Document 1Qd89DYzX21GKEgYmBG5odZE5

FILE NAME: Celanese (CEL) DATE: 1998 Oct 13&14 DOC#: CEL037 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Legal - Deposition of Dixon, Vol. 1 NO. 96-3348-E 3\3lo\21 BERNICE DENKELER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS INDEPENDENT EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF RAYMOND DENKELER, DECEASED VS. ACandS, I N C E T AL * * * IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF * * - it * NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS * 148TH !JUDICIAL DISTRICT ** * VOLUME I VIDEO DEPOSITION O r ERNEST MALCOLM DIXON. M On October 13th and 14th, 1998, the video deposition of ERNEST MALCOLM DIXON, M.D., a witness in the above-styled cause, was taken at the instance of the Plaintiff at the Tyson's Corner Marriott, 8028 Leesburg Pike, Vienna, Virginia, pursuant to Stipulations contained herein. 2 1 Those persons present were as follows: 2 JOSEPH C. BLANKS 3 Attorney at Law Route 2, Box 3130 4 Woodville, Texas 75979 5 Counsel for Plaintiff 6 7 8 NONA B. WALKER Gardere & Wynne 9 1601 Elm Street, Suite 3000 Dallas, Texas 75201 10 Counsel for Defendant, 11 HOECHST CELANESE CORPORATION 12 13 14 MICHAEL E. HUTCHINS Hawkins & Parnell 15 303 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 4000 Atlanta, Georgia 30308 16 Counsel for Defendant, 17 HOECHST CELANESE CORPORATION 18 19 20 ERIC D. WEWERS DeHay & Elliston, L.L.P. 21 901 Main Street, Suite 3500 Dallas, Texas 75202 22 Counsel for Defendant, 23 RILEY STOKER CORPORATION 24 25 3 1 RICK SMITH, CSR 2 Charlotte Smith Reporting, Inc. 235 Orleans Street 3 The Kyle Building Beaumont, Texas 77701-2399 4 5 VIDEOTAPE OPERATOR/TECHNICIAN: 6 Warriene Flatt Legal Images 7 P. O. Box 315 Gilchrist, Texas 77617 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 1 MR. BLANKS: We will take it 2 pursuant to the Rules, And I presume 3 Dr. Dixon will read and sign -- 4 MR. HUTCHINS: Yes, sir. 5 MR. BLANKS: -- whether he 6 wants to or not. 7 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are on the 8 record at 9:40 a.m. 9 10 ERNEST MALCOLM DIXON, M.D-. 11 having been duly sworn, testified as follows, 12 to-wit: 13 14 EXAMINATION BY MR. BLANKS: 15 Q Well, good morning again, Dr. Dixon. 16 A Good morning, Mr. Blanks. 17 Q I'm Joe Blanks as I told you, and I 18 represent the Denkeler family in this case, along 19 with Herschel Hobson; and we are here today to take 20 your deposition. 21 A Yes. 22 Q And I againapologize for having you 23 venture out with your recovering injury. 24 A Thank you. 25 Q But thank you forbeing here. I would 5 1 like to start by having you sort of introduce 2 yourself to the Jury by way of going through your 3 background, but let's start by telling - telling us 4 your full name, sir. 5 A I'm Dr. Ernest M. Dixon - D-i-x-o-n. 6 Q And could I ask you your date of birth, 7 sir. 8 A January 11th, 1924. 9 Q And where do you reside now Mister - 10 Doctor? 11 A Right here in McLean, Virginia. At least 12 on that side of the road. (Indicating) 13 Q Could I trouble you for your address. 14 A Yes. 6305 Evermay, one word - 15 E-v-e-r-m-a-y - Drive, McLean - and that's 16 capital M, little c, capital L-e-a-n, Virginia, 17 . 2 2 1 0 1 18 Q All right, sir. And although I don't 19 anticipate having to use it, could I ask you for 20 your telephone number, please. 21 A Yes. Area code is 703, 556-0296. 22 Q Thank you. Could you take us back to 23 your - the conclusion of your high school education 24 and bring us on through your training after that. 25 A I graduated from high school in Roanoke, 6 1 Virginia, in 1941. I then entered Virginia Tech for 2 one year, followed by a number of years at the 3 University of Virginia. I graduated from medical 4 school at the University of Virginia in 1947. 5 Subsequently I interned there and took a 6 partial residency in medicine and pathology, which 1 was interrupted by recall into the service. Part of 8 my medical school days were in the V-12 Naval 9 program. And there was a shortage of physicians, 10 and they called us back in. And I was in the 11 service for about a year and a half in the Navy at 12 the Naval Hospital in Portsmouth, Virginia, where I 13 was doing internal medicine and cardiology. 14 And then I returned to Roanoke and opened 15 a practice of internal medicine and cardiology with 16 a partner who had been one of my best friends. 17 Q May I interrupt you -- 18 A Yes. 19 Q -- so I can fill the chronology in here? 20 A Yes. 21 Q You went to your undergraduate college 22 beginning in 1941 at -- 23 A Yes. 24 Q -- Virginia Tech and then moved over to 25 the University of Virginia? 7 1 A The following year, yes. 2 Q All right. And was the program then one 3 where you finished a medical degree without - I mean 4 as part of your undergraduate education plus -- 5 A No. 6 Q -- some more or -- 7 A No, I had to finish my undergraduate 8 education at the University of Virginia. It was 9 abbreviated in wartime because the war had begun in 10 December of '41. I was not old enough to go in, but 11 I signed up for the Naval Reserve so that whenever I 12 did get called, I would go - I would have a choice 13 of service. And I preferred the Navy. 14 And then they started the college 15 programs, and we were mandated to continue as long 16 as we were keeping our grades up and whatnot. So, I 17 had three years - the equivalent of three full years 18 of college done in about two and a half years and 19 then went directly into med school where we did 20 three - four years of work in three years because of 21 no vacations and, you know, trying to get through. 22 So, I actually finished my med school work 23 in '46 when .1 was 22. And we held graduation over 24 because the war had just ended by that time so - 25 until the following June of '47. 8 1 Q Was it in the midst of your medical school 2 years that you worked then at the Naval Hospital -- 3 A No. No. 4 Q -- in Portsmouth? 5 A No, that was after I was recalled during 6 my residency period - the postgraduate internship 7 residency program. There was a special doctor draft 8 during - I guess -- The Korean War hadn't started, 9 but there was still a lot of military presence. And 10 they had a shortage of physicians and called us - 11 those of us who hadn't been on active duty aside 12 from school into the service for a while. 13 Q 14 A What year would that have been, sir? '49. 15 Q Okay. 16 A Wait. Yeah. Yeah, '49. I'tn sorry. '49 17 to '50. I had a second period. I |get the two 18 confused sometimes. 19 Q All right, sir. And then you were telling 20 us how you did your internship in medicine and 21 pathology I believe? 22 A In mostly internal medicine. 23 Q And was the work at Portsmouth Naval 24 Hospital part of your internship or -- 25 A No. No, that was ... 9 1 Q -- that was real doctoring? 2 A Ye 3. 3 Q Okay. And then when was it that you began 4 your practice - your first practice in Roanoke? 5 A In 1950 at the end of that period of 6 service. Ironically just after the beginning of the 7 Korean War. 8 Q And then did I understand you got called 9 back a second time? 10 A Because I had four times - four days less 11 than enough time in - in that period of service; so, 12 I was called back toward the end of the Korean War. 13 It was in January of 1953. So, I practiced for 14 nearly three years. 15 Q And then how long did the Navy keep you on 16 this second occasion? 17 A I think it was 17 - 16 or 17 months. I 18 stayed long enough to be sure. 19 Q And where did that - that tour take you, 20 sir? 21 A That's very interesting. I was - ended up 22 switching from the Navy to the Public Health Service 23 because one of my friends who was ahead of me in med 24 school - a very bright fellow - had become head of 25 the Public Health Service's communicable disease 10 1 section, studying the health hazards of the then new 2 nerve gas and other types of pesticides, which the 3 Public Health Service was using for disease control, 4 particularly malaria and other insect vectored 5 diseases. And they needed a good internist on the 6 intraservice team of scientists who were studying 7 this. And he knew I was being called back into the 8 service. And, so, he arranged for me to be 9 transferred and to come into that - which was my 10 first exposure to that whole field of occupational 11 health and toxicology and so forth. 12 Q Who - who was this friend of yours, sir? 13 A Whalen J. Hayes - H-a-y-e-s - M.D., Ph.D. 14 Q Now, do you --- 15 A He's now deceased. 16 Q Do you recollect, Dr. Dixon, what this - 17 what this branch of the Public Health Service was 18 called back then? 19 A Well, it was part of the Communicable 20 Disease Center. It was actually the technology 21 branch of the Communicable Disease Center at that 22 time. It's now called something else, but it's 23 still CDC. 24 Q Oh, I didn't realize - although I never 25 thought about it - that the CDC goes back -- 11 1 A A long time. 2 Q 3 A -- even that far. Way back, yeah. But I guess -- 4 0 Way back. So, this 1953 to '54, '55 5 A ' 54. 6 Q -- hitch was your introduction to - 7 well - public health and the edges of industrial 8 medicine I suppose? 9 A Yeah, that was it; true. 10 Q And I take it your interest was aroused 11 and you thought you would look further into this 12 field? 13 A That is correct. 14 Q Whesre were -- Where were you working with 15 t h e -- 16 A For the bulk of the time -- Well, first at 17 Savannah, Georgia, which was the head of the 18 technology branch, to get oriented and learn a lot 19 of things that were new to me; and then a brief 20 period in Atlanta where CDC is headquartered. Well, 21 it's Chamblee now I guess it is. And then I was 22 stationed for the bulk of the period out in 23 Wenatchee, Washington. I think it's 24 W-e-n-a-t-c-h-e-e. That's right north of Yakima. 25 It was right in the heart of the apple and all the 12 1 irrigated fruit growing section of the State of 2 Washington. So, it was a very rich source of 3 opportunity to study the use of these agents. 4 Q Did your work in Savannah ever bring you S in contact with that nuclear plant there? 6 A Not then. 7 Q Later? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Am I right in remembering that it - that 10 the Savannah plant was still under construction in 11 the early '50's? 12 A I don't even think it was under 13 construction back then. I don't know, though. 14 Q Okay. 15 A Yeah. It may have been. I - I shouldn't 16 address that. 17 Q All right, sir. So, then, after 18 completing your stint with the Public Health 19 Service, then did you return to Roanoke? 20 A No. 21 Q Where did you gofrom there? 22 A I had learned thatoccupational health was 23 then the newest approved medical specialty under the 24 American Board of Medical Specialties, and training 25 programs had developed in a number of the major 13 1 schools. And I reviewed all of them and opted to go 2 to what was supposedly the best of the programs at 3 the University of Cincinnati. It's the Kettering 4 Laboratory there. And I was there - well ... 5 Q 1954? 6 A I went there in '54. 7 Q And until when, sir? 8 A With the academic and clinical portions of 9 the -- It was a fellowship actually - not a 10 residency - a teaching fellowship. And it was two 11 years in residence there at Cincinnati, followed by 12 a third year of approved preceptorship in an 13 industrial health setting, approved by the 14 university and the specialty board for actual 15 hands-on, practical experience in the field of 16 occupational health in a - in the setting of a good 17 practice. 18 Q Did that third year practicum have you 19 working at some particular industries -- 20 A 21 Q Yes. -- or companies? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Whichwere those? 24 A I optedfor the American Cyanamid Company. 25 They had been interested in some of the research- I 14 1 had done during that year in the Public Health 2 Service - a year and a half or so in the Public 3 Health Service. And I knew some of the things they 4 were doing. And I applied to them to see if they 5 would do this. And they agreed. And we were 6 approved by the university. And, so, I went with 7 American Cyanamid. 8 Q Every step along the way I think of about 9 ten questions I want to ask you. But it would 10 probably be more fruitful if we finish our outline 11 and then come back. And that's what I would propose 12 to d o -- 13 A Okay. 14 Q -- just so I have a clear picture of 15 your - your background. So, we have got you at 16 Kettering for '54, '55. And then in '56 -- 17 A '55, '56. 18 q -- you do this practicuxn with American 19 Cyanamid. 20 A Yes. 21 Q And then I'm going to guess that you then 22 took employment with Cyanamid? 23 A I did. 24 Q Okay. And that would have been around -- 25 A In 1957. Wait a minute. 1957. 15 1 Q Okay. And did you remain at Cyanamid 2 until around '65 or so? 3 A ' 62. 4 Q And at that point you joined the Celanese 5 Company? 6 A No. 7 Q Okay. 8 A I joined the Bell System first. 9 Q I'm going to quit trying to tell your 10 story and let -- 11 A That's all right. 12 Q -- you tell it. All right, sir. 13 A I joined the Bell System first initially 14 as headquarters medical director of Western Electric 15 there - the manufacturing arm. And a year and a 16 half later I was promoted to medical director of 17 their interstate and international operations. And 18 I was there for another year and a half until March 19 of '65. 20 Q Where did you go then, sir? 21 A That's when I joined Celanese Corporation. 22 Q And the position that you hired on - that 23 you hired in as? 24 A The corporate medical director. 25 Q And then how long did you remain with 16 1 Celanese, Doctor? 2 A I was there over 17 years, until 1981. 3 Q And then? 4 A I took early retirement to come down here 5 in a consulting capacity. 6 Q And do you mean in a consulting capacity 7 to Celanese? 8 A I'm sorry? 9 Q Was that in a consultingcapacity to 10 Celanese -- 11 A No. 12 Q -- or just generally? 13 A Generally. 14 Q Okay. 15 A I was initially in a firm - a partner in 16 Tabershaw Occupational Medical Associates for two - 17 two and a half years. And then we sold that off. 18 And the three principals took shares of the actual 19 consulting practice. And I stayed here, which is - 20 had been my long-term objective. I came back to 21 Virginia. 22 Q And do you still doconsulting work? 23 A Yes. It's more limited now, but I'm still 24 doing some. 25 Q And would your consulting since '81 have 17 1 been mostly in the field of industrial medicine? 2 A Yes, industrial health, toxicology, 3 product safety, some environmental health issues, 4 industrial hygiene. The whole field that represents 5 occupational health. 6 Q All right. So, that brings us up to the 7 present? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Okay. 10 A Yes, sir. 11 Q Now I would like to backtrack in a little 12 more detail if you don't mind -- 13 A Okay. 14 Q -- and try and stay in chronological 15 order as best I can so I can get it organized in my 16 mind. 17 In the -- In your medical school -- Well, 18 let me go back further. During your undergraduate 19 work, what - what area did you specialize in? Was 20 it pretty much just apremed program? 21 A It was basically a premed course because 22 we had to get. all of the required subjects done 23 quickly and not stretch it out because of the 24 wartime. It had some other general academic items 25 in addition to premed: Sciences and whatnot. But 18 1 it was not a full four year - - I t was a more general 2 education. 3 Q Did - did your undergraduate education 4 include any foreign language work? 5 A Yes. 6 Q which one did you work on? 7 A German. 8 Q Now, this was the norm back 9 That was customary for a professional or a science 10 major back in those days, wasn't it? 11 A Yes. You had to have some familiarity - 12 reasonably some familiarity with two languages. And 13 I had had Latin earlier. And, so, I took German. 14 Q And would you have been then at least able 15 to read German by the time you graduated? 16 A To a degree, yes. 17 Q Okay. 10 A I laughed. I shouldn't have ... 