 --> 01:20:53.340
you look at 13a and 13b

1093
01:20:53.340 --> 01:20:55.300
sufficiently to tell us whether or not
they are

1094
01:20:55.300 --> 01:20:57.480
copies of minutes or notes of the Air
Hygiene

1095
01:20:57.480 --> 01:20:59.520
and Manufacturing Committee meeting of
October 3rd,

1096
01:20:59.540 --> 01:21:00.540
1963.

1097
01:21:00.840 --> 01:21:03.040
Rejection. Michael Foundation calls for a
speculation

1098
01:21:03.040 --> 01:21:04.200
in his name, doesn't he?

1099
01:21:05.160 --> 01:21:06.160
Sustained.

1100
01:21:15.900 --> 01:21:17.300
Another country heard from.

1101
01:21:19.160 --> 01:21:20.260
He's about to foul.

1102
01:21:21.680 --> 01:21:22.900
It was sustained.

1103
01:21:23.340 --> 01:21:25.120
Oh, Mr. Sheckler, you received

1104
01:21:25.120 --> 01:21:26.460
copies of the minutes

1105
01:21:26.460 --> 01:21:28.880
of Air Hygiene and Manufacturing Committee

1106
01:21:28.880 --> 01:21:31.000
meetings even when you did not

1107
01:21:31.000 --> 01:21:35.420
attend during those years that you were
jm's representative to that committee did

1108
01:21:35.420 --> 01:21:36.420
you not

1109
01:21:36.540 --> 01:21:42.220
i can't answer that question i don't know
whether that distribution was made when i

1110
01:21:42.220 --> 01:21:43.220
was not at a

1111
01:21:43.040 --> 01:21:48.560
meeting and not shown on the attendance or
not i i believe not okay

1112
01:21:48.560 --> 01:21:49.800
you're

1113
01:22:33.220 --> 01:22:34.220
keeping me

1114
01:22:37.280 --> 01:22:39.680
Well, that's what I call pressure, I'll
tell you that.

1115
01:22:51.140 --> 01:22:55.780
Next six documents, Mark Planes 14A
through 14F,

1116
01:22:56.300 --> 01:23:00.100
entitled Minutes, Air Hygiene and
Manufacturing Committee, October 7, 1965,

1117
01:23:01.120 --> 01:23:02.960
at Buck Hill Falls, Pennsylvania.

1118
01:23:04.160 --> 01:23:09.420
Excuse me, Mr. O'Reilly, are we finished
with these so I can keep them from
getting...

1119
01:23:09.420 --> 01:23:10.420
Yeah.

1120
01:23:09.720 --> 01:23:10.720
Okay.

1121
01:23:13.500 --> 01:23:14.620
October 7, 1965.

1122
01:23:15.700 --> 01:23:18.040
The mark is 14A through 14F.

1123
01:23:24.240 --> 01:23:26.660
This is everything on air height.

1124
01:23:26.740 --> 01:23:32.120
Maybe I should have put them the other way
so that we do it this way, I guess.

1125
01:23:33.200 --> 01:23:35.040
I could use...

1126
01:23:36.400 --> 01:23:37.920
All right, fine.

1127
01:23:39.580 --> 01:23:40.580
No.

1128
01:23:44.220 --> 01:23:45.440
Not so far.

1129
01:23:45.600 --> 01:23:48.740
Yes, 10A, B.

1130
01:23:51.760 --> 01:23:53.940
Well, why don't I clip these together?

1131
01:23:54.020 --> 01:23:55.360
That'll separate those.

1132
01:24:01.600 --> 01:24:04.700
That's Dr. Selikoff's study out of there,

1133
01:24:04.740 --> 01:24:07.740
which I'm instructed we're not through
with yet.

1134
01:24:10.000 --> 01:24:11.580
That's an arm core.

1135
01:24:12.460 --> 01:24:16.650
I guess we can cut the tape.

1136
01:24:16.870 --> 01:24:17.870
There's one.

1137
01:24:52.840 --> 01:24:54.220
May we proceed, sir?

1138
01:24:54.480 --> 01:24:55.480
Yes.

1139
01:24:55.160 --> 01:24:57.000
Can you tell us, Mr. Sheckler,

1140
01:24:57.000 --> 01:25:02.020
if those are copies of minutes of the Air
Hygiene and Manufacturing Committee
meeting

1141
01:25:02.020 --> 01:25:05.100
of October 7, 1965, that you attended.

1142
01:25:05.620 --> 01:25:11.190
These are the notes of October

1143
01:25:11.190 --> 01:25:15.910
7, 1965, and I am shown in attendance.

1144
01:25:27.030 --> 01:25:31.910
On page four of those notes,

1145
01:25:32.110 --> 01:25:33.770
caption two,

1146
01:25:33.890 --> 01:25:37.990
entitled Review Current Publicity on the
Effect of Asbestos on Public Health.

1147
01:25:37.990 --> 01:25:43.640
then it states the following articles were
reviewed and

1148
01:25:43.640 --> 01:25:44.640
discussed one

1149
01:25:44.580 --> 01:25:49.600
dangerous dust Scientific American
December 1964 volume 211

1150
01:25:49.600 --> 01:25:51.620
you recall any

1151
01:25:51.620 --> 01:25:55.120
of the conversation that took place at
that meeting about that article entitled

1152
01:25:55.120 --> 01:26:00.340
dangerous dust I do not did you when you
returned to Johns-Manville following

1153
01:26:00.340 --> 01:26:04.560
this meeting advise dr. Smith of the
publication of that article dangerous

1154
01:26:04.560 --> 01:26:10.600
dust I did dr. Smith would have received
copy of these notes in the normal

1155
01:26:10.600 --> 01:26:14.180
a course of events yes sir when you
received yours you passed them out to him
just

1156
01:26:14.180 --> 01:26:15.180
like with the

1157
01:26:14.520 --> 01:26:20.260
other ones i did yes sir and with respect
to caption number two cancer experts

1158
01:26:20.260 --> 01:26:21.400
eye asbestos

1159
01:26:21.400 --> 01:26:27.340
and alarm cancer experts eye asbestos
perils by josephine robertson the plane

