Document 0qQXxzXrRx3n7n2DNm26eq09k

CAMBRIDGE TO: E. Si Wood FROM: H. A Eschenbach 4 February 1982 SUBJECT: Epidemiology Consultants I have checked variobs sources with respect to the qualifications and other qualities of Richard R'.-. Monson who has been recommended to us as a con-sultant~on. the-4-ibby study. Monson, who is at Harvard, did the review of the Libby protocol for us in October 81. Attached is a copy in case yours is not readily available. Monson is supposedly the "best in the country" with respect to mortality epidemiology. However, there is another potential consultant at Boston University who has extensive experience in respiratory disease epidemiology and asbestos-related epidemiology. He is a clinical physician named Edward Geissler. At this point, I don't know whether we should look at him and consider him as an "either-for" with Monson. Have you any thoughts? attachment -'Industw-I-Hygiene-Study of Vemvculite-ffbrfcgrsr---- General This protocol is a fairly standard design from NIOSH. The proposal, is well within the realm of mainstream epidemiology. NIOSH is very ex perienced in studies such as this, and I believe that they have the cap- j ability to carry it out properly. ' Speci fi c No number of persons to be studied is mentioned. The cost and the timing depends heavily upon the number of persons. Therefore, it is difficult to evaluate the time table. The 2 year estimate for the mortality study is reasonable if there are no more than several thou sand persons, but may be ambitious if there are more. Page-2~-"'2ta")':--'I question" whether a suitable external "non-exposed" popu lation can be identified. The same procedures must be applied to this population as to the "exposed" population. The only realistic external _ population is another group within W.R. Grace. I suspect, that onlv internal "comparisons-wi i ntfe possible" 2(b): Same comment as 2(a). (3) Mortality -------------- - - - Page 3 (1): I question whether it will be possible to get smoking informa tion in the mortality study. If such information is available from company records, it would be quite valuable. Typically, however, smoking information is not available in occupational mortality studies. Inter pretation of data from these studies must'consider the possibility that --_r1g>gi}'5^ud-lrt^any1exeessltjTxhat -a re -foumi-T--: T"~ ._J/r ~Tn the mortaTi ty study~ it is indeed important to include persons with long latencies, i.e. persons who started work many years ago. Therefore, to the extent that it's possible, all persons who were employed on or after 1/1/40 should be identified and followed. I agree that it is most efficient to microfilm all personnel records and to exclude persons later. The only reason not to include short-term workers is that they will be more difficult to trace and will add to the cost of the study. Scientifically, it is preferable to include as many employees as possible. The general design of the mortality study is standard. Page 6 (A) (1): Under tenure in job, specifically must be included the dates and length of employment. While it is useful to get occupational history "when not employed by Grace", this is not always possible. It probably is impossible for persons who terminate and who take up other employment. Page 7 1_ 2 days to microfilm records seems short. It clearly depends upon Lhe1 number~of~perspnsTcTbe includecTI The general timing seems appropriate for a study of moderate size. Page 8 Grace may wish to consider having an .indp-ppnrlpryt_ana-]y.s-i-s- Of--the----------data. I am experienced in these analyses. Richard R. Monson, M.D.,Sc.D. 10/27/81 r<r;; v.. 5c O. ItrT-BlJCXWI^CTCFt 02146 WRC 00062F TELEPHONE (617) 734.2483 (817) 73 2> 1030 10/28/81 Dr. Harold H. Borgstedt W.R. Grace & Co. 62 Whittemore Ave. Cambridge, Mass. 02140 Dear Dr. Borgstedt: Enclosed is my review of the vermiculite study protocol. My fee for this review is 3 hours @ $125/hour = $375. Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposal. Sincerely, Richard.R. Monson, M.D Sc. D.