19 Q Sir? 20 A You know, when youtake two years of a 21 course, you are not a linguist; but I could read 22 reasonably -- 23 Q You could understand it? 24 A Yes. 25 Q And it gets away from you all too soon' 19 1 after that without use I'm sure. So it was for me. 2 And then your medical school program was 3 also I gather somewhat compressed and accelerated 4 because -- 5 A Yes, it was. 6 Q -- of the war? 7 A It was -- It was the full - full extent of 8 the courses, however. It was compressed in time 9 because we only had a week's vacation once a year 10 between the years in effect. 11 Q Yes, sir. 12 A We had no Summer vacation, no long between 13 term vacations. It was highly compressed. But it 14 took three full years to - almost three full years 15 to get four years of work in. 16 Q Now, in 1943, '44, '45 when you - when you 17 began medical school, was there - was there much 18 taught at the University of Virginia in the area of 19 industrial health? 20 A Industry what? 21 Q Of industrial medicine. 22 A No. Virginia was not a highly 23 industrialized state at that time. And most medical 24 schools didn't have much in the way of curriculum in 25 the subject. They would have something - like we 20 1 studied lead poisoning and a few things. But 2 really no addressing it as an issue or as a subject. 3 So ... 4 Q But in passing at least some of the S course - courses might have discussed the more 6 prominent occupational diseases of the preceding 7 decades? 8 A To an extent. More so those that had 9 clinical significance otherwise: Respiratory 10 diseases, for example, and which environments they 11 were a significant element to. But other than that, 12 really very - very little. 13 Q I would suspect that silicosis and the 14 complications of tuberculosis might have been 15 addressed? 16 A Tuberculosis was heavily addressed. And I 17 do recall that silicosis was mentioned as a very 18 significant element - or rather tuberculosis was a 19 very significant element in silicosis. But we 20 didn't really study silicosis. 21 Q 22 A Okay. Except they might have two sentences 23 t h a t -- 24 Q 25 A An awareness that - that it was there I'm sorry? 21 1 Q Just an awareness that --- 2 A Yes. Yes. 3 Q -- it existed? And were any of the other 4 dust diseases of the lung covered as you recollect 5 from medical school? 6 A Not: that I recall except for the allergic 1 phenomenon. We had quite a bit of work on 8 allergies, not industrial, but just general 9 allergies. 10 Q And did you - - D o you recollect any - any 11 material on the blood diseases from chemical 12 exposures perhaps? 13 A Really very, very little. The only one I 14 can recall specifically was lead. And, of course, 15 lead has a problem with the blood, among other 16 things, too. So, at least it talked about that 17 generally. So, that was the only one we studied 18 with anything of - of consequence. And even then it 19 was very trivial. 20 I recall that our professor was fascinated 21 with the idea of burning lead storage batteries and 22 the vapors being so horribly toxic to - well, golf 23 bums and people like that. 24 Q Uh-huh. 25 A And that's about the extent of it. I look 22 1 back on it now with some concern because being 2 interested in the field now, it's appalling that 3 they didn't have more. And they still don't in a 4 lot of raed schools. 5 Q I suspect that's true. 6 A Yeah. 7 Q And then when you - when you were doing 8 your Navy work at the Portsmouth hospital I would 9 imagine you were dealing mostly with - what, war 10 injuries and communicable diseases or -- 11 A Well ... 12 Q -- pretty much everything? 13 A There were no war injuries during that 14 time. It was sort of between the war periods. But 15 it was general problems of adult illnesses of - 16 nonsurgical illnesses of humans, which is the field 17 of internal medicine and cardiology because that was 18 my subspecialty. For Naval -- That was primarily 19 for Naval personnel. 20 Q Yes, sir. Did you have any public 21 health-type courses in medical school? 22 A We did have public health courses. They 23 related largely to the communicable disease aspects 24 of it. 25 Q Can you remember, Dr. Dixon, any of your 23 1 textbooks from that - that time inmedical school? 2 A Can Iremember them? 3 Q Yes, sir. 4 A Very vividly. And I still have most of 5 them. 6 Q Can you - you tell us the names of those 7 that you do recall that would be relevant to - you 8 know, approaching the occupational medicine area or 9 public health area? 10 A Well, the Bible for internalmedicine in 11 those days was Cecil's - I can't think of what the 12 title of it was. It was something -- We just called 13 it Cecil's. That was the author. You know, books 14 are so often referred to just by the author's name. 15 Public health -- I can't remember. I know I have 16 got a public health book, but I can't recall the 17 name of it. 18 Q Does Rosenau sound familiar? 19 A No, that was much later. 20 Q Okay. 21 A Yeah, I have that in a more recent 22 edition. Well, I say it was later. There might 23 have been one back at that time, but I'm not 24 acquainted with it. 25 Q Okay. 24 1 A I can sort of see it, but I can't bring it 2 out. 3 Q Any others come tomind that ---- 4 A Well ... 5 Q -- would be relevant? 6 A There were differentbooks in different 7 subjects. Like I had White's Cardiology and all 8 kinds of laboratory books - Bray. Lord, 1 hadn't 9 thought about it in a long time. It's hard to 10 recall at this moment. 11 Q I gather Mr. Hutchins didn't ask you to - 12 to bring any of those -- 13 A Oh, no. 14 Q -- today? Okay. 15 A I rarely look at them. They are on one 16 shelf in my office library that I see periodically, 17 but it's with a sweep of the vision -- 18 Q Sure. 19 A -- usually for the most part. 20 Q Did you retain your texts from your later 21 years as well? 22 A By in large. I have lost a few in the 23 course of time with moves and probably lending 24 books, but I have most of them. It's quite an 25 extensive library. 25 1 Q Okay. So, we have moved on through the 2 Portsmouth hospital period, which was mostly 3 internal medicine. And then you opened your 4 practice, and I would guess that was in the same 5 field of internal medicine and -- 6 A Yes, and cardiology. 7 Q -- cardiology? 8 A In July of '50 - '50. 9 Q And then were called away in January of 10 1953 to the Naval Reserve again - or active duty? 11 A To the Public Health Service. They 12 switched me over. So -- 13 Q Oh, did that -- That happened -- 14 A Yeah, in the course of the - going on duty 15 for that particular assignment. The Public Health 16 Service is a quasi-military installation. And 17 during wartime it is full military. But in 18 nonwartime it's usually quasi-military. 19 Q Now, what - what kind of pesticides were 20 you working with back then? 21 A The principal ones we were involved with 22 were categorized as organic phosphate compounds or 23 organophosphates as some people called them. They 24 were derivative-type materials from the work the 25 Germans did in poisonous gas studies during World 26 1 War II, modified to permit use in agricultural 2 applications, but with quite a hellishly high 3 toxicity nevertheless. You know, there were a lot 4 of fatalities in some of the areas with 5 misuse - accidental or a malicious dosing of people 6 and the like. The potential for harm was very 7 abundant. 8 We also studied some of the other 9 pesticides, the hydrocarbon types like DDT; the 10 whole variety of them in use -- It was mostly 11 halogenated hydrocarbon-type pesticides. The point 12 being that we were studying the ones that were most 13 likely to have application in public health disease 14 control, pesticide eradication in population 15 centers. We studied some of the other ones, too, 16 just so we had a good base of knowledge and had 17 awareness of comparable or comparative problems of 18 other pesticides. We even studied arsenic, for 19 example, and things like that from way back. But 20 the basic fundamentals for us were with the organic 21 phosphates and the DDT-type halogenated 22 hydrocarbons. 23 Q And you mentioned American Cyanamid is one 24 of the companies that was somewhat involved with 25 this. Were there others as well? 27 1 A There were. It just happened that 2 American Cyanamid was very preeminent in the organic 3 phosphate manufacturing in this country. They 4 manufactured two well-known materials: Parathion 5 and malathion, the former being very highly toxic to 6 humans and the latter being much less so but a 7 similar-type compound - and other analogues and 8 similar products. But there were many other 9 companies involved in the other pesticides, and I 10 think there were some others involved with the 11 organic phosphates to a lesser degree. 12 Q Do you remember the names of any of these 13 other companies? 14 A Well, I recall Shell. 15 Q That's what I was going to guess. 16 A That was a big one. Lord. Let me think. 17 Q Dow? 18 A Yes, Dow was involved. Monsanto. I don't 19 recall whether -- 20 Q 21 A Carbide? Huh? 22 Q Union Carbide perhaps? 23 A Yeah, Carbide was involved, too. I can't 24 recall just which ones they were -- I think du Pont 25 was to a lesser degree. Among the big ten chemical 28 1 companies that would be the principal ones 2 certainly. There may be some I missed. Well, there 3 is Ciba-Geigy. Oh, I could think of the names of a 4 bunch of them; but they were all lesser players. 5 Q Uh-huh. 6 A And, of course, over time later many 7 companies got involvedsecondarily and so forth. 8 Q Okay. Well, what did this - this effort 9 of studying the pesticides consist of? I mean 10 what -- What did you do? What facilities did you 11 have? 12 A We studied nearly everything we could 13 about it. We studied what the chemicals were, how 14 they were used, for what purposes, what evidence 15 there was of utility with respect to insect vectors, 16 animal studies of toxicity and finally human 17 experience in the use of the compounds. And that 18 was our principal objective during that time was to 19 study populations who were actually either 20 manufacturing, mixing or applying or otherwise using 21 the compounds in agricultural pursuits, which was 22 different than the public health use but a very 23 parallel-type exposure potential from the standpoint 24 of studying the health effects. 25 Q So, in Savannah where you began this work. 29 1 was there a laboratory for doing -- 2 A Yes, there was a very big laboratory. And 3 it was the headquarters operation - office operation 4 area for that technology branch. And that was -- 5 The principal job of the technology branch at that 6 time was this project. 7 Q This project in particular? 8 A Yes. They were -- They reported to the 9 CDC in Atlanta. 10 Q And at that time back in 1954 -- 11 A '53 and four, yeah. 12 Q -- '53 and four the CDC was part of the 13 Public Health Service? 14 A Yes, and still is. 15 Q And still is? 16 A Yeah. 17 Q Okay. And the Public Health Service back 18 then was under -- 19 A The Surgeon General. 20 Q -- under the Surgeon General of the 21 United States? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Okay. 24 A Which became during about that period a 25 division of the -- What is the -- 30 1 Q HEW? 2 A HEW, yeah. 3 Q Yeah. That would be from the 4 A That was all reorganized with - when they 5 did the Social Security and a bunch of other things 6 and -- That's not quite the way to say it, but there 7 was a lot of change. 8 Q Uh-huh. This -- Was this 1953 employment 9 your first real experience with the Public Health 10 Service? And I guess you knew they were out 11 there -- 12 A Yeah. 13 Q -- but hadn't had any direct dealings 14 w i t h -- 15 A I hadn't had any direct substantive 16 involvement with them previously. I was very well 17 aware of them and so forth, but ... 18 Q And you understand that during the war - 19 the World War II years the Public Health Service had 20 provided industrial hygiene services in the - in the 21 war industries and I guess in the - with the 22 different states -- 23 A Yes. 24 Q -- of the union? 25 A To a degree, yes. Yes. 31 1 Q 2 A And In maritime - military treatments and all 3 the rest of the things -- 4 Q I'm sorry? 5 A In maritime - medical services and so 6 forth- 7 Q Okay. And during the wartime these 8 gentlemen in the Public Health Service as you said 9 were essentially military -- 10 A Yes, they were fullmilitary. 11 Q -- officers? 12 A In uniform, yes. 13 Q And then did the - to your understanding 14 this providing of industrial hygiene consulting 15 services or effort continued after the war by the 16 Public Health Service? 17 A I think so. I wasn't directly concerned 18 with that except insofar as it related to measuring 19 exposure potentials in the pesticide work. I had no 20 knowledge of that. I didn't even know the term 21 "industrial hygiene" I think at that point. So, 22 that may be not quite correct; but that's 23 essentially so. 24 Q Okay. At this Savannah job then you said 25 there was a laboratory, and I suppose they were 32 1 doing toxicology work there? 2 A They were doing toxicology and analytical 3 work, all types of developmental things that would 4 be useful in studying this problem. It was the 5 headquarters of that operation. So, it had the 6 libraries and all the high level, technical 7 operations and people, et cetera. 8 Q What is your understanding, Dr. Dixon, 9 about how long approximately that facility had been 10 there in Savannah - or that that had been the place 11 for this technology branch with the laboratory and 12 t h e -- 13 A You mean at that particular location? 14 Q Yes, sir. 15 A I did know the history of it. They were 16 at a beautiful facility that had belonged to a 17 railway workers retirement health program from prior 18 years out on an island out from Savannah. I think 19 that that program - whatever it was - had terminated 20 and the Public Health Service acquired that property 21 at some point prior to my involvement in '53. I 22 would think maybe -- It was after World War II 23 ended. So, probably four or five years sooner than 24 I was there. 25 Q Did you have some understanding of how far 33 1 back in time this technology branch of the Public 2 Health Service existed? 3 A You know, I don't. I really don't know. 4 I suspect it existed for a long time, but I can't 5 recall any knowledge of that. 6 Q At the laboratory in Savannah was the 7 Public Health Service doing animal studies on the - 8 for the toxicology of these pesticides? 9 A I was afraid you were going to ask me 10 that. At the moment I am not sure. If they were 11 doing animal studies there, it was to a very limited 12 degree. Most of the work was being done on animals 13 at universities or commercial toxicological 14 laboratories. But I have a feeling that there was 15 some of it, but I honestly can't recall just 16 what ... 17 Q And if I understand it correctly, many of 18 these pesticides were available both as a liquid and 19 as a dust? 20 A There was a lot of variability, yes. 21 Q I mean it could go either way with 22 A Some could. 23 Q -- many of them? 24 A Many of them did, yes. 25 Q I remember malathion just as a milky white 34 1 liquid. 2 A When you -- When you diluted it, yes. 3 Q And the DDT certainly principally is a 4 dust? 5 A That's right. 6 Q Well, I guess they spray it as a fog, too, 7 for mosquito control? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Would the animal testing then for some of 10 these pesticides that were under study in 1954 have 11 included inhalation studies? 12 A Well, the animal work would have included 13 inhalation studies. And, in fact, the human studies 14 are not designed to be inhalation studies; but in 15 the workers - in applications in particular and some 16 of the manufacturing and mixing-type operations 17 would have the potential for inhalation exposure. 18 So, we measured all of that to the best degree we 19 could. There was dermal, oral and inhalation 20 potential for any of those materials. 21 Q Could you recall for us, please, Doctor, 22 any of those commercial and university laboratories 23 that were around back in '53 or so to do this kind 24 of animal studies, toxicology work? 25 A Yeah. Well, one was Hazleton 35 1 Laboratories, which is located just down this road 2 here a short distance. It was Hazleton then. The 3 universities? Let me think. I know New York 4 University did some work. God, that's so long ago 5 that I'm just -- I suppose I could sit here and 6 think a long time and come up with something, but I 7 can't recall off the top of my head who was involved 8 in that. 9 Q 10 A Well, now that I -Well, the University of Washington, for 11 example. 