1160
01:26:27.340 --> 01:26:28.340
dealer january 12

1161
01:26:28.300 --> 01:26:33.620
1965 cleveland ohio did you verbally
advise miss dr smith

1162
01:26:33.620 --> 01:26:36.580
of that particular article when you

1163
01:26:36.580 --> 01:26:42.210
returned again i passed these notes on to
dr

1164
01:26:42.210 --> 01:26:43.290
smith okay

1165
01:27:26.870 --> 01:27:28.750
on

1166
01:27:35.060 --> 01:27:37.760
page four at the top under

1167
01:27:38.620 --> 01:27:44.620
caption entitled uh two biological effects
of asbestos you see that october 19th

1168
01:27:44.620 --> 01:27:46.060
20th 21st 1964

1169
01:27:46.660 --> 01:27:52.380
nyc yes sir and it states the committee
suggested the board of directors

1170
01:27:52.380 --> 01:27:53.940
of ati send a public

1171
01:27:53.940 --> 01:27:59.300
relations man to this conference since Dr.
Selikoff is using the news media for

1172
01:27:59.300 --> 01:28:05.300
publications close quotes do you recall
that conversation that

1173
01:28:05.300 --> 01:28:06.540
the meeting the

1174
01:28:06.540 --> 01:28:11.080
Air Hygiene and Manufacturing Committee
held about sending a PR man to Dr.

1175
01:28:11.200 --> 01:28:16.820
Selikoff's conference I recall I recall
the subject

1176
01:28:20.270 --> 01:28:23.430
being discussed it was never

1177
01:28:23.430 --> 01:28:26.490
carried out. The PR man was never sent?
No, sir.

1178
01:28:27.450 --> 01:28:28.450
Asbestos

1179
01:30:14.860 --> 01:30:16.840
Textile Institute general

1180
01:30:21.380 --> 01:30:26.300
meeting February 4th, 1971, 15A, 15B,

1181
01:30:26.460 --> 01:30:30.620
15C, 15D.

1182
01:30:30.900 --> 01:30:31.900
Get

1183
01:31:31.090 --> 01:31:32.670
15A through 15D, Mr.

1184
01:31:32.790 --> 01:31:37.510
Sheckler, to be able to tell us if those
are the minutes or the notes of that

1185
01:31:37.510 --> 01:31:43.410
particular meeting of the Asbestos Textile
Institute. These are, these notes

1186
01:31:43.410 --> 01:31:47.450
differ a bit from the others. These are
notes of the general meeting of the

1187
01:31:47.450 --> 01:31:52.730
Asbestos Textile Institute on February
4th, 1971.

1188
01:31:53.650 --> 01:31:59.810
And you were present, were

1189
01:31:59.810 --> 01:32:03.790
you not, at the general meeting of the
Asbestos Textile Institute on February
4th,

1190
01:32:03.790 --> 01:32:06.070
1971? Yes, sir. And

1191
01:32:41.080 --> 01:32:43.880
at that particular meeting did you address
the general

1192
01:32:43.880 --> 01:32:47.760
membership and advise them that in your
opinion Dr. Selikoff was going to be

1193
01:32:47.760 --> 01:32:52.560
around indefinitely and that the members
might as well resign themselves to that

1194
01:32:52.560 --> 01:32:58.440
fact page three I think sir that's taken
completely out of

1195
01:32:58.440 --> 01:33:03.470
context well did you

1196
01:33:03.470 --> 01:33:08.870
make statements to that effect to the
general membership at that time I made a

1197
01:33:08.870 --> 01:33:14.710
statement to that effect in reply to

1198
01:33:14.710 --> 01:33:18.370
other statements made

1199
01:33:18.370 --> 01:33:21.090
about dr.

1200
01:33:21.090 --> 01:33:26.730
Selikoff yes sir favorable statements or
unfavorable statements that

1201
01:33:26.730 --> 01:33:28.850
he made that statement

1202
01:33:28.850 --> 01:33:34.690
in response to are you saying that there
were other representatives of

1203
01:33:34.690 --> 01:33:35.710
companies at that meeting

1204
01:33:35.710 --> 01:33:39.050
that were making statements about dr
Selikoff and that your statement was in

1205
01:33:39.050 --> 01:33:40.050
response to that

1206
01:33:40.290 --> 01:33:44.850
objections caused for speculation lack of
foundation this witness lacks a foundation

1207
01:33:44.850 --> 01:33:47.810
and testifies to the qualifications of a
member company

1208
01:33:48.610 --> 01:33:51.950
and who is authorized to speak on behalf
of a member company

1209
01:33:51.950 --> 01:33:57.590
and further relax the foundation to
testify as to whether any particular
member

1210
01:33:57.590 --> 01:33:59.810
who is present was an employee of any
particular...

1211
01:33:59.810 --> 01:34:00.810
I will try the question.

1212
01:34:01.890 --> 01:34:04.970
Were there statements made by people
present at this meeting

1213
01:34:04.970 --> 01:34:09.970
that were derogatory of Dr. Selikoff that
you were responding to with that statement

1214
01:34:11.050 --> 01:34:17.080
that Dr. Selikoff was going to be around
indefinitely

1215
01:34:17.080 --> 01:34:19.820
and that they might as well resign
themselves to that fact?

1216
01:34:27.180 --> 01:34:31.560
I think, sir, the best answer to your
question that I can give

1217
01:34:31.560 --> 01:34:34.040
is to read the report itself.

1218
01:34:34.160 --> 01:34:35.940
I don't mean to be short,

1219
01:34:36.780 --> 01:34:41.200
but I'm not going to suggest that
anybody's statement is derogatory.

1220
01:34:41.420 --> 01:34:44.540
Each person has his own reason for making
it.

1221
01:34:45.260 --> 01:34:51.620
There was a statement made, and what you
read was my response to that statement.

1222
01:34:52.480 --> 01:34:54.840
Who made the statement that you were
responding to?

1223
01:34:55.240 --> 01:34:58.940
I responded to a statement that was made
by Dr.

1224
01:34:59.180 --> 01:35:00.180
Goodman.

