Prediction in the face of uncertainty: the United States versus Reserve Mining Company

Our plain-English summary of Prediction in the face of uncertainty: the United States versus Reserve Mining Company, by A.L. Brown (Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 1986).

The study

• Author: A.L. Brown
• Journal: Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology
• Published: 1986;6(2):75-9
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

In plain English

This first-person commentary, presented at a 1985 conference on causation and compensation, is not a research study and reports no new data. The author had been the court-appointed scientific advisor in the federal lawsuit United States versus Reserve Mining Company. The company dumped taconite tailings into Lake Superior, and in 1973 asbestos-like fibers were reported in the lake water that north-shore communities, including Duluth, drank. The author described two studies the court ordered during the 1973 to 1974 trial. A tissue study compared Duluth residents with residents of Houston, Texas, and found no significant difference in tissue fiber counts. The court rejected it because the sample volumes were small, though the author considered them scientifically acceptable. A study of the laboratories' water fiber counts found errors so large that the counts showed only that fibers were present. The author also stated that separate studies found no excess gastrointestinal cancer in Duluth and that a government animal study of swallowed asbestos was negative. The author considered the appeals court correct that a health hazard had not been proven.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Commentary and personal account by the court's scientific advisor of the legal case, presented as a conference paper. It is not an original research study.
• Who was studied: The federal case United States versus Reserve Mining Company, tried from August 1, 1973, to April 20, 1974. It concerned drinking water from Lake Superior used by north-shore communities including Duluth, Minnesota. The court-ordered tissue study used tissues from Duluth residents, with Houston, Texas residents as controls. No numbers of people are given.
• Exposure: Asbestos-like fibers in Lake Superior drinking water, believed to come from Reserve Mining's taconite (iron ore processing) tailings, which were dumped into the lake at 65,000 tons a day. The question was whether swallowing these fibers causes cancer.
• Main results:
  • In the court-ordered tissue study, there was no significant difference between the number of fibers in the tissues of Duluth residents and Houston residents. The results did not support the hypothesis that drinking the water led to fibers being deposited in tissue.
  • The court did not accept the tissue study because the sample volumes were small. The author describes these volumes as entirely acceptable scientifically.
  • A court-ordered study of how reliable the laboratories' water fiber counts were found an error so large that the counts showed only that fibers were present. The counts had virtually no quantitative credibility.
  • The author wrote that the judge's repeated question, whether cancer risk from swallowing the fibers was "more likely than not", is difficult for a scientist to answer or understand.
  • The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals granted Reserve a stay, later extended indefinitely. Reserve devised a plan to dispose of its tailings and, according to the author, is no longer polluting Lake Superior.
  • The author reported, from other studies not described in detail, that no excess gastrointestinal cancer was found among Duluth residents in 1973 or in two later studies. The author also reported that a government animal study of orally ingested asbestos, including the type of fiber in Lake Superior, was negative.
• The authors' conclusion: The author's view was that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals was correct, then and now, in holding that a demonstrable health hazard had not been proven.
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The author stated that the criteria for judging the significance of the court-ordered studies' results were not made clear in advance.
  • The author stated that the tissue study was conducted under intense time pressure.

Related studies

• The origins of public concern with taconite and human health: Reserve Mining and the asbestos case — M.E. Berndt, W.C. Brice (2008)
• North-south gradient of mesothelioma and asbestos consumption-production in the United States-Progresses since the 1st asbestos partial ban in 1973 — H. Sun (2019)
• Atmospheric Carbon Mineralization in an Industrial-Scale Chrysotile Mining Waste Pile — A. Nowamooz, J.C. Dupuis, et al. (2018)
• Asbestos pollution in an inactive mine: determination of asbestos fibers in the deposit tailings and water — E. Koumantakis, A. Kalliopi, et al. (2009)
• United States regulations for control of asbestos exposure — E.M. Fenner (1979)
• Surveillance of high-risk groups exposed to asbestos in the United States — H.C. Lewinsohn (1979)

Browse more research in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, or return to medical research.