12 Q 13 A Oh, in Washington -There are ... 14 Q 15 A -- state? ... several other schools in California. 16 Q 17 A I'm sorry? There are several other schools in 18 California. The U. C. San Francisco was one. In 19 fact, that's where all Shell's work was done under 20 Dr. Charles Mine. 21 Q 22 A Charlie Hine? Yeah. And it's just so long ago that it's 23 too -- very unclear in my recollection. 24- Q 25 A Well, perhaps -It was peripheral to my involvement, 36 1 although -- It was important at the time, but I just 2 don't recall the details. 3 Q Maybe some of these names will come back 4 to you later in the day; in which case, I would 5 appreciate you sharing that with us. It's just 6 t h a t -- 7 A Yeah. 8 Q -- it's of some historical interest. In 9 terms of the human user studies that you were doing 10 then, how - how was that done? What did that 11 consist of? 12 A Well, there were three principal groups. 13 One was the manufacturers. And that was done back 14 in the plants of the manufacturing companies. So, 15 we were not directly involved with that. The second ie was what was called the mixing plant people. 17 When -- The applications were all commercial. They 18 weren't people out with a Flit gun. These were 19 people with airplanes and huge Bean spray - sprayers 20 and whatnot. So, large quantities of the material 21 had to be mixed. Most of them were aqueous - 22 water-based mixtures and - or powders. And both 23 were administered from the air by either airplane or 24 helicopter. 25 And the ground applications were largely ~rx .1i , .-`j 71 37 J i through these - we used to call them Beans - the i 2 Bean Company. That's a -- It's a huge tank with a 3 big hose ~ a thing on the back that shot it out in i 4 all directions. And they would pull it through 5 orchards and fields with a tractor. And a very ici JJt 6 important part of it was mixing the loads to be s7 used. And this involved dumping the powder or ..a 8 liquid concentrate into whatever medium it was going i 3 9 to be dispersed from and mixing it thoroughly and 10 then transferring it into the spreading - into the 1 3 11 vehicle that would be doing the spraying or pN 12 application of the material. 13 So, there's a lot of potential for J 14 exposure both to the concentrate as it was being ni 15 handled initially, and then splashing, spilling, c IS vaporization and so forth out of the mixing 17 operations, which were done usually in a pretty big 18 hurry. To get a mix going they had to work like in 19 a hurry to get it ready. And the third was the " 20 people actually involved -- Well, there are really 21 four. The third was the group who was actually _j 22 doing the application, either aerial application, 23 ground application and ancillary people. For 24 , ) '25 example, when they sprayed from the air you had flag --- 38 1 Q Flaggers? 2 A -- men down on the ground to show the 3 pilot where to come in and where to end his runs, 4 and other associative people involved. And there 5 was a final group, and that was residents in the 6 immediate areas of the applications; people that 7 live near the orchards or near the fields or 8 whatnot. And these things were used at that time 9 almost entirely in the fruit industry initially. 10 So, that was why we were out in that unique part of 11 the country. 12 Q I am inferring that there was some 13 s o r t -- 14 A The University of Washington. The 15 University of Idaho. Okay. Add those to your list. 16 I'm sorry. 17 Q Thank you. 18 A And Washington State -- Washington State 19 University in particular. That's one of the 20 biggest. In fact, our station was on the grounds of 21 their station. 22 Q Was there then some sort of medical 23 monitoring effort by the Public Health Service to - 24 to examine and - and build histories on the 25 individuals in these four groups that you just 39 1 described for us? 2 A Yes. And, in fact, that was - - M y 3 principal responsibility was to -- 4 Q Okay. Now, that's - that's what I was 5 interested in you telling us. What - what did you 6 doctors actually do in this regard? 7 A Well, we did a number of things. There 8 were some groups and some cases and so forth where 9 we actual did physical exams ourselves. For the 10 bulk of the time we did not examine people, but we 11 closely observed and measured the exposures that 12 happened. You would get a characterization of them. 13 And actually the chemists in the laboratories did 14 that work in parallel with us. We would tell them 15 where they ought to do it and so forth. 16 And we reviewed with the people -- One of 17 the chief methods we used was a symptom inventory. 18 We studied people who were these applicators and the 19 residents nearby and even some far afield to get a 20 parallel group for a comparative study - a 21 nonexposed group. 22 We had a - what was called a one-hundred 23 question - a sample questionnaire about symptoms. 24 And we studied them every month. We went and talked 25 to the people*. And if they had any illness or 40 1 anything more than trivial symptoms, we would go 2 into it to whatever degree was required. If they 3 had an illness, we'd check with the doctors and the 4 hospitals. And then there would be cases of 5 poisoning or suspected poisoning. And we would 6 always get involved with those, even hopefully at 7 the time of the acute episode. 9 One of our problems was that little kids 9 would get accidentally into a barn or somewhere 10 where they had been mixing it - somebody used a 11 coffee can or a coke bottle or something; and some 12 awful things happened. And we would study the cases 13 as they were being treated. And I got published on 14 a couple of those. But -- So, anything that 15 happened clinically with those people was fair game 16 for our study. We were interested in getting 17 everything we could. 18 We did other things, too. For example, 19 the hydrocarbons, they tend to be stored in a vat. 20 And with DTT, which becomes metabolized to DDE and 21 DD - or another one. I can't think of the name of 22 the latter one, but DDE is the first metabolite. We 23 would do studies of people exposed - and get a 24 nonexposed group -- Like we went down to Loma Linda 25 to the Seventh Day Adventist group and got -- Most 41 1 of it came from meat or - or exposure from out in 2 the field. But we were interested in nonmeat 3 eaters. So, it was the vegetables by in large that 4 would not have significant amounts of -- Most of 5 these materials were pretty well destroyed by any 6 rinsing or any water wetting. So, there wasn't much 7 residual out there on vegetables even if they had 8 been treated. And they weren't using them for 9 vegetables by in large in those days. 10 So, we had a nonexposed group. Then we 11 had people exposed in the same categories that we 12 listed these others that we had studied to see the 13 differences. And then we even did prison studies 14 where we gave prison volunteers - which was 15 permitted back in that day. That's something that I 16 think has pretty much been abandoned subsequently. 17 They were given placebo doses, a low dose and a 18 somewhat higher dose to see what their metabolism of 19 it would be and so forth. 20 Q So, a form of an ongoing epidemiology 21 study I suppose? 22 A I guess you could call it epidemiology, 23 yeah. Almost any study has some epidemiologic 24 statistical analysis and structure to it. 25 Q Now, how -- Well, let me see if I'm - if 42 1 I'm understanding you correctly. Somebody was out 2 in the field measuring exposure levels, or at least 3 concentrations in air if - if nothing else? 4 A Yes. 5 Q Right. 6 A To a limited degree, but they were doing 7 it. 8 Q Not so much personnel monitoringbut area 9 monitoring and -- 10 A Area monitoring, yeah. 11 Q Okay. 12 A We did dermal exposure monitoring by 13 patches applied to the outer garments and then 14 analyzed the amount of pesticide that would be on a IS given area and then calculate what the total 16 volume - external dose was. It wasn't necessarily 17 the amount absorbed, but it -- And then measure 18 whether they had any absorption of the material 19 internally. 20 One of the things we did extensively was 21 develop and use tests that indicated the level of 22 exposure without measuring the material itself. One 23 of the big ones was the cholinesterase, blood 24 levels, which was something reasonably easy to do. 25 Parathion and the other organic phosphates depressed 43 1 both serum and red cell cholinesterase which are 2 very essential for nerve functioning. And it was 3 nerve gas effects that we were studying. So, we 4 could use that to measure the body'a impact and 5 assess the exposure levels. In fact, those were 6 used practically on all of the aerial applicators to 7 be sure they were safe for -- 8 Q Flying? 9 A -- flying, among other things. 10 Q So, this wasn't measuring so much the 11 exposure as the effect of an exposure on the 12 A Well, a measurable effect. It might not 13 have any clinical effects because you would have to 14 get a rather severe degree of suppression before 15 actual symptoms developed. But you could see -- You 16 could get a baseline level on them. And then if 17 week by week it was going down, you would know they 18 were getting more than they ought to and at some 19 point they would be likely to have trouble; or if 20 they did get in trouble, you could see it clearly. 21 Q At least a way of getting some objective 22 d a t a -- 23 A Yes, sir. 24 Q -- that would tell you they had been 25 getting exposures? 44 1 A Yes, sir. 2 Q Then I guess the task was somehow 3 statistically to try and correlate the exposure data 4 to the symptoms and the observed consequences, if 5 any, in the folks? 6 A That's essentially true, yes. 7 Q So, you had trained people doing air 3 monitoring and analysis of the samples that you 9 described - the patches and such - and you were 10 getting that information; and then you had the 11 physicians dealing with the interviews and the 12 questionnaires? 13 A The clinical aspects, yes. 14 Q How were these two types of information 15 then brought together -- 16 A Well ... 17 Q --- to be useful? 18 A It was a function of the technology 19 branch; people to cooperate and pool things together 20 into whatever category it was appropriate with any 21 study. 22 Q So, there was a -- Well, I think I have 23 got the concept ; but I was hoping you could put it 24 in plainer and more articulate language than - than 25 I'm able to. I mean the object of this effort I 45 1 suppose was to try and - and find potential hazards 2 from - well, first of all, I guess what are - what 3 are the effects of the chemicals to begin with and - 4 right? 5 A Yes. 6 Q And then secondly to determine whether 7 the - the exposure levels that you find in the field 8 are, in fact, going to have the health consequences 9 that you fear? 10 A That's correct. 11 Q And then it lets you determine where to 12 control the exposures for the most -- 13 A Exactly. 14 Q -- benefit? 15 A It ended up being for both agricultural 16 use in this country as well as for the public health 17 use in controlling insect vectors, which was largely 18 a measure in foreign parts of the world. 19 Q 20 A Trying to suppress themalaria and -And many other disease - or insect-vector 21 or insect-borne diseases. 22 Q Now, did your work during this period with 23 the Public Health Service back in '53, '54 have you 24 at apy time counseling with the - the applicators, 25 for example, the pilots or the other folks that you 46 1 were studying? 2 A Oh, I'm sure we did, yes, 3 Q And would I be right that - that part of 4 your job then was to - to try and make these men 5 aware of the potential for harm from these 6 exposures? 7 A That is correct. There was an educational 8 component as well as a basic clinical approach. 9 Q And would I be right in thinking that your 10 message to the pilot or the mixing man or whatever 11 he might have been was that he should try to have as 12 close to zero exposure to these dusts and vapors and 13 liquids as - as he could practically get? 14 A Well, the word "zero" has no relevance 15 anymore. 16 Q Just as a target, though; as a -- 17 A Well, that they were to be within safe 18 limits. That was one of the objectives. When you 19 use agents like that, there is inevitably going to 20 be some exposure. And the intent was to determine 21 at what point it was imprudent to have exposure. 22 Q So, if I understood you, I mean the effort 23 there was trying to determine, though -- 24 A What level was an appropriate level that 25 they could tolerate adequately and without any 47 1 adverse effects of any consequence and so forth. 2 Q A n d -- 3 A Because they would have to be exposed to 4 the agent. So, any exposure would be of concern. 5 But we needed to know how much was tolerable and 6 where to cut it off and so forth. 7 Q I guess what I was getting at was at the 8 beginnings of this study and in the early part of 9 it - and maybe all the way through it - I mean you 10 physicians really didn't know for sure what was a, 11 quote, "safe level"? 12 A That's correct. And that was the reason 13 the studies were undertaken. There was some 14 criticism prior to my time there that we were using 15 these things - and very effectively - but we didn't 16 have an adequate body of knowledge about the human 17 effects of them and what was a safe level and so 18 forth. 19 Q And would I be right that during that time 20 when you really know that you don't know to a 21 certainty what the safe level is that you - you at 22 least would - would want to err on the side of 23 caution when it came to exposures of the men 24 handling the material? 25 A Well, history has not been one in which 48 1 that was the case. And that was a part of our role 2 was to try to see that that was accomplished. But 3 we needed to learn more about the materials. We 4 were intellectually and scientifically glad when we 5 had an overexposure because it gave us information 6 that we didn't have otherwise. We didn't want that 7 to happen, but we wanted to take advantage of it a when it did occur so we did get a clear knowledge of 9 what was happening. 10 Q So, even though you would take advantage 11 of the situation where there was an overexposure, 12 you would darn sure not encourage it and -- 13 A No. Absolutely not, no. 14 Q Indeed you would be encouraging them in 15 the other direction? 16 A Quite the other direction. And we 17 actually participated in doing the actual 18 cholinesterase tests for large groups of them just 19 so that they could be sure to have properly done 20 testing. It was a technique that was a little 21 tricky. And most laboratories weren't interested 22 in it - or didn't do it well. So, we would do it 23 for particularly the pilot groups and some highly 24 selected exposed groups otherwise. And the 25 companies did it in their manufacturing operations. 49 1 We didn't get involved in doing any of that. We saw 2 the data, but they established what were the proper 3 industrial standards for safety and so forth in the 4 manufacturing and mixing and so forth. 5 Q So, X gather then that - if I understood 6 that - that while the Public Health Service 7 physicians and technicians were working with people 8 in the field at the point of use of the products, 9 the manufacturers such as American Cyanamid and 10 Shell and others were carrying on a similar effort 11 in their plants -- 12 A Yes. 13 Q -- that is, they were measuring or 14 monitoring for exposure levels in the plant with 15 instruments? 16 A That - that is so, yes. 17 Q And medically monitoring theworkers 18 potentially exposed -- 19 A Yes. 20 Q - - - t o these pesticides? 21 A That is correct. 22 Q Just looking -- 23 A Their - their operations were more 2 4 intensive than those that we did in the field 25 because it was easier to do. So ... 50 1 Q I'm sorry. Their efforts of -- 2 A Their efforts were more intense in medical 3 monitoring than we could do in the field. So ... 4 Q Everybody was - 5 A Yeah. 6 Q -- working at the same place and -- 7 A Yes. 8 Q -- accessible to the doctor? 9 A Yeah. 10 Q Everybody was an employee of the company 11 and, therefore, under some control? 