1225
01:34:59.980 --> 01:35:01.460
And what did Dr. Goodman say?

1226
01:35:02.700 --> 01:35:03.980
Do you want me to...

1227
01:35:06.180 --> 01:35:07.880
Well, is this part of the report?

1228
01:35:08.120 --> 01:35:09.120
Yes, sir.

1229
01:35:09.420 --> 01:35:10.420
Objectional rule.

1230
01:35:10.600 --> 01:35:12.540
What did Dr. Goodman say, Mr. Sheckler?

1231
01:35:12.540 --> 01:35:18.040
do you want me to read it out of the
report sir yes sir objection vague and

1232
01:35:18.040 --> 01:35:19.040
ambiguous in the sense

1233
01:35:18.900 --> 01:35:22.540
that at this point we don't know whether
he's testifying based upon personal

1234
01:35:22.540 --> 01:35:23.540
recollection or

1235
01:35:23.380 --> 01:35:27.500
based upon a refreshed memory of what he's
reading in the report and if he's

1236
01:35:27.500 --> 01:35:28.820
testifying based upon

1237
01:35:28.820 --> 01:35:33.560
a refreshed memory when he's reading that
report in effect it's testifying based
upon

1238
01:35:35.360 --> 01:35:40.440
opinion hearsay in the sense that he's
based upon it's based upon reading what

1239
01:35:40.440 --> 01:35:41.440
someone else

1240
01:35:41.380 --> 01:35:44.820
has interpreted Dr. Goodman as having
said.

1241
01:35:46.500 --> 01:35:52.080
What you have there is a report containing
statements

1242
01:35:52.080 --> 01:35:56.340
by a physician or a doctor named Goodman?

1243
01:35:56.800 --> 01:36:00.560
What I have here, sir, is...

1244
01:36:00.560 --> 01:36:02.860
Is that yes or no, sir? Do you have that
there?

1245
01:36:03.080 --> 01:36:04.420
It is...

1246
01:36:04.420 --> 01:36:05.480
A statement made by Dr. Goodman?

1247
01:36:05.620 --> 01:36:08.960
It is a report, yes, sir, of statements
made by Dr.

1248
01:36:09.140 --> 01:36:10.140
Goodman.

1249
01:36:09.480 --> 01:36:14.460
And when you are responding to the
question by Mr.

1250
01:36:15.340 --> 01:36:21.220
O'Reilly, it is by means of recourse to
this document, and you're reading

1251
01:36:21.220 --> 01:36:23.380
from this document. Is that right, sir?

1252
01:36:23.600 --> 01:36:24.880
That is correct, yes, sir.

1253
01:36:25.820 --> 01:36:28.300
Okay, Mr. Sheckler, proceed.

1254
01:36:30.940 --> 01:36:36.660
Dr. Goodman feels that Dr. Selikoff is a
dangerous man, and the asbestos

1255
01:36:36.660 --> 01:36:39.900
industry is going to have to learn how to
combat his tactics.

1256
01:36:39.900 --> 01:36:45.720
We cannot and should not take Dr. Selikoff
lightly, as he has the facilities

1257
01:36:45.720 --> 01:36:48.740
for getting his version of the facts
widely distributed,

1258
01:36:49.000 --> 01:36:54.560
and the only way we can be rebutted is by
being faced with the overwhelming weight

1259
01:36:54.560 --> 01:36:58.220
of objective scientific and factual data.

1260
01:36:59.660 --> 01:37:05.400
When asked if something could be done
through the American Medical Association
to

1261
01:37:05.400 --> 01:37:06.980
control Dr. Selikoff,

1262
01:37:06.980 --> 01:37:08.720
Dr. Goodman expressed doubt.

1263
01:37:09.440 --> 01:37:12.360
There is a grievance committee of the AMA,

1264
01:37:12.400 --> 01:37:15.160
but it was very difficult to get it to
act.

1265
01:37:15.560 --> 01:37:19.660
Thought that perhaps pressure on the Mount
Sinai School of Medicine

1266
01:37:19.660 --> 01:37:21.220
might be effective.

1267
01:37:21.740 --> 01:37:24.820
In regard to mesothelioma, Mr.

1268
01:37:24.880 --> 01:37:26.420
William J.W. Smith asked

1269
01:37:26.420 --> 01:37:32.280
if Dr. Selikoff differentiated between
chrysotile and

1270
01:37:32.280 --> 01:37:34.000
chrysotile fiber.

1271
01:37:34.000 --> 01:37:39.840
fiber. Dr. Goodman said that Dr. Selikoff
inferred that chrysotile was suspect

1272
01:37:39.840 --> 01:37:40.900
as well

1273
01:37:40.900 --> 01:37:45.780
as crocidolite. Following Dr. Goodman's
report, Mr.

1274
01:37:46.020 --> 01:37:49.300
C.L. Sheckler, chairman of the ATI's
Environmental

1275
01:37:49.720 --> 01:37:53.260
Health Committee, commented that Dr.

1276
01:37:53.460 --> 01:37:57.840
Selikoff was going to be around
indefinitely and we

1277
01:37:57.840 --> 01:38:00.760
we might as well resign ourselves to that
fact,

1278
01:38:00.880 --> 01:38:06.160
and even though Dr. Selikoff might be
prone to deal with half-truths.

1279
01:38:06.260 --> 01:38:07.600
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

1280
01:38:07.640 --> 01:38:10.760
Now, is what you read, as you recall it,
accurate

1281
01:38:10.760 --> 01:38:15.000
as to what transpired at that meeting in
this regard on this point?

1282
01:38:18.210 --> 01:38:19.730
That is your first recollection?

1283
01:38:19.850 --> 01:38:20.850
Yes.

1284
01:38:20.890 --> 01:38:22.630
This is his personal recollection?

1285
01:38:22.810 --> 01:38:23.810
Yes.

1286
01:38:24.010 --> 01:38:26.170
And I'm not requested to ask?

1287
01:38:26.810 --> 01:38:27.810
As requested.

1288
01:38:34.130 --> 01:38:39.530
It reflects my recollection as to the
events that transpired.

1289
01:38:39.630 --> 01:38:43.370
I don't know if this description by Mr.

1290
01:38:43.810 --> 01:38:47.230
Sunberry is accurate.

1291
01:38:47.350 --> 01:38:50.350
It's Mr. Sunberry's opinion of what
occurred.

1292
01:38:51.990 --> 01:38:59.170
The recollection of the events, now that
your recollection has been refreshed,
indicate

1293
01:38:59.170 --> 01:39:02.110
to you the truth of those statements, sir?

1294
01:39:03.270 --> 01:39:08.270
I can't testify to the fact that these
statements are the absolute truth.

1295
01:39:08.770 --> 01:39:11.410
I don't know if he called them a
dangerous...

1296
01:39:11.410 --> 01:39:15.010
That is what you're being requested to
say.

1297
01:39:15.930 --> 01:39:16.930
I'm sorry?

1298
01:39:17.570 --> 01:39:22.990
The statements that were made there were
made in your presence, were they not?

1299
01:39:23.350 --> 01:39:25.090
I was at the meeting, yes, sir.

1300
01:39:25.530 --> 01:39:30.110
Is your recollection, now that you've had
an opportunity to refresh your
recollection,

1301
01:39:30.330 --> 01:39:34.710
that those statements were made at that
meeting?

1302
01:39:36.920 --> 01:39:43.020
No, I won't say that these statements were
made as they're written in this document.

1303
01:39:44.380 --> 01:39:50.300
is that an accurate what you have read is

1304
01:39:50.300 --> 01:39:52.460
that an accurate transcription of what
occurred at

1305
01:39:52.460 --> 01:39:57.320
that meeting insofar as the conversation
by dr goodman about dr salikoff is
concerned

1306
01:39:58.440 --> 01:40:04.360
i don't know mr o'reilly i i can't say yes
or no to that as mr sunbury there

1307
01:40:04.360 --> 01:40:05.360
was a controversy

1308
01:40:05.240 --> 01:40:10.820
It's Mr. Sunbury's opinion of what
happened, but

1309
01:40:10.820 --> 01:40:14.400
whether it was word-for-word accurate,

1310
01:40:14.580 --> 01:40:17.220
I couldn't possibly testify to that.

1311
01:40:17.500 --> 01:40:23.240
Well, you do recall Dr. Goodman making
remarks at that particular meeting that
were derogatory

1312
01:40:23.240 --> 01:40:24.320
of Dr. Selikoff.

1313
01:40:24.440 --> 01:40:25.440
Is that true?

1314
01:40:25.180 --> 01:40:28.780
Dr. Goodman did criticize Dr. Selikoff.

1315
01:40:28.780 --> 01:40:34.600
And is it true that the ATI minutes were
received, copies of these

1316
01:40:34.600 --> 01:40:37.480
ATI minutes were received by you within a
few weeks of this meeting?

1317
01:40:37.940 --> 01:40:39.360
That's correct, yes, sir.

1318
01:40:39.440 --> 01:40:43.100
And you noted in there that, with respect
to Dr.

1319
01:40:43.520 --> 01:40:48.000
Goodman's comment that Selikoff is a
dangerous man, that the dangerous is in
quotes

1320
01:40:48.000 --> 01:40:49.260
in the minutes before you?

1321
01:40:49.440 --> 01:40:53.540
I noted that on the statement, yes, sir.

1322
01:40:53.540 --> 01:40:58.360
After you received these minutes at Johns-
Manville,

1323
01:40:58.460 --> 01:41:01.660
did you refer them or direct them to
anyone else at Johns-Manville?

1324
01:41:01.760 --> 01:41:06.360
I'm now talking about 15A through 15F,

1325
01:41:07.260 --> 01:41:12.980
the minutes of the February 4, 1971
meeting of the Asbestos

1326
01:41:12.980 --> 01:41:13.980
Textile Institute.

1327
01:41:15.540 --> 01:41:19.680
Yes, sir. I would have sent my copy to Dr.

1328
01:41:19.920 --> 01:41:20.920
Smith,

1329
01:41:20.220 --> 01:41:25.880
And as you'll note on the attendance list,
there were

1330
01:41:25.880 --> 01:41:28.740
three other people from Johns Manor who
were present.

1331
01:41:30.120 --> 01:41:35.040
Now, you did not advise or inform anyone
at the ATI, including Mr.

1332
01:41:35.200 --> 01:41:36.200
Sunbury,

1333
01:41:35.860 --> 01:41:41.680
that there was any mistake in any of the
notes that you received of this February

1334
01:41:41.680 --> 01:41:43.400
4, 1971 meeting, did you?

1335
01:41:43.560 --> 01:41:44.760
I did not, no, sir.

1336
01:41:56.410 --> 01:42:01.630
Now, with respect to the warning labels,
what part

1337
01:42:01.630 --> 01:42:07.850
did

1338
01:42:07.850 --> 01:42:12.410
you play in the warning labels in April or
May 19th?

1339
01:42:12.430 --> 01:42:13.430
Let me rephrase that.

1340
01:42:13.170 --> 01:42:19.170
Did you have anything to do with warning
labels at Johns-Manville prior to the

1341
01:42:19.170 --> 01:42:23.970
time you read the preliminary report of
Dr. Salikoff in 1964, April of 64?

1342
01:42:24.350 --> 01:42:25.350
No, sir.

1343
01:42:25.010 --> 01:42:29.870
And after you read that report in April of
64, your responsibility,

1344
01:42:30.170 --> 01:42:33.010
insofar as warning labels were a concern,

1345
01:42:33.090 --> 01:42:37.310
was to devise the wording and the design
for the warning label?

1346
01:42:37.430 --> 01:42:40.490
Was to design the label with the wording,
yes, sir.

1347
01:42:40.730 --> 01:42:44.930
And were you aware, after reading Dr.

1348
01:42:45.050 --> 01:42:47.690
Selikoff's preliminary report in April of
1964,

1349
01:42:48.390 --> 01:42:53.550
that in addition to finding extensive
asbestosis among insulation workers at
locals

1350
01:42:53.550 --> 01:42:54.730
in New York and New Jersey,

1351
01:42:55.010 --> 01:43:00.550
Dr. Selikoff also found incidences of lung
cancer, mesothelioma, and cancer of the
colon.