12 A That's right. By the way, the people who 13 were our subjects were all there as volunteering 14 people. So ... 15 Q Well, that wasgoing to be my next 16 question because the Public Health Service was 17 always relying on really companies volunteering or 18 inviting you to come -- 19 A Exactly. 20 Q -- to their plants or facilities or 21 volunteering their work force for -- 22 A Or a community in the case of field work, 23 yes. 24 Q And speakingagainof the manufacturing 25 environment for these pesticides, just as it was 51 1 easier to - to do the medical monitoring more 2 completely of the work force, it would also have 3 been let's say more practical to - to provide and - 4 and check your engineering controls to limit 5 exposures in the factory -- 6 A That's correct. 7 Q -- than out in the field? 8 A Absolutely, yes. 9 Q If only because you have the means of 10 putting in meichanical ventilation devices a n d -- 11 A Engineering and soforth, yes. 12 Q Okay. Which is not always or maybe 13 even not often an option when you are working in 14 the field with hazardous dusts or liquids; 15 correct? 16 A That is correct. 17 Q But aren't I right, Doctor, that even back 18 in 1953 and '54 you public health professionals - as 19 you were becoming then - would have had the - the 20 goal - perhaps an idealized goal, but nonetheless 21 the goal would have been to aim at the complete 22 elimination of the exposures to the workers? 23 A No. 24 Q . Well, tell me where I'm wrong. 25 A I'm sorry. I was thinking about itsend 52 1 use in the public health aspects of applying it to 2 eradicate disease. Well, in the case of the - the 3 workers, our objective was to be sure they weren't 4 harmed; but that didn't mean no exposure. It meant 5 they would expect to have as low an exposure as 6 practicable, but certainly one that was well within 7 calculated safe limits, yes. 8 Q And -- But so long as you didn't know with 9 confidence and certainty the safe limits, I think 10 you said you would err on the side of caution and - 11 and still -- 12 A Yes. 13 Q -- aim to get the exposure as low as 14 practical? 15 A I believe that's basically correct, yes. 16 Q Because I tried to phrase that question to 17 state an objective or an ideal. I mean it would 18 never have been your ideal to just settle for 19 exposure levels just below the maximum allowable 20 concentration surely. 21 A Well,what was thequestion? 22 Q In your laterpractice as an industrial 23 physician your goal would never have been just to 24 get one point under the TLV or the MAC for 25 exposures? 53 1 A Well, no, not as such. You want to be 2 sure you were under the MAC. And you would like to 3 have it - anything as low as - that'a reasonable. 4 Q Okay. And if by reasonable measures you 5 can get to a tenth of the MAC or the TLV, then 6 that's what presumably a reasonable physician or 7 hygienist would have been recommending? 8 A Well, I don't know about any numerical 9 target of that sort; but it -- 10 Q Well, just by example. 11 A Well, if you say so, yes. 12 Q I mean really the surest way to have no 13 health effects from any of these toxic materials 14 that are handled in industry is to have no exposures 15 to them? That would follow, wouldn't it? 16 A I guess you would say that's true 17 basically, yes. If you didn't do the work even 18 perhaps, but ... 19 Q And if you - if you, for example, through 20 engineering controls and just the design of the 21 plant or the facility could - could completely 22 contain the toxic material, that would be the - I 23 guess the most desirable -- 24 A That's essentially an unattainable 25 possibility virtually. But it would be an ideal 54 1 goal, but not something that you would really seek. 2 Q But, for example -- 3 A You want to have a safe level and not 4 something that you would expect to be harmful to an 5 individual. And that always allows some exposure. 6 Because if a thing exists in the world, it's always 7 there anywhere. So, there is no such thing as no 8 exposure or zero. It became very difficult in the 9 early part of my career to learn not to refer to 10 zero anymore. In the old days we referred to zero 11 exposure, but that became obvious not to be a 12 reasonable choice of words. 13 Q Did you come to find that to be a less 14 reasonable choice the longer you practiced in the 15 field? 16 A Absolutely, yes. 17 Q And that was because of - what, economic 18 practicalities? 19 A No, not at all. Strictly technology. In 20 the early days analytical methods were very crude by 21 contrast with today's methods. And things that we 22 called no exposure in the old days, they could 23 measure major lesser components of them by new 24 analytic technology. And that's ever-increasing. 25 In fact, it exceeds the capability of people to 55 1 interpret the biological significance it can go down 2 so low as many of these things go. But - but the 3 idea of a zero or no exposure level is just a 4 nonentity anymore in the scientific consideration of 5 issues. 6 MR. HUTCHINS: Is this an 7 appropriate moment for a break? 8 MR. BLANKS: Sure. 9 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off 10 the record at 10:50. 11 12 (AT THIS TIME A BRIEF RECESS WAS 13 TAKEN, AND THE PROCEEDINGS THEREAFTER 14 RESUMED AS FOLLOWS:) 15 16 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are on the 17 record at 11:13. 18 19 (By Mr. Blanks) 20 Q Dr. Dixon, returning briefly to this stint 21 in the 1953, '54 period with the Public Health 22 Service and your work on the - the pesticide 23 project, were the - the results of this combination 24 medical monitoring, air monitoring, toxicology study 25 published at some point? 56 1 A There were a number of publications. Some 2 that were published as interim reports and so forth 3 as we went along. Much of it came along much later. 4 A lot of it was internal publications - internal 5 reports upon which they could base their 6 decision-making. And I don't know how much of that 7 was published or not. But the things that would be 8 of general interest to the medical or scientific 9 community by in large was published. 10 I participated in three or four of the 11 publications as either author or coauthor. Mostly 12 coauthor. But they were not definitive in the 13 long-term sense. And after I left I got too 14 involved with the academic work to keep close track 15 on it like I had. I kept in reasonable touch, but 16 not -- I can't -- I'm not versed in it. 17 Q But you did say that you coauthored a 18 couple of papers along the way -- 19 A Yes. 20 Q -- out of this project? 21 A Yes. 22 Q Merethere exposure limits orthresholds 23 or guidelines that - that came out of this pesticide 24 study that you know of? 25 A Not to myknowledge at thatpoint. It 57 1 probably did at a later date. But I don't recall 2 just what the history was of it after ray 3 involvement. 4 Q Did - did your work ever take you to any 5 of the manufacturing plants of the pesticide 6 makers ? 7 A Not at the time that I was in the Public 8 Health Service, but in later years it did. 9 Q For example, when you were an American 10 Cyanamid employee? 11 A That is right, and others. 12 0 Did -- Well, did Celanese ever make 13 pesticides? 14 A To my knowledge they never did. 15 Q I didn't think so, but I thought I would 16 cover that while we were at this point. 17 A Yes. 18 Q Did your work in the Public Health Service 19 on the pesticide study in 1953 and 1954 bring you in 20 contact with any physicians or industrial hygienists 21 from industry? 22 A It did. 23 Q And do you recollect which companies' 24 persons you met? 25 A Well, of course, chiefly and most 58 1 importantly was American Cyanatnid who had a very 2 active force involved in that because they had a 3 vested interest, of course. There was some with 4 Shell and some lesser so with others. But I wasn't 5 intimately involved with them. I met people when 6 they would come -- Our station was on the grounds of 7 the university - of Washington State University's 8 field station. And it was an intensive agricultural 9 research center. And we would meet people who came 10 through there of interest. But it's kind of a flash 11 in my memory at this point who, when, where and so 12 forth - I'm sorry - who, what, when, where and so 13 forth. 14 Q Who were the - the folks from Cyanamid 15 that you became acquainted with while in the Public 16 Health Service? 17 A Well, the chief people were those attached 18 to the central medical department headquarters in 19 New York. The medical director was doctor -- I 20 guess you want to hear the names? 21 Q Yes, please. 22 A Dr. D. 0. Hamlin, who was corporate 23 medical director. He's deceased. Dr. Arthur 24 Manglesdorph, who was an assistant medical director, 25 as was Harold - Dr. Harold Golz - G-o-l-z. I can't 59 1 remember how to spell Manglesdorph, but d-o-r-p-h. 2 Q We will mangle it. 3 A There was some other doctors. And then 4 there were all kinds of - the industry hygiene -- 5 The chief industrial hygienist was W. R. Bradley. 6 And they had a big force of other industrial 7 hygienists on corporate staff and attached to many 8 of the units of the corporation of divisions. 9 They've got a variety of names, but most 10 of them are deceased now. Then there was the 11 toxicology division headed by Dr. Boyd Shaffer. 12 It's spelled funny. S-h-a-f-f-e-r. And his 13 contingent of people. The No. 2 man was 14 Dr. Levinski, who later became head of toxicology at 15 Monsanto - then Monsanto. He's retired. Shaffer is 16 still alive. 17 Q Do you -- 18 A Oh, there were a variety of others. And 19 there was people in the divisions and in the local 20 plants. And I had an industrial hygienist at the 21 corporate research center named Warren Virchow in 22 Bound Brook when I was there. There was Russ Hunt. 23 I didn't have one in New Orleans. We used 24 industrial hygienists from the division, which 25 included John Pendergrass, who was of late the 60 1 assistant secretary of OSHA * John Pendergrass, who 2 was of late the secretary of OSHA - the assistant 3 secretary. 4 Q Do y o u -- 5 A There were many others. I know some of 6 the names, but it gets less and less upper level. 7 Q I think you have gone beyond my time frame 8 in answering this. So -- 9 A I'm sorry. 10 Q -- let me try and clarify it. No, I 11 appreciate you giving us those names. But back to 12 '53, '54 while you were at the Public Health 13 Service, which I think is where I started, we were 14 discussing the people you knew or met from American 15 Cyanamid then. And that included the doctors 16 Hamlin, Manglesdorph and Golz. 17 A Yes. 18 Q And am I right that Bill Bradley was then 19 at American Cyanamid as an industrial hygienist - 20 the '53, '54 time period? 21 A That's correct. And Ihadinvolvement 22 with all of these people during that period at the 23 Public Health Service. That's why I named them 24 specifically. 25 Q All right, sir. And at that time - '54 or 61 1 so - there were other industrial hygienists on the 2 staff of American Cyanamid -- 3 A Yes. 4 Q 5 A -- in addition to Bill Bradley? Yes. 6 Q 7 A 8 Q 9 A Okay. I named several. Mr. Virchow? Huh? 10 Q 11 A M r . Virchow? Virchow, yeah. 12 Q 13 A Virchow. How would you spell that? V-i-r-c-h-o-w. 14 Q Okay. And Mr. Brook. The first name 15 again? 16 A Russ Hunt. I think that's the one I said. 17 I forgot who else I named. 18 Q Did you mention a Brook? 19 A I don't recall it. 20 THE WITNESS: Did I mention I 21 Brook? 22 Q We think you did, but I didn't hear the 23 first name. 24 A Brook? No, I didn't mention that. 25 Q Or did you say Rook? 62 1 A Well, he was a very - one of the lead 2 industrial hygienists - James Rook. I don't recall 3 using the name Brook. 4 Q It's the hearing problem over at this side 5 of the table. 6 A Yeah. Yeah, I understand. 7 Q Okay. 8 A But I'm drawing a blank on it now. 9 Q Oh, perhaps you said Mr. Hunt was at - or 10 Mr. Virchow was at a particular location? 11 A Oh, I would have said Bound Brook. That 12 was the location of the plant called Bound Brook. 13 I'm sorry. 14 Q Okay. Well, it's my fault. I apologize. 15 A We were going over the jobs I had at 16 Cyanamid. That's why I -- 17 Q Okay. And then do you - do you associate 18 John Pendergrass with American Cyanamid during this 19 1953, '54 period as well? 20 A Yes. 21 Q Okay. Now, you also, Doctor, mentioned 22 that you had contact with health professionals from 23 Shell - I presume Shell Chemical Company during this 24 Public Health Service period. 25 A Yeah. I'm not quite sure what - how the 63 1 decisions were called at that time. I just remember 2 it as Shell. It may have been Shell Chemical. 3 Q Well, actually I think Shell Chemical 4 w a s -- 5 A Yeah. 6 Q -- technically a division of 7 A Yeah. I just ... 8 Q -- Shell something. 9 A I just can't recall how that was 10 structured. 11 Q Y e s . And who werethose folks that you 12 recall? 13 A Well, the principal one Iremember, of 14 course, was Charlie Hine. But there were others in 15 the field operations other than Hine. I just 16 thought a moment ago about it. I can't remember any 17 of the names. 18 Q 19 A Do you remember Norman white? Oh, I knew Norm very well, yes. 20 Q 21 A Okay. I'm sorry. I should have thought of him 22 We were very close associates in professional 23 associations and so forth and in some of this work. 24 Q And Charles Hine was a physician and a 25 toxicologist? 64 1 A Charlie Hine was a physician who was 2 primarily a consultant to industry. He was a 3 professor of - I don't recall whether it was 4 occupational medicine or toxicology or whatever in 5 San Francisco, who actually I think throughout his 6 career was really a consultant to Shell; but he was 7 considered the "Mr. Medicine" in terms of 8 occupational health, toxicology and so forth for 9 Shell throughout his life - the latter years anyhow. 10 Q And could you tell us what kind of 11 reputation Dr. Hine enjoyed in the medical - the 12 industrial/medical field? 13 A Oh, impeccable, outstanding. He was an 14 early leader. 15 Q I'm surmising that maybe there was a bit 16 of an industrial medicine or an industrial hygiene 17 program at the University of California where 18 Dr. Hine worked -- 19 A That is right. 20 Q -- in this 1950's -- 21 A I don't know the time elements of when it 22 developed and where. But certainly all through my 23 career there have been some degree of programs. 24 Sometimes they were not very great, and sometimes 25 maybe the response was not big. But it's always 65 1 been there to my knowledge. 2 Q And do you recall then that Dr. Hine would 3 have had some involvement with this pesticide study 4 in the early '50's that you worked on? 5 MR. HUTCHINS: Which pesticide 6 study? 7 MR. BLANKS: The 1953, '54 8 effort. 9 A He was studying pesticides. He wasn't 10 part of our study. I don't know if he studied the 11 organic phosphates as such himself or not. I would 12 be surprised if he hadn't. But I'm not acquainted 13 with his involvement. He was involved with the 14 Shell line of products and their research and 15 whatnot. And I don't have at the tip of my fingers 16 knowledge of all the details of that. 17 18 (By Mr. Blanks) 19 Q 20 A I'm sorry. I didn't mean t o -No. No. 21 Q 22 A -- to impose that --I'm aware of some of the work he did in - - 23 in other fields of toxicology and whatnot because we 24 worked on a number of projects. 25 Q And I suppose just as if one were to 66 1 compare today's directory of the Industrial Hygiene 2 Association with that of 1955, the numbers have 3 multiplied, you know, many, many, many times - the 4 numbers. The same would be true I guess for 5 toxicologists or industrial physicians -- 6 A If ... 7 Q 8 A -- contrasting today with -Did you say of directors or members? 9 Q I meant the directory. If you -- 10 A Oh, the directory, yes. Yes, indeed, they 11 have all grown very substantially. 12 Q And that's true in your field -- 13 A Yeah. 14 Q -- industrial hygiene, of course, and I 15 guess it would be true with toxicology as well? 16 A It is, yes. 17 Q So, if we go back to this time when you 18 first began getting involved in toxicology and 19 industrial medicine, there would have been I guess 20 comparatively speaking just a handful of prominent 21 toxicologists around the country -- 22 A Yes . 23 0 -- true ? 24 A When I joined the SOT - just after the 25 charter membership group started in about '65 -- 67 1 That's when I joined in '65. I think it started in 2 '62 probably. And there were fewer than 700 3 members total. And now the membership is in excess 4 of 10,000. And the same is true of the A1HA. of 5 which I was a member. And my own organization, the 6 Occupational Health Physicians - which has gone 7 through a number of name changes - now called the 8 American College of Occupational and Environmental 9 Medicine, had probably 15 - 12 to 1,500 members; and 10 now it's I think close to 7,000. So, they have all 11 grown quite substantially. Industrial hygiene is 12 the greatest. 13 Q 14 A Yes. And SOT - theSociety of Toxicology next. 15 Q Do you remember becoming acquainted with 16 any toxicologists from Union Carbide or Dow Chemical 17 o r -- 18 A 19 Q Both, yes. who - who do you recall from the earliest 20 period with Union Carbide? 21 MR. HUTCHINS: Well, hold on a 22 second. At what time, Joe? 23 MR. BLANKS: Well, I think the 24 doctor is going to have to tell me 25 what time. 68 1 A What you are asking me? I'm sorry. I 2 didn't quite get the gist of the question. 3 4 (By Mr. Blanks) 5 Q And it was a poorly put question. I was 6 wondering if you recollect again from this - this 7 early 1950's period when you were in the Public 8 Health Service making the acquaintance of 9 toxicologists from other companies such as Carbide 10 or Dow or du Pont or Monsanto and just sharing those 11 names with us. 12 A I knew virtually all of them. Carbide 13 didn't have its own internal toxicologist. They 14 used the toxicology group at the Carnegie-Melon 15 University's Bushy Run Laboratory. And I would have 16 to scratch my head and think of all the names; 17 b u t -- 18 Q Does a Henry "Smyth" or "Smith" ring a 19 bell? 20 A Henry Smyth had been head of it for a long 21 time. I knew him very well. Oh, there is so many 22 of them. It's just kind of hard to even think. 23 In the case of Carbide -- In the case of 24 Dow they had their own laboratory up at Midland. 25 And they had a large staff of people. And through 69 1 the years I have known all of their people. Now 2 that you ask. me, I have a hard time bringing out 3 some of the names. There was like Perry Gehring who 4 was a more recent head of it. Good, Lord. 5 Q V. K.? 6 A 7 Q Huh? V. K. Rowe? 8 A Oh, I knew V. K. extremely well. We 9 were -- We - we became very, very close friends from 10 our first meeting which was in 1955. And he and I 11 were very close. I am closest to him of almost any 12 other toxicologist in the country. But I couldn't 13 think of his name right -- I couldn't bring it out 14 of my memory. 15 Q And was there aTorkelsonthere? Is IS t h a t -- 17 A Oh, Ted Torkelson, yes. Oh, gosh. He was 18 close, too. 19 Q And I would presume that - as well as 20 regarding V. K. Rowe as a friend, you also regard 21 him as an extremely competent toxicologist from - 22 fr o m -- 23 A Outstanding. He was one of the top people 24 I have ever known in that work. 25 Q Did you know any folks from du Pont in the 70 1 early '50's? 2 A I knew all of the people in du Pont, too. 3 I spent time with them at Haskell. Good, Lord. I 4 mentioned him earlier. John Zapp was the head of 5 the laboratory for most of the time that I was 6 involved. He retired a few years back and had an 7 untimely death a few years ago. 8 Q Are you recollecting now the period after 9 you joined American Cyanamid and -- 10 A In this - in this last little bit of 11 inquiry, yes -- 12 Q Uh-huh. 13 A -- because I didn't have more than casual 14 acquaintance with any of these until after I joined 15 Kettering. 16 Q Okay. Well, maybe that's the -- 17 A 18 <2 Yeah. -- logical place to go next. 19 A Well, wehad exposure tovirtually all of 20 the leading figures in the whole field at Kettering. 21 They were all brought to the laboratories for 22 seminars and whatnot, and that's how I met so many 23 of the early leaders in the field early on in my 24 career. So - foreign and domestic. 25 Q Your Public HealthService workended in 71 1 1954? 2 A Yes, June -- 3 Q Or at least your active duty tour? 4 A Yeah, ray active duty. It was June or July 5 1st, something like that. 6 Q Did you remain as a reserve officer in the 7 Public Health Service even -- 8 A I did. I let it lapse a few years ago by 9 default. 10 Q And it was at this time near the end of 11 your term out there in Wenatchee -- 12 A Wenatchee. 13 Q -- Wenatchee, Washington, that you 14 decided you might develop your expertise in the 15 field of industrial medicine? 16 A That is correct. 17 Q Could you tell us what -what led you to 18 make that decision? 19 A Well, I became fascinatedwith the whole 20 field of toxicology in particular, but all the other 21 elements: Industrial hygiene, clinical medicine, 22 industrial hygiene aspects. And as I mentioned 23 earlier, it was then - had just been approved as the 24 latest medical specialty. In fact, they hadn't even 25 positioned it where it would be fit. It finally 72 1 ended up in preventive medicine. 2 And training courses were already approved 3 and in place. And I just decided that this was what 4 I wanted to do. So, I applied to several of them 5 and was accepted at each and then picked Cincinnati. 6 Q I need to digress. I apologize. But were 7 there -- Of the other Public Health Service 8 physicians with whom you worked in the '53, '54 9 period, did any of those men then go on to - to 10 positions with industry that you know of? 11 A Most of them remained in academic or some 12 form of governmental service. Like Jack Hayes went 13 to Vanderbilt and headed toxicology. I don't 14 recall - I could be totally in error - but I don't 15 recall any that actually went into industry. 16 Q Doctor, do you recall any industrial 17 hygienist, per se, that worked with you or your 18 colleagues on the Public Health Service pesticide 19 project? 20 A Well, they weren't called industrial 21 hygienists. They were chemists by in large; people 22 from the laboratory either in Savannah or - we had 23 one - two at our laboratory in Wenatchee. They were 24 self-trained and trained by the CDC people to do 25 sampling and so forth among the things - among many 73 1 things that they did. I didn't -- I don't recall 2 that I ever knew the term "industrial hygiene" until 3 late in the course of that period when I was 4 exploring going into the field. Maybe I did know 5 the term, but. it was not something that I had a lot 6 of knowledge -- Oh, of course, I did because I knew 7 the industrial hygienists of Cyanamid and so forth. 8 So, I did know the term. 9 But there wasn't formal training in 10 industrial hygiene in those days. All the people in 11 the field were those who had opted to do that type 12 of work through one experience or another and became 13 self-made people in the field, as was true of 14 medicine and otherwise in the early days. 15 Q Yes, sir. You might recollect, however - 16 not meaning to be contrary with you - but the 17 Harvard School of Public Health had a program that - 18 in industrial hygiene that went back - well, I don't 19 know when, but. probably before the war. 20 A Probably around in that time really. 21 Q Yes, sir. 22 A I don't know the time tables that the 23 different schools started that. But Kettering, 24 Harvard, New York University, Pittsburgh, Rochester 25 all had semblances of training in those fields. I 74 y b 'v. 4 ) l 2 3 1 4 5 3 6 a 7 -*j* a .j 9 '1 10 'i -V n 12 LJ 13 > 14 * 15 J 16 17 -J .. 18 s 19 20 " 21 22 23 -- 24 / 25 don't recall formality - even Kettering didn't have a formal name concerning training in industrial hygiene until after I left there in the late '50's, but they had industrial hygienists on staff and so forth. They were very knowledgeable, very well-known people. Q Concerning the industrial hygienists or the persons at the Public Health Service that were doing industrial hygiene that you know - that you knew, did any of those individuals go on to industry as - as you can recall? A No. As I said before, I don't recall any of them having done so; but I can't attest to that. Q Okay. You said you applied to several schools -- A Yeah. Q -- for your advanced studies in industrial medicine. Which ones did you -- A Well, I got information from all of them. And I started to apply to more than I actually ended up sending out. I ended up sending them out to New York University, the University of Pittsburgh, Kettering, I think to Rochester, too. That was under the du Pont - under the Kodak people. Q Uh-huh. 75 1 A I know about the first three. It's been 2 so long now I can't remember. 3 Q Can you recall --- 4 A I had a hard time deciding which was .. . 5 Q Can you recall. Dr. Dixon, the other 6 schools that existed in 1954 that offered a program 7 that you - you know, that you sent off to get 8 information from? 9 A What about them? 10 Q I was just wondering if you could share 11 with us the - the names of the other places to which 12 you didn't apply -- 13 A Oh. 14 Q -- that existed back then. 15 A Harvard, Columbia. It seems like there 16 were about eight. 17 Q Did Johns Hopkins have anything there? 18 A No, they didn't haveanything. They don't 19 have much now. I'm trying to think. I can't recall 20 now. That was the bulk of them. 21 Q And how was it that you finally settled on 22 Kettering at the University of Cincinnati as your 23 choice? 24 A Well, I liked what I heard about it and 25 what I saw about it. I visited several of them. 76 1 Well, I visited two actually - Pittsburgh and, of 2 course, Cincinnati. And in the field the people I 3 talked with all raved about Cincinnati being No. 1. 4 It was under Robert Kehoe, who had had very major 5 support from the Ethyl Corporation because he was 6 the one who studied lead poisoning in the gasoline 7 industry and allowed the m o d e m automobile to 8 evolve. Anyway, I picked them as being the leader; 9 and I guess they still are the leading one. 10 Q And how large was your class that you -- 11 A Very small. We had five. 12 Q That's a small class. 13 A Well, they weren't classes like -- These 14 were postdoctoral doctorates. 15 Q I understand. But suffice it to say, you 16 were able to get acquainted with everybody in 17 y o u r -- 18 A Oh, yes. 19 Q -- in your group? And -- 20 A There were two years at the school. At a 21 time in the class behind me for The first year 22 had five; and the class during the second year I 23 think had five, also. They were very selective, and 24 they didn't want them to be big. They wanted them 25 to be intensive. And they were very intensive 77 1 training programs. 2 Q Now, what did -- 3 THE WITNESS: Am I talking loud 4 enough for all of you? 5 A I hatve a little trouble when I got this 6 thing in knowing what I'm saying. 7 Q Well, if you think that's going to excuse 8 any of this testimony, you are wrong. 9 MR. HUTCHINS: No excuses needed 10 or offered. 11 Q What was the formal title of the degree 12 that you were striving toward at Kettering in 1954? 13 A Doctor of Science in Occupational Health. 14 They may have called it Industrial Medicine still at 15 that point. I have forgotten which, but it was a 16 Doctor of Science, which is equivalent to a Ph. D. or 17 a Doctor of Philosophy - and of Science. 18 Q And could you recount for us then what the 19 courses consisted of in this two-year study period? 20 A Essentially everything you would be faced 21 with to some degree in industry. Prom general 22 medicine as it applied to the industrial setting, 23 particularly with respect to doing pre-employment 24 and preventive health examinations and knowing the 25 history of diseases the people would have, 78 1 et cetera. And then particularly the diseases and 2 conditions that occurred in people as - or might 3 occur, potentially so, from occupational endeavors. 4 I use that word as opposed to exposure because it's 5 a broader thing. It includes radiation, noise, 6 every kind of influence that people are subjected to 1 environmentally in - in a work situation. 8 We had intensive studies in industrial 9 hygiene, in toxicology. We had intensive training 10 in medical/legal aspects, business and management, 11 understanding structures of business endeavors. 12 There were quite a few others. But it was a very 13 broad based thing - to give the people in the 14 training course as broad a picture of the things 15 that they ought to know as they entered industry, 16 which is a totally different world than private 17 practice, for example. 18 Q Uh-huh. 19 A And the training specifically in the 20 scientific sense was much different than that which 21 you got in medical school or residencies because it 22 went far beyond that but also included what you did. 23 Some of the time was involved in visiting, 24 various industries, all types of things. Some of it 25 was involved in clinical work at the medical center 79 1 teaching medical students, too. And it was a 2 teaching fellowship. Meeting with experts in the 3 field, rather extensive people from all parts of 4 this country and from abroad. 5 We had a seminar day every Saturday - 6 people worked in those days on Saturdays, at least 7 half a day; we worked all day - but with leaders in 8 the field and controversial people. And, so, it was 9 an exposure that was unattainable in any other 10 setting. 11 Q It sounds quite fascinating. 12 A And in the third year in addition to 13 whatever responsibilities you had for a given job 14 position -- Most of the time we didn't have a job 15 position. I was sent there originally to be 16 attached to the central medical department in the 17 New Jersey headquarters and then to spend time in 18 each of a major number of plants around the country, 19 particularly the ones in the New York area. It was 20 heavily peppered with them up in that region. 21 But they had a problem in New Orleans with 22 a health matter at a big new plant and they needed 23 somebody with my background to come in on an 24 emergency basis and head it up. And they got 25 permission from the Kettering people for me to do 80 1 that. So, I became assigned actually to the big, 2 new New Orleans plant but still spent quite a lot of 3 my time visiting other plant locations, attending 4 meetings and things to broaden my knowledge and 5 exposure to the field. 6 Q So, you would -- You would have had 7 courses specifically dealing with what would 8 traditionally have been called occupational 9 diseases -- 10 A Yes. 11 Q -- among many other -- 12 A Intensively, yes. 13 Q -- things? And I take it this - at 14 Kettering is when you first got your teaching 15 specifically about say the pneumoconioses, the dust 16 diseases, for example? 17 A That's right. 18 Q And the various known and suspected 19 industrial carcinogens that were in use in industry 20 back in the mid-'50's and so on? 21 A Those known at that time, yes. 22 Q Who were your instructors that you can 23 recall from the Kettering period? 24 A Well, Dr. Kehoe, Dr. Hayworth, Dr. Princi. 25 Good, Lord. I can see some of them, but I'm having 1 a hard time pulling the names out o the hat. 2 Joe -- Good, Lord. I can't believe I'm having 3 trouble with that. 4 Q Well, I thought I was going to be able to 5 help y o u . And I'm -- 6 A On some of them I've just got to think. I 7 can see the faces right now of the people and can 8 see where they were in their offices, but I'm having 9 trouble with some of the names. 10 Q I thought I might find some names here to 11 stimulate your recollection with. Well, they will 12 c o m e -- 13 A There was Suskind, a Dr. Folkes, 14 Dr. Phair - P-h-a-i-r. 15 Q J. J.? IS A J. J. 17 Q Yeah. 18 A Good, Lord. There is so many. And then 19 there was many of them from the university and these 20 other fields: Surgeons, lawyers, technical people 21 of all ilks related to various aspects of what the 22 particular other subject areas were. This was a 23 very full program, very intensive; and we - we had 24 long, .days and a vast amount of experience for - 25 crammed into the two years there at the - at the f 82 1 school. 2 Q And Dr. Kehoe was still quite active then 3 i n -- 4 A O h , yes, he was. 5 Q -- not only teaching but also as a 6 medical consultant as well,- correct? 7 A Y e s . That is right. 