1352
01:43:01.550 --> 01:43:03.330
I was aware of that, yes, sir.

1353
01:43:03.390 --> 01:43:04.390
Okay.

1354
01:43:03.990 --> 01:43:09.570
And when you devised these warning labels,

1355
01:43:09.710 --> 01:43:13.010
what products did you, let me rephrase
that,

1356
01:43:13.050 --> 01:43:16.410
when you devised these warning labels in
April or May of 1964,

1357
01:43:16.410 --> 01:43:22.230
1964, was it your desire to alert the
people that were

1358
01:43:22.230 --> 01:43:23.230
at risk

1359
01:43:22.850 --> 01:43:26.010
from the use of these especially
containing insulation products

1360
01:43:26.010 --> 01:43:28.570
of the dangers associated with their use?

1361
01:43:28.890 --> 01:43:34.330
The objective was to alert the users of
the products

1362
01:43:34.330 --> 01:43:40.270
of the potential dangers or hazards, as
you will,

1363
01:43:40.410 --> 01:43:42.010
of the product.

1364
01:43:42.010 --> 01:43:48.010
And did you note in Dr. Selikoff's study
that he referred to the

1365
01:43:48.010 --> 01:43:53.370
fact that associated crafts that worked
with the insulators were also at risk of

1366
01:43:53.370 --> 01:43:55.150
contracting a specialist-related lung
disease?

1367
01:43:57.010 --> 01:44:00.750
I can't say that I did or did not.

1368
01:44:03.450 --> 01:44:06.630
You're now talking in 1964.

1369
01:44:07.070 --> 01:44:08.070
Yes, I am.

1370
01:44:07.590 --> 01:44:09.650
I can't answer the question. I don't
recall.

1371
01:44:09.650 --> 01:44:10.650
call who

1372
01:44:19.440 --> 01:44:23.540
decided where on the box the warning label
was going to go with

1373
01:44:23.540 --> 01:44:27.580
respect to the warning that was to be used
on Thermobestos pipe covering and

1374
01:44:27.580 --> 01:44:33.270
Thermobestos block my recommendation was

1375
01:44:33.270 --> 01:44:36.390
that the warning label be placed in a

1376
01:44:36.390 --> 01:44:41.570
conspicuous place on the carton bag or
package

1377
01:44:41.570 --> 01:44:45.310
that decision as to what was the

1378
01:44:45.310 --> 01:44:49.670
The conspicuous place was one made by the
insulation division.

1379
01:44:50.150 --> 01:44:51.550
I can't tell you who.

1380
01:44:51.810 --> 01:44:57.230
In your opinion, was the location of the
warning label on the side of the carton

1381
01:44:57.230 --> 01:45:01.450
consistent with your recommendation of a
conspicuous place for that warning label?

1382
01:45:01.690 --> 01:45:02.690
Yes, sir.

1383
01:45:02.330 --> 01:45:03.330
Okay.

1384
01:45:03.150 --> 01:45:07.750
Did you, any place in the warnings that
you designed or devised,

1385
01:45:07.930 --> 01:45:10.930
mention anything about any risk of any
form of cancer?

1386
01:45:11.210 --> 01:45:12.210
I'll object.

1387
01:45:11.850 --> 01:45:13.310
The warning speaks for itself.

1388
01:45:13.370 --> 01:45:14.670
I have a testimony about it.

1389
01:45:14.670 --> 01:45:15.950
That's the warning that came out.

1390
01:45:16.030 --> 01:45:17.350
I want to know if you ever recommend it.

1391
01:45:17.390 --> 01:45:18.390
I'll rephrase your question.

1392
01:45:18.510 --> 01:45:22.630
In your work at devising warning labels
for Johns-Manville

1393
01:45:22.630 --> 01:45:26.570
especially containing insulation products
that began in April or May of 64,

1394
01:45:27.070 --> 01:45:31.030
did you ever make any recommendation or
suggestion to anyone at Johns-Manville

1395
01:45:31.030 --> 01:45:35.290
that cancer, the risk of cancer, be
referred to in any of the warning labels?

1396
01:45:35.510 --> 01:45:36.610
I did not, no, sir.

1397
01:45:36.650 --> 01:45:40.870
Did anyone at Johns-Manville advise you
not to mention cancer in any of the
warning labels?

1398
01:45:41.030 --> 01:45:42.250
They did not, no, sir.

1399
01:45:42.250 --> 01:45:46.310
who decided on the size of the warning
labels that you were designing in april or

1400
01:45:46.310 --> 01:45:47.310
may of 1964.

1401
01:45:47.470 --> 01:45:53.590
i did and what was the size that went on
the original cartons of Thermobestos pipe
covering

1402
01:45:53.590 --> 01:45:58.990
and block i can't tell you precisely in
inches i

1403
01:45:58.990 --> 01:46:05.070
don't i don't recall in terms of inches
but the

1404
01:46:05.070 --> 01:46:11.190
size of the warning label is i believe in
evidence was the warning label originally

1405
01:46:11.190 --> 01:46:14.810
placed on just one side of the cartons of
Thermobestos pipe covering and block.

1406
01:46:15.130 --> 01:46:20.510
I have seen a

1407
01:46:20.510 --> 01:46:25.730
carton of pipe covering with a warning
label on one side.

1408
01:46:26.050 --> 01:46:27.050
The

1409
01:46:26.370 --> 01:46:29.950
warning labels in accord with my
recommendation were to go on both sides

1410
01:46:29.950 --> 01:46:35.430
of the box and I have only ever seen one
with it printed on one side and I think

1411
01:46:35.430 --> 01:46:41.750
it was a misprint. Well your
recommendation in April and May of 1964

1412
01:46:41.750 --> 01:46:45.410
when you designed the warning labels for
the Thermobestos pipe covering and block

1413
01:46:45.410 --> 01:46:50.450
was to place the warning label in a
conspicuous location on both sides of the
box?

1414
01:46:50.710 --> 01:46:51.710
Yes, sir.

1415
01:46:51.670 --> 01:46:55.770
So you originally suggested that the
warning label be placed on the side of the
box

1416
01:46:55.770 --> 01:46:57.070
as opposed to the front of the box?

1417
01:46:57.410 --> 01:47:03.130
I suggested it be placed on both

1418
01:47:03.130 --> 01:47:06.590
sides of the cartons

1419
01:47:06.590 --> 01:47:11.550
of thermovestus or pipe-covering material

1420
01:47:11.550 --> 01:47:17.390
In a conspicuous place, meaning location

1421
01:47:17.390 --> 01:47:18.530
on the sides.

1422
01:47:18.810 --> 01:47:24.690
And you also suggested the wording and
size of the warning labels.

1423
01:47:24.770 --> 01:47:25.770
Is that true?

1424
01:47:25.370 --> 01:47:26.370
I did.

1425
01:47:26.130 --> 01:47:30.130
Now, had you had any prior experience in
the area of devising warnings?

1426
01:47:33.140 --> 01:47:39.120
I had worked with warning labels in
relation to

1427
01:47:39.120 --> 01:47:40.400
combustible materials.

1428
01:47:40.400 --> 01:47:44.240
materials. When was this?

1429
01:47:45.420 --> 01:47:51.260
Sometime in the 60s. Had you ever

1430
01:47:51.260 --> 01:47:53.140
designed or devised a warning

1431
01:47:53.140 --> 01:47:56.320
label prior to this effort that you made
in April or May of 1964?

1432
01:47:58.420 --> 01:48:00.380
No, sir. And had you

1433
01:48:00.380 --> 01:48:06.400
ever made any decisions as to where a
warning label should be located prior to
your work

1434
01:48:06.400 --> 01:48:12.160
in april or may of 1964 i may have with
regard to what sir combustible materials

1435
01:48:12.160 --> 01:48:13.320
are you talking

1436
01:48:13.320 --> 01:48:18.040
about a warning indicating that something
is flammable yes sir any other work that

1437
01:48:18.040 --> 01:48:19.040
you ever

1438
01:48:18.260 --> 01:48:23.400
did in the area of devising warning labels
other than the work you did with respect

1439
01:48:23.400 --> 01:48:24.540
to combustibility

1440
01:48:26.580 --> 01:48:32.180
no sir did anyone assist you in drafting
the wording of the warning label

1441
01:48:32.180 --> 01:48:33.180
i

1442
01:48:40.640 --> 01:48:41.640
don't believe so

1443
01:48:41.640 --> 01:48:46.340
So I don't remember completely.

1444
01:48:53.370 --> 01:48:56.090
My recollection is that I wrote the
language myself.

1445
01:49:03.480 --> 01:49:08.940
Do you have a copy of the warning label
that you designed in April or May of 64

1446
01:49:08.940 --> 01:49:12.280
to go on the cartons of thermobusiness
pipe insulation before you, Mr.

1447
01:49:12.340 --> 01:49:13.340
Sheckler?

1448
01:49:25.970 --> 01:49:28.930
Excuse me, are you talking about the
format that you've got in front of you?

1449
01:49:30.570 --> 01:49:32.350
I don't think, well, okay.

1450
01:49:32.550 --> 01:49:33.630
I think he's looking in.

1451
01:49:35.170 --> 01:49:40.670
it's in the specs yeah it's not
photographs no no

1452
01:49:43.740 --> 01:49:47.300
sir i do not i have a copy of the language

1453
01:49:47.300 --> 01:49:52.800
sir but not the label fine and does that
have an exhibit number mr sheckler the

1454
01:49:52.800 --> 01:49:53.800
copy of the

1455
01:49:53.180 --> 01:49:59.040
language in the lower right hand corner
exhibit e e now exhibit

1456
01:49:59.040 --> 01:50:01.660
e contains the exact size of the

1457
01:50:01.660 --> 01:50:05.120
warning label that's to go that was to go
on the cartons of Thermobestos pipe

1458
01:50:05.120 --> 01:50:06.600
installation it does

1459
01:50:06.600 --> 01:50:12.480
not does it state cautionary printing
details exact size shown

1460
01:50:12.480 --> 01:50:15.460
no it's not the same you're

1461
01:50:15.460 --> 01:50:18.640
looking at a different document oh i'm
sorry he has

1462
01:50:21.620 --> 01:50:26.140
a document in front of him that has all
three

1463
01:50:26.140 --> 01:50:32.120
labels set forth and there's just the
language it doesn't have anything to do
with

1464
01:50:32.120 --> 01:50:33.560
label as such

1465
01:50:34.680 --> 01:50:35.980
I don't think that is.

1466
01:50:36.480 --> 01:50:37.760
Why don't you...

1467
01:50:39.600 --> 01:50:40.660
I'm not sure about that.

1468
01:50:40.660 --> 01:50:41.700
The photograph shows the signs.

1469
01:50:41.940 --> 01:50:45.940
Give that to the council at last.

1470
01:50:46.940 --> 01:50:47.940
Keep it open.

1471
01:50:48.220 --> 01:50:49.320
Oh, okay, yeah.

1472
01:50:49.560 --> 01:50:50.560
All right.

1473
01:50:52.520 --> 01:50:53.640
Last page of F.

1474
01:50:55.940 --> 01:50:58.540
That book looked like the same thing that
you had there.

1475
01:50:59.320 --> 01:51:00.320
Okey-doke.

1476
01:51:00.260 --> 01:51:02.560
Does that have, like, page 404 there?

1477
01:51:02.660 --> 01:51:03.660
9, 10, 64?

1478
01:51:06.040 --> 01:51:08.160
It looks different to me.

1479
01:51:08.380 --> 01:51:09.380
It is different.

1480
01:51:09.320 --> 01:51:15.760
It's for magnesium, and it's Super-X, and
it's issued date 11-14-66.

1481
01:51:16.400 --> 01:51:17.980
But I think it's the same.

1482
01:51:18.320 --> 01:51:22.580
Well, why don't you let him have it, so
that we can have the comparison made,

1483
01:51:22.600 --> 01:51:23.600
instead of

1484
01:51:23.780 --> 01:51:25.400
discussing it at long distance.