8 Q 1 think you mentioned that he had some 9 relationship with the Ethyl Corporation? 10 A Yes. 11 Q And I believe that Dr. Kehoe during this - 12 this era was actually the medical consultant to the 13 Ethyl Corporation; would that be -- 14 A That is right. 15 Q -- right? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Did any of these other physician 18 instructors have similar kinds of roles that you 19 knew of? 20 A Some of them did, yes. 21 Q Could you tell us who you 22 A Well, first of all, they had a number of 23 doctors on the staff that were really assigned 24 almost full time to Ethyl operations. I can think 25 of several of their names. We spent time with some 83 1 of them, but not very much. Dr. Princi who was the 2 assistant director of the operators was very active 3 with Shell Corporation, among others. 4 It's hard to recall at the moment just 5 what other ones were -- If I had a list of the 6 people, I could quickly run off what I knew of them. 7 But the two of them were the ones that had the most 8 involvement as I recall with outside companies. 9 Some of them had lesser affiliations - I mean less 10 intense. But off the top of my head, I can't recall 11 them right at this moment, sir. 12 Q Now, the ... 13 A The Government was a very important one, 14 too. 15 Q Oh, t h e -- 16 A The U. S. Government, various agencies of 17 the U. S . Government. 18 Q Are you sugge sting that these doctors did 19 consulting work with the Government; is that ... 20 A (Nodding affirmatively) 21 Q This shall we say occupational health 22 program at Kettering - if that describes it fairly - 23 had it existed for a number of years before you went 24 there in '54? 25 A The training program for physicians? 84 1 Q Yes, sir. 2 A Yes, it was in about the fifth year of its 3 existence - fourth or fifth year when I went there. 4 It became developed in anticipation of the approval 5 of its status as a medical specialty. And they 6 had -- They had been training people before that 7 time in various aspects of it, but they had to pull 8 together a program that could be approved for 9 training purposes, like any university program is, 10 and to meet requirements of a board of internal - to 11 a board of medical specialists. And I think it had 12 been formally going probably four or five years. 13 Q But to your understanding many of these 14 doctors were at Kettering before the 1949, 1950 15 inception of this training program that you were in? 16 Would that -- Wouldn't that be right? 17 A I don't quite follow that. 18 Q I guess what I was getting at was the - 19 this collection of experts at Kettering dicin' t just 20 spring up -- 21 A No. 22 Q -- in 1949 or '50? 23 A The facultyandstaff? 24 Q Yes, sir. 25 A No, they had been in existence for quite a 85 1 long time. Very early -- Dr. Kehoe was a professor 2 or an associate professor or an assistant, something 3 or other, in physiology at the tned school - he was 4 an M.D. - when Boss Kettering a famous early 5 inventor of the self-starter and many other things 6 for General Motors came to him with this problem - 7 came down to the school and they called on Dr. Kehoe e to give them some help. He didn't know any more 9 about lead than anybody else did at that point 10 probably. But they posed an interesting debacle in n that lead in gasoline was about to be banned because 12 there had been a lot of fatalities and serious 13 illnesses and so forth. And they wanted to get some 14 understanding of the toxicity of it and determine 15 what, if anything, could be done to control it. 16 Because without the lead additive at that time, the 17 future of the combustion engine was very much in 18 jeopardy. 19 And he quickly got into it and in no time 20 established what the overall essentials of the 21 toxicity were and then worked on further how to 22 control it and set up some very rigid conditions for 23 control. 24 Q We are talking about Dr. Kehoe now? 25 A Dr. Kehoe - and with lead. It was 86 1 tetraethyl lead by in large and not just plain lead. 2 That introduces an element of toxicology that's a 3 bit different than just plain lead. It's a lot 4 worse in fact. 5 But anyway, he resolved the key issues; 6 but there still remained much to be done long term. 7 So, the Ethyl Corporation and General Motors and 8 du Pont - who were very active in that whole field - 9 the Christiana Fund - they established a fund to set 10 up a laboratory at the University of Cincinnati, 11 which became named the "'Kettering" after Boss 12 Kettering, who also was founding - helped the 13 foundation of Sloan-Kettering in New York. 14 Q What was this gentleman's first name - 15 Mister -- 16 A Kettering? 17 Q Kettering. 18 A Good, God. 19 Q Did you say -- Well, I couldn't hear what 20 y o u -- 21 A Well, they called him Boss Kettering. 22 0 That's what r thought I was hearing. 23 A I can't even think what his first name 24 was. I never heard him called anything but Boss 25 Kettering. 87 1 Q Okay. 2 A He was a bossy old boss. Anyway, he was 3 instrumental .in pulling the group together and 4 funding the first laboratory there. And they 5 continued to support it through the years; I presume 6 still do. And he embarked on intensive studies of 7 all aspects of: lead that have been very helpful. 8 It became the world's center -- 9 Q Uh-huh. 10 A -- the leading center of lead toxicology 11 studies. Since his demise it's probably less so 12 but - because others have gotten into it quite 13 extensively. It's still a matter of great interest 14 in the world. There were things that weren't even 15 known back then - childhood effects and others. 16 Q Yes, sir. 17 A But anyway, that's thebasic history of 18 it. So, I don't recall the time. It seems to me 19 that the - his first involvement with it was in the 20 early to mid-'20's, about the time I was born. 21 Q I would think so. 22 A And within a veryshort time they 23 established the initial laboratory, and then they 24 expanded and built new facilities. After I left the 25 last expansion was larger than the medical school 88 1 that existed at that point itself. Btit it was 2 adj acent to the medical school - 3 Q So, though this laboratory named for Boss 4 Kettering -- 5 A Yeah. 6 Q -- started with - with the sole purpose 7 of dealing with tetraethyl lead problems, I 8 gather -- 9 A And lead in general, but ... 10 Q -- it broaden its interest -- 11 A ... he insisted even in the early days 12 that it - he be allowed to look into other things 13 that might come up and be of interest. And they 14 developed an interest in many, many things back when 15 there was no formal field of occupational health or 16 toxicology or industrial hygiene, but they were in 17 the ground work of establishing the principles and 18 the practices that then became that field. 19 Q Was Mr. Kettering connected with or an 20 employee of the Ethyl Corporation? 21 A No, General Motors. He was a 22 Vice-president or Executive Vice-president. He was 23 very high up in the hierarchy of General Motors. I 24 never met him. He had I believe died before I came 25 on the scene. But we sure know about him, except 89 1 for his first name. 2 Q Okay. 3 A I'm - I'm sure I know it, but I just ... 4 Q Did your work - bouncing back again to the 5 Public Health Service period - did the work of the 6 doctors on the health effects of the pesticides lead 7 to any -any kind of product warnings or safe use 8 instructions or that sort of information, Doctor? 9 A Well, I'm sure the factual information 10 that we evolved ultimately was utilized; but I don't 11 recall precisely. I do know that some of the 12 companies at that time like Cyanamid used some of 13 that data plus much of their own. They had done a 14 great deal of work in this field prior to my coming 15 onto the scene. They used that information that 16 they had and that the Public Health Service had in 17 putting warnings as we did with all industrial 18 chemicals at that time. 19 Q Are you saying that Cyanamid, for example, 20 and then perhaps Shell as well actually put product 21 warnings out with these insecticides in the 22 mid-1950's? 23 A Absolutely. And with the most effective 24 element of labeling that ever occurred, the use of 25 the skull and crossbones, for example. 90 1 Q And why was it necessary for these - these 2 companies like Cyanamid and Shell to even bother 3 with such a thing on these chemicals? 4 A Well, that's interesting. In industrial 5 bulk chemicals you normally did not use that type of 6 labeling as opposed to household or home - the 7 private use of compounds. You never warned against 8 oral ingestion in industrial labeling because it was 9 implicit that nobody swallowed industrial chemicals. 10 One exception was methyl alcohol because 11 any alcohol could be of interest to the casual 12 worker. And that was a highly toxic thing that 13 could cause blindness or death in a very short time. 14 And we did warn about oral ingestion for that 15 compound. And that was the only one. 16 The labeling parts were really for the 17 user of the products. Some of the companies didn't 18 market themselves. They would market under other 19 companies. Cyanamid did both. nd I don't remember 20 the details of the labeling at this point, but I 21 know that they were -- We were very much on the 22 front burner as far as wanting to provide 23 information for safety purposes by other -- In fact, 24 all of the work they did studying it was directed at 25 being able to provide for safe usage of the 91 1 materials to which there was inevitably some 2 exposure; but telling them how to use it in a manner 3 that was safe and not likely to induce any adverse 4 effects. 5 Q But this was a responsibility that 6 Cyanamid and Shell and the other pesticide makers 7 took on themselves -- 8 A That's right. 9 Q 10 A -- in the early '50's? I know that Shell and Cyanamid did it very 11 well. I can't speak really at this point as to what 12 the other companies did at that time. 13 Q 14 A A n d -They were in the forefront of 15 understanding that principle. They were all members 16 of the Chemical Manufacturers Association, and they 17 had a labeling committee even at that time. And, 18 so, they had principles of how to label products and 19 whatnot. And it was a thing that was coming along 20 on its own without Government regulation, long 21 before the regulations came in. 22 Q And your - you emphasized again the - the 23 object was to get information on the package for the 24 benefit of the ultimate users of the product? 2 5 A For those that were for consumer use, not 92 1 for the industrial user. 2 Q Yes, sir. But I mean for the individuals 3 that were actually handling the material at the end 4 point of use? 5 A Only for the consumer user, not for the 6 industrial user. 7 Q Well, the industrial user -- 8 A They were provided with what's now the 9 equivalent of Material Safety Data Sheets that gave 10 information - bulletins and papers that informed the 11 industrial clients of every element that they needed 12 to know about a product by in large, which included 13 hazards and so forth. But it was quite variable. 14 They each had different formats and so forth. But 15 the bigger, better companies pretty much did that 16 generally. If their material was not -- They didn't 17 do it for long - for established commodity 18 chemicals; but they did it for chemicals that had 19 unique concerns and new products and that sort of 20 thing. 21 Q Well, you are drawing a distinction for me 22 between consumer use and industrial use. 23 A {Nodding affirmatively) 24 Q And I'm not understanding how that would 25 apply to pesticides, for example. Could you 93 1 elaborate? 2 A Well, we made concentrate forms of these 3 products - the pesticides - that then went to other 4 companies for preparing consumer packaging, for 5 example -- 6 Q Oh. 7 A -- as well as Cyanamid doing consumer 8 packaging. So, the consumer's use - the ultimate 9 consumer, the household, the private citizen, the 10 use by them is not based on familiarity with the 11 product. It's not based on having an industry that 12 has its own rules of what you did with the product. 13 In industry if it goes to another industry for its 14 use, that was implicit that the industry had a 15 responsibility to take care of its own people. But 16 you can't do that for a world out there - for a 17 consumer package without specific labeling that's 18 relative to the type of exposure they would get as 19 opposed to what would occur in industry. 20 Q Okay. So, if Cyanamid, for example, 21 shipped a tank car of concentrated - say - malathion 22 to the Green Light company for packaging into one 23 quart -- 24 A Or whatever. 25 Q -- or one gallon bottles -- 94 1 A Yeah. 2 Q -- just for example -- 3 A Yeah. 4 Q -- that would be an industrial customer? 5 A Precisely. 6 Q Okay. But Cyanamid would still even in 7 the mid-'50's provide the Green Light company with 8 the equivalent of a Material Safety Data Sheet for 9 this toxic chemical? 10 A I use that word loosely. 11 Q Yes, sir. 12 A They provided a type of information that a 13 product bulletin and a Material Safety Data Sheet 14 would include. 15 Q And I guess the good sense behind that 16 would be that Cyanamid had probably as much 17 knowledge as anybody out there about their - their 18 products? 19 A Exactly, sure. 20 Q And this - even the industrial customer 21 would be to some extent expected to rely on the 22 manufacturer to inform it of the hazards -- 23 A That is correct. 24 Q -- and the proper precautions for safe 25 use. Would that be right? 95 1 A That I believe is correct. 2 Q Okay. And then I guess the next step 3 would be that additional labeling and warning that 4 you discussed about for the end user that ought to 5 accompany the product as it is sent out to the end 6 users? 7 A Well., yeah. It's complicated, but that's 8 essentially correct. 9 Q But again, the same principle would 10 apply --- 11 A Principle, yes. 12 Q -- that the company that's selling that 13 product to the end users certainly would be expected 14 to know much more about it than the individual 15 that's going to buy it and apply it out in the 16 field; and, therefore, that company should pass that 17 information on to the end user so he could protect 18 himself. 19 A Yeah. To the best extent they could, yes. 20 Q And as you said back in this period when 21 you first came into the field in the mid-1950's, 22 even though Government regulations didn't require 23 the kind of warning or labeling or Material Safety. 24 Data Sheets, the responsible manufacturers did 25 provide them with the material? 96 1 A By in large, yeah. Not on commodity or 2 generally known compounds. If you are selling 3 tanker cars of Oleo margarine or sodium chloride or 4 common chemical commodities, perhaps it would be 5 very much limited I'm sure. But on those that were 6 new and different with a special type of hazard, you 7 tried to subscribe to that practice. 8 Q Okay. And, of course, I guess the cost of 9 informative labeling or warnings on a package is 10 certainly relatively low at least once you have 11 obtained the data that - that you are going to rely 12 on to - to write your warning or your label? It 13 doesn't cost much to print instructions on a package 14 on how to safely -- 15 A Not to print, no. 16 Q -- use it? 17 A No. 18 Q Or even on some products? 19 A (Nodding affirmatively) 20 Q But the record would require a verbal 21 answer, please. 22 A I'm sorry? 23 Q You just nodded at me as though in 24 agreement, but you didn't say anything. 25 A Didn't I say "yes." 97 1 Q I don't think so. 2 A I thought I did. I'm sorry. I believe 3 that was the right answer. I can't remember what 4 the question was. Forgive me. 5 Q We are up to around noon. Surely you at 6 least want to stretch your legs here. 7 A I'm all right for the moment, but when you 8 are ready for lunch we can do that. 9 THE VIDECX3RAPHER: I just need 10 to change the tape. 11 MR. HUTCHINS: Let's go off the 12 record. 13 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off 14 the record at 12:04. 