1485
01:51:27.970 --> 01:51:28.970
There's the first one.

1486
01:51:31.240 --> 01:51:32.240
That one.

1487
01:51:34.660 --> 01:51:35.660
And, uh...

1488
01:51:35.620 --> 01:51:37.280
That looks like it.

1489
01:51:37.400 --> 01:51:38.400
Yeah.

1490
01:51:37.460 --> 01:51:41.520
Yeah, that is. This isn't. No, that's not
right.

1491
01:51:42.980 --> 01:51:44.360
It's all the same language.

1492
01:51:44.780 --> 01:51:48.200
Is there anything different?

1493
01:51:49.120 --> 01:51:51.280
This is super-X and magnesium.

1494
01:51:51.780 --> 01:51:53.960
No, this is part of that exhibit.

1495
01:51:54.280 --> 01:52:00.260
Would you please call Jean and tell her
that she and Rich should go

1496
01:52:00.260 --> 01:52:01.520
ahead and have dinner,

1497
01:52:01.620 --> 01:52:03.960
and I'll be there when I get there.

1498
01:52:08.260 --> 01:52:11.840
that sounds like the instruction all of us
have given

1499
01:52:20.070 --> 01:52:21.430
we're still

1500
01:52:23.130 --> 01:52:29.410
on tape aren't we yes

1501
01:52:29.410 --> 01:52:30.850
hopefully this will be cut

1502
01:52:42.860 --> 01:52:47.720
Now, Mr. Sheckler, when you designed the
warning label in April or May 1964,

1503
01:52:48.040 --> 01:52:49.800
for what specific

1504
01:52:49.800 --> 01:52:52.720
products did you design the label to go
on?

1505
01:52:52.760 --> 01:52:53.760
What products?

1506
01:52:53.220 --> 01:52:58.540
The product was designed to go on

1507
01:52:58.540 --> 01:53:03.840
asbestos-containing products that

1508
01:53:03.840 --> 01:53:08.720
contained or would give off loose
asbestos.

1509
01:53:08.980 --> 01:53:12.120
What particular products? Thermobestos
pipe covering?

1510
01:53:12.360 --> 01:53:13.780
That was one of the products.

1511
01:53:14.180 --> 01:53:15.180
Thermobestos black?

1512
01:53:15.460 --> 01:53:17.120
That was one of the products.

1513
01:53:17.360 --> 01:53:18.360
Cement?

1514
01:53:20.100 --> 01:53:25.220
one of the objectives was to label all of
the insulation products

1515
01:53:25.220 --> 01:53:27.760
perhaps what what

1516
01:53:28.400 --> 01:53:33.920
products did the warning label go on in 64
thermo best as pipe covering

1517
01:53:33.920 --> 01:53:34.920
thermo best as

1518
01:53:34.920 --> 01:53:37.020
black what else some

1519
01:53:39.390 --> 01:53:45.390
cements it went it it went on all

1520
01:53:45.390 --> 01:53:48.630
of the insulation products in 1964 I can't

1521
01:53:48.630 --> 01:53:53.210
to name all of the insulation products i
don't recall them did you design the

1522
01:53:53.210 --> 01:53:54.210
labels so that

1523
01:53:53.870 --> 01:53:57.370
the same language would go on each
different kind of especially containing

1524
01:53:57.370 --> 01:53:58.450
insulation product that

1525
01:53:58.450 --> 01:54:02.890
was to carry a label yes sir so the
thermobest is pipe covering and black the

1526
01:54:02.890 --> 01:54:04.330
magnesia the super x

1527
01:54:04.330 --> 01:54:07.710
all contained the same wording in the
caution label same wording in the same

1528
01:54:07.710 --> 01:54:08.710
caution label

1529
01:54:08.470 --> 01:54:14.430
same size yes sir okay and do you have a
copy of the caution

1530
01:54:14.430 --> 01:54:16.010
label before you i do

1531
01:54:16.010 --> 01:54:20.790
and the caution label states caution this
product contains asbestos fiber

1532
01:54:21.390 --> 01:54:25.390
inhalation of asbestos and excessive
quantities over long periods of time may

1533
01:54:25.390 --> 01:54:30.390
be harmful is that part of what it states
that's correct if dust is created

1534
01:54:30.390 --> 01:54:33.430
when this product is handled avoid
breeding the dust if adequate

1535
01:54:33.430 --> 01:54:37.050
ventilation control is not possible where
respirators approved by the US

1536
01:54:37.050 --> 01:54:41.870
Bureau of Mines for pneumoconiosis
producing dust that read that correctly

1537
01:54:41.870 --> 01:54:42.870
You did.

1538
01:54:42.550 --> 01:54:48.570
Now, what did you mean when you stated
inhalation of asbestos in excessive
quantities

1539
01:54:48.840 --> 01:54:50.970
over long periods of time may be harmful?

1540
01:54:51.790 --> 01:54:53.410
Let me rephrase your question.

1541
01:54:53.830 --> 01:54:59.590
What did you expect the user or consumer
to interpret excessive quantities

1542
01:54:59.590 --> 01:55:00.590
to mean?

1543
01:55:00.690 --> 01:55:06.590
I expected the user to interpret excessive

1544
01:55:06.590 --> 01:55:11.090
quantities in terms of excessive amounts
of

1545
01:55:11.090 --> 01:55:16.690
dust that he could see uh there was no
possible

1546
01:55:16.690 --> 01:55:20.970
way to tell him or explain to him

1547
01:55:22.730 --> 01:55:28.130
excessive amounts in terms of five million
particles per cubic foot of air he
wouldn't

1548
01:55:28.130 --> 01:55:33.630
understand that so in order to try and
make it as clear as possible to

1549
01:55:33.630 --> 01:55:36.010
the guy who is going to

1550
01:55:36.010 --> 01:55:40.650
put this stuff up i attempted to

1551
01:55:40.650 --> 01:55:47.170
describe for him what i thought he could
see one of the rules of

1552
01:55:47.810 --> 01:55:53.710
of or one of the recommendations of the
manufacturing chemist was

1553
01:55:53.710 --> 01:55:55.010
to keep a label

1554
01:55:55.490 --> 01:56:00.570
as short as possible and also keep it as
simple as possible

1555
01:56:00.570 --> 01:56:04.950
did you believe that

1556
01:56:04.950 --> 01:56:08.210
that your use of the phrase excessive
quantities

1557
01:56:08.660 --> 01:56:11.010
might lead users to believe

1558
01:56:11.010 --> 01:56:15.630
that they could inhale asbestos fibers
without risk of harm

1559
01:56:22.370 --> 01:56:23.930
but uh...