15 16 (AT 12:04 P.M. THE DEPOSITION 17 WAS RECESSED FOR LUNCH. AT 1:35 P.M. 18 THE PROCEEDINGS RESUMED AS FOLLOWS:} 19 20 (By Mr. Blanks) 21 Q Doctor, as I recall - although I digressed 22 right before lunch - we had gotten up to the point 23 where you were at Kettering and were kind enough to. 24 share with us some aspects of the program and the 25 people that were there. I wonder if you had any 98 1 training or experience there in laboratory work? 2 A Yes. 3 Q And was that in the - I guess in the 4 context of doing toxicology studies? 5 A No. It was more in the question - in the 6 area of working on research for the dissertation. 7 There was some work in the -- What was the 8 question - the subject area you said before that? 9 Q Well, I was asking you about laboratory 10 work. 11 A Yeah. 12 Q And I thought maybe that was as part 13 A There was some - - W e were quite active in 14 some of it, but not mostly. 15 Q What was your dissertation,please? 16 A It was diurnal variation in 17 cholinesterase - c-o-h-o-l-i-n-e-s-t-e-r-a-s-e 18 (sic) - levels. That was the ... 19 MR. BLANKS: Let us pause. 20 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off 21 the record at 1:36. 22 23 (AT THIS TIME A BRIEF RECESS WAS 24 TAKEN, AND THE PROCEEDINGS THEREAFTER 25 RESUMED AS FOLLOWS:) 99 1 (By Mr. Blanks) 2 Q You were describing or telling us the 3 title of your dissertation. Doctor. Diurnal 4 variation in cholinesterase levels. What pray tell 5 does that mean? 6 A Well, that is -- Cholinesterase is an 7 enzyme that is very much affected by the organic 8 phosphate-type pesticides. And that's the material 9 that we test in the body, both in the blood plasma 10 and in the red cells. The red cells reflect more of 11 the tissue levels. And when one is absorbing 12 increasing amounts of the organic phosphates, there 13 will be a gradual - or sudden if it's massive - a 14 decrease in the cholinesterase values. 15 We can check the cholinesterase values of 16 workers, sprayers or whatever over a period of time 17 and see if they are decreasing or are they staying 18 at normal. We want to have normal levels - a 19 baseline level to begin with so we can see any 20 departures from it. But it's an indicator of 21 exposure or toxicity from the organic phosphates. 22 It's very hard to test the body for the actual 23 concentration of the phosphates in the body, but you 24 can measure what it does to this enzyme. 25 Q I see. 100 1 A And that's the one that had a lot to do 2 with nerve function, which is why the so-called 3 nerve gas type properties of the materials ... 4 Q And the need to have the baseline on an 5 individual would be just because of individual 6 susceptibilities? 7 A Individual variation. And the thing I was 8 looking for - diurnal, that means day and night - 9 actually it was the changes during 24 hours because 10 if one did testing on people and there was a 11 significant variability -- Many things, you know, in 12 the body function differently during different times 13 of the day. Function - like there is a phase in 14 functioning. Like in the early morning certain 15 things are low and late in the day they are high or 16 vice versa. 17 It was important to know the magnitude of 18 that type of phenomenon so we could more readily 19 interpret the cholinesterase level as an indicator 20 of toxicity. If, for example, in the late day - as 21 opposed to your baseline, one which was done in the 22 morning and it was very low and you didn't take 23 account for that variability, you would misjudge the 24 implications or significance of it. 25 Q I see. And I -- 101 1 A And it was significant, but not enough to 2 make a major issue in terms of reading the levels. 3 There was a statistically significant variability in 4 the levels, but not enough to really cause major 5 concerns that way. 6 Q This sort of test like for the 7 cholinesterase levels would fit into a medical 8 monitoring program of pesticide handlers and 9 applicators obviously? 10 A Yes, I think so. 11 Q And it's useful --- 12 A In proper instances, yes. 13 Q Yes, sir. And it would be useful for 14 detecting let's say overdoses or undue exposures 15 fairly soon in time after the exposure; is that -- 16 A Depending on magnitude. There was a 17 threshold beyond - which one had to reach above it 18 would begin to drop; and then it could drop rather 19 precipitously after that point if exposure continued 20 at a significant level. 21 Q Do these changes in this enzyme occur just 22 over the course of a day or -- 23 A Well, that's what my study was about. 24 Q -- two or three? 25 A And it was not significant. There is 102 1 There is -- It is a statistically significant 2 variability, but it is not a clinically significant 3 variability. Well, we didn't have to factor that 4 into the test to assess that there was or was not a 5 causal effect of significance clinically. 6 Q But in other words, this - this would be 7 the kind of exposure to these organophosphates that 8 would manifest itself fairly soon - near in time to 9 the exposure itself? In other words -- 10 A I don't quite follow your question. 11 Q And that's because I'm not asking it well. 12 A Yeah. Okay. 13 Q In other words, you could - let's say you 14 could have an exposure to some mineral dust like 15 silica or asbestos, something like that, and the 16 physician really wouldn't be able to detect that in 17 the body the next day or the next week or the next 18 month after the exposure; but with this - these 19 organophosphates, that wouldn't be the case? You 20 would see some change close in time to the exposure? 21 A Of the organophosphates --- 22 Q Yes, sir. 23 A -- concerning the cholinesterase, not the 24 other thing? 25 Q Right. 103 1 A Well, it could or could not depending on 2 the magnitude of -- 3 Q Okay. You are saying that some things 4 lend themselves to -- 5 A Yeah. This is the only way we had to do 6 it to check to see if there was an effect. It took 7 a certain magnitude to cause change. Lesser amounts 8 don't cause any measurable change. 9 Q Now, other chemicals like maybe benzol, 10 benzene or some lead exposures, those, too, would 11 show up with body changes that you could detect? 12 A Not withcholinesterase howevex'. 13 Q No, just - 14 A Well, they may or may not, yeah. 15 Q Okay. IS A By in large I guess "yes" is the answer. 17 Q So,for example, withworkers that you 18 suspected of being harmfully exposed to lead, there 19 would be some laboratory-type tests that you could 20 perform to confirm or -- 21 A Yeah. 22 Q -- reject that -- 23 A Yes . 24 Q -- that theory; right? And I guess the 25 same would be true for benzene exposures and - I 104 1 guess there must be many others? 2 A Yeah, to a degree. They vary. 3 Q All right. But as - as I think we started 4 out this digression, not all of the occupational 5 diseases or the occupational stressors lend 6 themselves to this sort of a rapid detectability, do 7 they - or temporally near - near in time? 8 A They do not, yes. 9 Q And that must present some special 10 problems to the - to the industrial physician in 11 trying to prevent diseases from some of those 12 materials; true? 13 A For those things for which there isn't an 14 easy - or a readily available test to measure it, 15 yes. IS Q Now, I'm presuming, but these kind of 17 concepts are surely things that you became well 18 acquainted with during your training at Kettering? 19 A Oh, yes. 20 Q And I think you surely must have had 21 either survey courses or specialized courses that 22 covered most if not all of the recognized 23 occupational diseases in 1955? 24 A That is correct. 25 Q Okay. And I wondered,did you - did you 105 1 retain your textbooks from this two-year atint at 2 Kettering as you did from medical school earlier? 3 A Yes. We didn't use textbooks quite like 4 you did in undergraduate work. But there were 5 certain standard references, and I gathered quite a 6 collection of interesting and useful books during 7 that time. And I still have most of them. A few 8 have disappeared over the years. 9 Q And what do you recollect as being the 10 references that you would have had concerning the 11 occupational dust diseases? 12 A Well, one of the most useful books that we 13 had in the early day was the first edition of the 14 Patty textbook on occupational health, a two volume 15 set at that point. It's now a five volume set. I'm 16 greatly sorry to say that I've lost my first edition 17 book somewhere. It disappeared. Just for 18 historical interest. 19 Q Yes, sir. And in addition to Patty's 20 first edition, do you recall any other? 21 A Well, there were books on statistics, 22 toxicology. There were a variety of them. We used 23 some books for certain aspects of each. You know, 24 Bradford-Hill and some of the other ones on 25 biostatist ics. 106 1 I've got a whole series of them on 2 clinical -- Well, I've got so many that I've 3 purchased through the years since then that I can't 4 hardly remember which ones I got back then and which 5 ones I've gotten more recently. I have two and 6 three editions of some of these books over the 7 years. But back in the '50's or - it's a little 8 hard to remember back exactly. I've got them all on 9 my shelf, but I would have to look at them. 10 Q I know it might be a bit of an imposition, 11 but I wonder if we might persuade you to just kind 12 of make a list of those old texts that you have that 13 would be pertinent to industrial medicine, 14 occupational -- 15 A They are the standard ones that everybody 16 knows, but I suppose I could do that somehow. 17 Q Well, if -- 18 A I can't verify - vouch for the fact that I 19 will be able to give you all of the ones that I have 20 because I have many books that are actually in 21 storage. I have some of the key ones out on the 22 shelf from the old time. It's a fair number I 23 suppose. Many of them are very specialized things, 24 too, that -- Well, I can make a listing of the major 25 ones. 107 1 Q Well, if you would be -- 2 THE WITNESS: If that's 3 permissible. 4 MR. HUTCHINS: Well, we can talk 5 about it at the next break. 6 THE WITNESS: Okay. 7 Q I would invite you to just provide that to 8 the reporter. 9 A I will not be able at this point to get 10 any except for the ones that are out on my shelves. 11 Q I appreciate the practicalities of that. 12 A n d -- 13 A I've got a lot of materials and stuff 14 that's - I can't very well get to. 15 Q Do you recollect, Doctor, what if any 16 texts on industrial hygiene you might have had at 17 Kettering? 18 A Well, the main one was in this Patty. 19 That's really an industrial hygiene book. 20 Q Uh-huh. 21 A It covers both subjects. That was one of 22 the key books that we used. Industrial hygiene was 23 still a pretty new subject at that time, and there 24 probably weren't very many books about it as such. 25 We had a marvelous teaching staff who had very 108 1 excellent expertise in industrial hygiene. And they 2 certainly did a fine job of teaching us and 3 demonstrating it and so forth. 4 Q I suppose, though, you gentlemen were 5 physicians - all five of the men in your class? 6 A In the class -- This was a class of the 7 medical people. All physicians, yes. 8 Q Oh, well, did the -- Did the class include 9 nonphysicians as well? 10 A No. 11 Q Okay. 12 A All -this was strictlyphysicians. 13 Q Okay. 14 A And, in fact -andthroughout time they 15 had the physicians' course for a number of years 16 before they then later opened up for toxicology, 17 environmental engineering, industrial hygiene and so 18 forth. They were all separate and distinct. There 19 was a lot of overlap, and some of them will share 20 courses and so forth; but it's - it was distinct 21 entities. 22 Q But would I be right in thinking you also 23 would have gotten at least an introduction to some 24 ventilation engineering concepts and -- 25 A Very much so. 109 1 Q I mean not to where you might necessarily 2 be able to go design a system, but at least you -- 3 A You learned the principles. 4 Q -- knew the principles and would know 5 what to look for? 6 A And demonstrations and seeing them in the 7 industry and even in the university, good and bad. 8 Q Okay. And did you get some training in 9 what we call epidemiology nowadays? 10 A Very much s o . Very much s o . That was a 11 major course. 12 Q And who was teaching that, do you 13 remember? 14 A Well, Malcolm Turner was the principal 15 teacher at the time that I was there. He was a 16 fairly eminent and younger epidemiology - 17 epidemiologist and a marvelous teacher. I was 18 deeply involved with him because my cholinesterase 19 variation thing required a major statistical 20 analysis called a Forier Series. I had never 21 heard of it before, and I've rarely heard of it 22 since. 23 Q And, of course, you had a handy desktop 24 computer there to do all of the -- 25 A Yes. 110 1 Q -- statistical work? 2 A And 1 spent approximately 400 hours. And 3 if I would have had my present computer, I could 4 have done it in 20 minutes. 5 Q They did actually have some kind of a 6 computing machine, though? 7 A No. They had calculators. 8 Q Okay. 9 A The scientific calculators, those big 10 jobs. 11 Q Yes, sir. 12 A 400 hours roughly. 13 Q How things have changed. 14 A Yeah. 15 Q During your time there did you -did you 16 work as a student on any other epidemiology project 17 that might have been under way at Kettering? 18 A Well, any project you were involved with 19 had an epidemiological angle to it. You don't do 20 any research without some sort of epidemiology. It 21 might be poor. But that's what research is, 22 analysis of variability and data and so forth. And 23 that's epidemiology really - or biostatistics or 24 statistics. So that every study you did -- And this 25 was at a time when statistical analysis was 111 1 beginning to be recognized as an essential. 2 In the days prior to that people would 3 publish a result and say, "We had three cases, and 4 two of them didn't do something and one did. So, 5 that's a 33 percent incidence; and, therefore, it's 6 significant." Well, you know, that's not valid 7 anymore. And - so that biostatistics in the '50'a 8 was really becoming recognized and thought to be 9 very essential. And it's grown more and more so. 10 Q Uh-huh. And I guess that's the way you 11 make progress in medicine and science? 12 A Yes. In fact without it many false 13 assumptions are accepted as fact and so forth. 14 Q Were there projects that - that the 15 institute was doing as its - as part of its 16 consulting for industry which you as a student came 17 in contact with that you remember? 18 A What category? What was the category? 19 Q Well, I was thinking 20 A Generally? 21 Q Just generally, yes, sir. 22 A For epidemiology or otherwise? 23 Q 24 A Well, epidemiology generally. Well, every test - everything we got 25 involved with had an epidemiologic component. So, 112 1 all the research projects that we assisted on or 2 whatnot did that. We weren't the principal 3 investigators on any of them except our own thesis 4 or dissertation studies. But we were participants 5 in quite a few studies. 6 Q Well, that's what I was thinking -- 7 A Yeah. 8 Q -- without knowing that - that they must 9 have used you teaching fellows as assistants 10 wherever possible. And in particular I was 11 wondering if your work there brought you in contact 12 with any studies being done for the American 13 Petroleum Institute by Kettering? 14 A Yes. In fact - although I personally 15 don't recall my being involved with the API - there 16 were numerous studies going on there, particularly 17 animal studies at Kettering. They were sponsored 19 and run for the API, and I couldn't tell you what 19 the subjects were at this point. But the API was a 20 significant player. 21 Q What kind of animal studies were they -- 22 A I can't tell you. 23 Q -- a b l e ---- 24 A I presume rat and mouse and that sort of 25 thing, but I don't honestly recall. 113 1 Q 2 A N o . I'm sorry. I'm sorry. 3 Q Maybe you can answer this. I was 4 wondering what type of animal studies they were 5 capable of doing there at the lab. In other words, 6 was it just skin -- 7 A No, they had a full capability of 8 everything from - from complex respiratory mix - 9 mixtures, dermal, oral, intravenous, every kind 10 of -- It was a full service type - quite elaborate, 11 well supported. By "support" I mean with other 12 disciplinary aspects of equipment and so forth. 