1560
01:56:23.930 --> 01:56:29.290
i i i can answer that question mister
riley is certainly not i i don't

1561
01:56:30.990 --> 01:56:31.990
my

1562
01:56:35.390 --> 01:56:36.390
opinion

1563
01:56:37.620 --> 01:56:38.620
mister riley

1564
01:56:39.640 --> 01:56:40.640
o'reilly

1565
01:56:40.700 --> 01:56:41.700
was

1566
01:56:41.110 --> 01:56:45.490
was to advise the user

1567
01:56:45.490 --> 01:56:50.570
by some language that he would understand

1568
01:56:50.570 --> 01:56:56.050
that the threshold limit value of

1569
01:56:56.050 --> 01:56:59.450
asbestos dust should be kept at a minimum.

1570
01:57:00.150 --> 01:57:02.610
That's the best I can answer your
question.

1571
01:57:03.450 --> 01:57:09.470
Again, we're dealing with all types of
workmen on all types of jobs.

1572
01:57:09.470 --> 01:57:14.750
Well, did you believe at that time that
your use of the phrase excessive
quantities

1573
01:57:15.570 --> 01:57:21.510
may lead some users to believe that it was
safe to inhale asbestos fibers

1574
01:57:21.510 --> 01:57:22.510
as long as

1575
01:57:22.390 --> 01:57:25.250
it wasn't excessive over a period of time?

1576
01:57:25.390 --> 01:57:26.390
Right.

1577
01:57:25.970 --> 01:57:27.090
I'll rephrase the question.

1578
01:57:27.290 --> 01:57:31.150
Did you believe at the time you designed
this warning label that your use of the

1579
01:57:31.150 --> 01:57:32.150
word excessive

1580
01:57:32.050 --> 01:57:38.130
quantities may give a false sense of
security to users of these asbestos-
containing insulating

1581
01:57:38.130 --> 01:57:40.050
products your

1582
01:57:40.050 --> 01:57:45.710
use of the word long periods

1583
01:57:45.710 --> 01:57:48.250
of time how did you expect users

1584
01:57:48.250 --> 01:57:52.670
to interpret that phrase long periods of
time the

1585
01:57:54.940 --> 01:57:57.200
reason long periods of time was

1586
01:57:57.200 --> 01:58:01.760
introduced into this label was the fact
that

1587
01:58:01.760 --> 01:58:08.240
asbestos dust was not a a poison

1588
01:58:08.240 --> 01:58:14.020
which again described in the manufacturing

1589
01:58:14.020 --> 01:58:16.980
chemist recommendations would have been to

1590
01:58:16.980 --> 01:58:22.700
kill laboratory animals within 48 hours
this was a material

1591
01:58:22.700 --> 01:58:29.640
that this was a material that

1592
01:58:29.640 --> 01:58:35.360
would not necessarily cause harm by one

1593
01:58:35.360 --> 01:58:40.040
exposure well or two exposures or three

1594
01:58:40.040 --> 01:58:44.260
exposures for that matter how did you
expect the user to interpret long

1595
01:58:44.260 --> 01:58:50.220
periods of time in terms of decades years
months weeks days

1596
01:58:50.220 --> 01:58:52.180
my own

1597
01:58:52.180 --> 01:58:57.120
interpretation would have been long
periods of time meaning extensive

1598
01:58:57.120 --> 01:59:03.020
extensive periods of time at one time or
over days into

1599
01:59:03.020 --> 01:59:04.020
weeks, yes, sir.

1600
01:59:04.120 --> 01:59:06.740
Okay. And that's how you thought people
wouldn't...

1601
01:59:06.740 --> 01:59:08.560
That's what you meant by long periods of
time?

1602
01:59:08.940 --> 01:59:13.860
Yes, sir. Again, Mr. O'Reilly, this was
the first voluntary health label

1603
01:59:13.860 --> 01:59:16.180
that I know was ever placed on any
materials.

1604
01:59:17.180 --> 01:59:22.860
And I tried to make the language just as
precise

1605
01:59:22.860 --> 01:59:23.860
as I could.

1606
01:59:23.660 --> 01:59:29.600
But I move to strike the comments about
the first voluntary label

1607
01:59:29.600 --> 01:59:30.600
that's not responsive

1608
01:59:30.520 --> 01:59:32.840
and not necessary to explain the witness's
answer.

1609
01:59:33.080 --> 01:59:34.220
I'll join in that motion.

1610
01:59:34.440 --> 01:59:35.440
It is good.

1611
01:59:35.560 --> 01:59:36.780
I'll join in that.

1612
01:59:37.860 --> 01:59:38.860
It's good.

1613
01:59:40.870 --> 01:59:47.270
When you were designing this caution label
in April and May of 1964,

1614
01:59:47.690 --> 01:59:52.390
could you have placed a warning on there
that stated,

1615
01:59:53.430 --> 01:59:59.790
avoid breathing any dust created from the
use of asbestos-containing products?

1616
02:00:01.370 --> 02:00:02.370
No, sir.

1617
02:00:02.410 --> 02:00:03.550
You could not have stated that?

1618
02:00:03.750 --> 02:00:04.750
No, sir.

1619
02:00:04.310 --> 02:00:05.310
Why not, sir?

1620
02:00:05.390 --> 02:00:09.030
There's dust in this room, Mr. O'Reilly,
as I told you Monday and Tuesday,

1621
02:00:09.170 --> 02:00:10.330
and we're breathing it.

1622
02:00:10.350 --> 02:00:11.350
Where is it?

1623
02:00:12.710 --> 02:00:13.710
It's here.

1624
02:00:14.590 --> 02:00:17.430
Oh, can't you change tables? Get out of
here.