13 Q That's - that's what I was wondering 14 about. Do you -- Let me see if I can jog your 15 memory to one of these API studies. I believe there 16 was one done for the incidence of basically cancers 17 or tumors in refinery workers. That would have been 18 ongoing while you were there as a student. 19 A I -- The subject rings a bell, and I'm 20 quite confident there were studies. I don't recall 21 the details. 22 Q Well, I actually phrased it pretty well. 23 It ended up being titled "An Epidemiological Study 24 of Cancer Among Employees in the American Petroleum 25 Industry." 114 1 A But that was an epidemiologic study of 2 humans, not an animal study. I thought we had 3 referred back to animals. 4 Q Oh, I beg your pardon. 5 A Your prior questions had related to animal 6 studies by in large. 7 Q I'm sorry. I didn't mean to try and 8 mislead you. 9 A And I was not involved with that. I was 10 aware that they were doing that type of work, but I 11 was not involved in it . 12 Q Did you become aware while a student at 13 Kettering in the mid-1950's that Kettering was 14 developing or building a tumor registry from reports 15 of malignancies in - in petroleum industry workers? 16 A I don't recall it as such, but it sounds 17 reasonable. 18 Q I think this is something that began 19 around 1950 and was still under way perhaps when 20 you - you left there. That would have been - what, 21 19 --- 22 A It could well be. 23 Q Your last year would have been -- 24 A Well ... 25 Q '55? 115 1 A '56. 2 Q '56 . Okay. 3 A I was still associated through '57 - until 4 ' 57. 5 Q Okay. Did you meet Dr. Bingham there at 6 Kettering ? 7 A Yes. 8 Q I couldn't remember when - exactly when 9 she got there but -- 10 A I didn't know her well, but I did meet her 11 there, yeah. She was one of those people off in the 12 dungeons of the laboratory. I rarely ever saw her. 13 But I did know who she was. 14 Q Okay. 15 A I have known her better since. 16 Q Yes, sir. Do you recollect attending any 17 API meetings or committee meetings as a student at 18 Kettering? 19 A Not as a studentat Kettering, no. 20 Q After you left Kettering I take it you did 21 attend some API meetings? 22 A At later times in my career I was involved 23 with some API - I don't want to say projects,- but I 24 was involved with some of the people in API on some 25 issues. And I can't right off the top of my head 116 1 remember what they were specifically. I knew the 2 heads of the API medical section. In fact, my 3 former boss Harold Golz had been medical director 4 for a long time. And then -- He's one of my close 5 friends right here in McLean now. 6 Q Oh, Dr. Weaver. 7 A Yeah, Weaver. 8 Q 9 A It's a small world up here. Yeah. Yeah. 10 Q I didn't know we had so many friends in 11 common. 12 A Yeah. 13 Q 14 A Okay. Well, did you have some -He came out of Shell by the way. So -- Or 15 Exxon. 16 Q Exxon, yes, sir. 17 A Yeah. 18 Q Yes, sir. 19 A In Houston. 20 Q And previously Baton Rouge. 21 A Yeah. 22 Q I think he also had an interest in 23 cardiology as yourself. 24 A 25 Q He was an internist originally. Uh-nuh. 117 1 A As many of the doctors in our field were. 2 Q They seem to make the best occupational 3 physicians. 4 A It's an excellent background for it. 5 Q I would think s o . I was going to ask you 6 if you - your American Cyanamid years had you 7 involved at all with the American Petroleum 8 Institute. 9 A No, not to my recollection. 10 Q Okay. 11 A No. 12 Q And how aboutyour Celaneseyears? 13 A I wasinvolvedsometimes with them. I 14 don't recall that it specifically involved any 15 relationship to Celanese as such. It was -- I 16 belonged to a great variety of the trade and medical 17 components of the trade associations and 18 professional associations. And I recall there were 19 projects that did involve the API, and I got 20 involved with maybe just auditing them. I never was 21 to my recollection involved in pursuing one or 22 facilitating or performing in it. But I knew many 23 of the people there. And, in fact, when I was 24 consulting early after coming down here, there was 25 several projects that we looked at as possible items 118 1 we could bid on; but we never did. 2 Q I think you - you have lost me on the time 3 line with that last answer and -- 4 A Well, I was talking about the period since 5 '81 - since I've been consulting. 6 Q What I'm not clear about - and you may 7 have answered, but I'm still not clear about, was do 8 you recall during your years at Celanese having any 9 API contact? 10 A No, I do not. I can't say that I didn't, 11 but I don't at this moment associate it with API 12 during my Celanese time; but I can't say for sure 13 that there wasn't. 14 Q Was there ever a time you were a member of 15 the Medical Advisory Committee of the API that you 16 can recall? 17 A As I recall I never was a member or on the 18 advisory group for the API. Now, somebody might 19 quarrel with that; but I don't recall it. 20 Q Okay. Well, I would think that would - 21 would stick in your mind. 22 A Well, there is so many of them. That's 23 che big problem. 24 Q All right, sir. 25 A And you would be sometimes involved just 119 1 for a brief process or something. And I don't, 2 however, recall any concerning the API specifically. 3 Q What - what industries did you visit as a 4 Kettering student working on your doctorate? 5 A Oh, a tremendous variety of them over the 6 two-year period, and subsequently even during that 7 third year. 8 Q Can you -- Can you kind of give us an 9 overview of them? 10 A Well, there were a lot of industries in 11 Cincinnati, of course: Proctor & Gamble, General 12 Electric - jet engines. There was so many different 13 companies there. Cincinnati Milling & Machine 14 Company. There were a variety of them that usually 15 had pretty good medical programs. And their medical 16 directors were active in coming to Kettering 17 meetings and whatnot. And they had pretty good 18 programs. 19 So, we spent time in - oh, probably a 20 dozen or so different industries there. Sometimes 21 it was just a single visit, sometimes repeated where 22 we were actually working on projects even with them. 23 The health departments -- Because the health 24 departments - I guess they were mostly Cincinnati 25 health departments - were involved in studying 120 1 environmental issues, particularly lead. Cincinnati 2 was a heavy lead city with old homes in the -- 3 Q With what, sir? 4 A Cincinnati was aheavily leaded city with 5 old homes - down in the basement with paint and so 6 forth -- 7 Q Oh, yes. 8 A -- and childhood forms and others -- I 9 have forgotten where I was going. 10 Q We were talkingaboutthe industries you 11 visited as a student. 12 A Yeah. We visited -- Then we visited many 13 places away from there. We went to the coal mines 14 because disease of the coal workers - coal dust 15 disease was one of the major industrial or research 16 thrusts of the laboratory during that period of 17 time. We visited the coal mines and the processing 18 of coal and a variety of different types of mines 19 and all the activities relating to coal handling, 20 et cetera. 21 We visited pharmaceutical companies like 22 Eli Lilly in Indianapolis. During the course of the 23 annual meeting of the American Medical Association. - 24 in those days as it was called - we would always - 25 we were sent to these meetings - expenses paid - and 121 1 we always went to industries in the area that we - 2 we passed through on the way or in the area of the 3 towns where the meetings were. I remember visiting 4 automotive industries: Ford, General Motors, 5 Chrysler. Steel mills: U. S. Steel, Jones & 6 Lockland, U. S. Wire, ALCOA. Sometimes it would be 7 one of the chemical companies that had a plant or 8 a -- We visited several du Pont plants in the course 9 of that type of endeavor. We had field trips, too. 10 That's sort of the area. I'm sure I haven't named 11 many of the places, but that's sort of a ... 12 Q 13 A That's a pretty good overview. It gives an overview, yes. 14 Q And I suppose these visits would be 15 coupled with interviews or visits with the doctor at 16 the facility -- 17 A Yes. 18 Q -- or at the corporate office? 19 A Usually the plant management people, the 20 medical - industrial hygiene if they had it; and 21 other ancillary groups that would be of relative 22 interest. 23 Q Well --- 24 A And sometimes they were multiple day 25 visits. Usually it was a single day, but -- And 122 1 some of them we would revisit from time to time. 2 Q Is that to say that most of these 3 different industries that you have described 4 visiting actually had an in-house medical 5 department? 6 A Most of them did. We went to some that 7 didn't so we could see the bad side of it or the 8 nonmedically -- 9 Q Yes, sir. 10 A -- oriented side of industry, too. 11 Dr. Kehoe had worked out some nice arrangements with 12 people with lesser degrees of what we could call a 13 m o d e m approach to the thing so we could see some of 14 these. 15 Q That's interesting. 16 A They were in the minority. Occasionally 17 we would do that. 18 Q And did you find that most of these 19 industries you have described that you visited also 20 had something in the way of an industrial hygiene 1 1 1 * XI 21 program 22 A Well ... 23 Q --- '55 or so? 24 A ... not all of them. Those that had 25 exposures of a type - chemical or other that was 123 1 suitable for industrial hygiene -- But many of them 2 weren't. Many of them had noise or radiation. 3 Well, radiation can be an industrial hygiene thing. 4 Q Yes, sir. S A But they did not have a need for it, for 6 example. But the bulk of them did. 7 Q And by this time in the mid-'50's, I mean 8 industrial hygiene was certainly beginning to come 9 into its own, wasn't it? I mean you had the 10 hygienists - the industrial hygiene section of the 11 Public Health Service had been around for a while. 12 A You have mentioned that before. And 13 that's sort of fuzzy in my recollection. The AIHA 14 or the American Industrial Hygiene Association was 15 already in existence. 16 Q And that would go back --- 17 A And they were very closely parallel with 18 the doctors. In fact, our annual meetings were 19 joint for many years. 20 Q I didn't realize that. 21 A Yeah. 22 Q I guess -- Howfar back does the AIHA go 23 into che -- 24 A 1946. 25 Q '46. That's what I ----- 124 1 A '46 or '47. 2 Q Okay. And what - - B y what name did the 3 industrial physicians association go? 4 A Well, in the early days that I was joined 5 it was the Industrial Medical Association. It had 6 formally been the Association of Railway and 7 Industry Physicians or some such name, and then it 8 went through a series of name changes during the 9 years to the American Occupational Medical XO Association or something. It ultimately ended up 11 being the American Occupational and Environmental 12 Medical Association. 13 Q But when you joined it was the Industrial 14 Medical Association? 15 A IMA - Industrial Medical Association. 16 Q And when did you join, Doctor? 17 A In 1955. I believe that was the year - my 18 first year attending the annual meeting at 19 Kettering. And I'm pretty certain that was the year 20 of my beginning. 21 Q And when do you recall joining the 22 American Industrial Hygiene Association? 23 A Probably my first year in industry. I 24 don't think I joined while I was at Kettering, but 25 very shortly thereafter. 125 1 Q Okay. Roughly '57 or '58 maybe? 2 A I would think so. I can look at my 3 certificate and see, but I can't remember. 4 Q I guess the point I was working toward 5 when we were talking about the - these industries 6 that you had visited such as du Pont and chemical 7 companies - ALCOA, U. S. Steel, the big automotive 8 plants, Lilly, G. E., was that - that many of those 9 did by 1955 have at least a corporate industrial 10 hygienist -- 11 A Yes. 12 Q -- in the business? 13 A They were -- They were getting that way, 14 yes. 15 Q And indeed by thattime there was -- 16 A Or somebodydesignated toperform that 17 function, yeah. 18 Q 19 A 20 Q Yes, sir. Whatever they were calling that function. And by 1955 - well, certainly even earlier 21 there was a journal for the Industrial Hygiene 22 Association? 23 A Yes. 24 Q And there had been for some - I don't want 25 to say many years - but certainly back before the 126 1 war, a journal of industrial hygiene and toxicology, 2 which I'm sure you -- 3 A Before World War II? 4 Q Yes, sir. I know it was published during 5 the war at least. 6 A I'm not acquainted with it. At least I 7 don't recall it. 8 Q Well, you were a young pup before the war. 9 A Yeah. It might have been. But the 10 associations didn't - weren't in operation. So, I 11 don't know who published it. 12 Q I'm thinking that it got published out of 13 Harvard and perhaps Professor Drinker was the editor 14 in those earlier years -- 15 A It's possible. I just ... IS Q -- in the '30's. 17 A ... don't recall that. 18 Q And I regret I don't have a -- I just 19 didn't bring a copy with me. 20 A Yeah. I don't have any recollection of 21 that. I may have known of it at some point, but I 22 don't now. 23 Q Uh-huh. 24 A I know they have published things, but I 25 don't know the history of it. 127 1 Q While you were at Kettering did you make 2 any field trips down to the Air Hygiene Foundation 3 in Pittsburgh? 4 A No, not to my recollection. 5 Q I guess you would have -- 6 A You mean the -- You said the Air -- 7 Q Well, that's how it started. 8 A The Industrial Hygiene Foundation is what 9 I guess you are referring to? 10 Q I was. And I apologize. 11 A Yeah. I'm sorry. 12 Q Because I think -- I think -- 13 A It did have that name earlier. 14 Q That's how it began. 15 A Is that right? 16 Q Yes, sir. 17 A I knew Dr. Braun was director of it at an 18 early point, and then he came back later. But I 19 didn't notice it was a different name. 20 Q That's how they started, and then it 21 become the Industrial Hygiene Foundation. And that 22 must have happened before the war that the name 23 changed to IHF. But -- . 24 A It could be. 25 Q D r . Braun --- 128 1 A Because the people on the - concerning the 2 silica were all out of there - the Gauley Bridge and 3 all of that. 4 Q 5 A Yes, sir. I have a mental block. I can't think of 6 the name of -- At any rate, okay, you are right. 7 So, that may be the thing you were referring to 8 earlier. 9 Q Uh-huh. Yeah, I think that -- I think 10 Union Carbide had - was active -- 11 A Yeah. 12 Q -- in the organization of it and -- 13 A That could well be. But I just wasn't 14 acquainted with the -- 15 Q Okay. Now, you mentioned a Dr. Braun. 16 And that name is familiar, but not - not enough 17 familiar to me to recall who or -- 18 A He published an article -- Excuse me. Do 19 you want me to -- 20 Q Please, if you could. 21 A He published an article with Truan - I 22 think it was Truan and Braun on Canadian asbestos 23 workers. He previously, though, as I understand it 24 had been medical director of the IMF and had left 25 And after that assignment he went to U. S. Steel. 130 1 of the corporations. And, so, it was certainly 2 after I left Celanese -- I mean Cyanamid. Cyanamid. 3 Q Okay. Yeah. Because you mentioned 4 Celanese in the midst of that answer, and I -- 5 A Yeah, I meant ... 6 Q I thought we were passing each other. 7 A All these C's get me confused. 8 G Dr. de Treville - I recall his name from 9 some IHF publications. Why was it that he had to 10 leave? 11 A That's sort of semi-confidential stuff. 12 It's so old. He had some ideas of taking the 13 Industrial Hygiene Foundation in a certain direction 14 that the Board of Directors did not approve of. We 15 had numerous meetings with him, tried to convince 16 him otherwise. And we thought sometimes that he was 17 going to agree. 18 I met with him the morning of the board 19 meeting in which he was terminated and told him in 20 no uncertain terms - - H e was a friend of mine. He 21 was a Kettering graduate - a class ahead of me. But 22 he very hardheaded. And he came into the meeting 23 after I had met with him, and the board had a 24 consensus view already; and he proceeded to outline 25 what he was going to do. It was totally counter'to 129 1 And he came back as medical director of industrial 2 hygiene when we had to terminate Dr. de Treville. 3 I was on the board. And I dropped out of it very 4 soon after that. 5 Q Okay. And where is all of this happening 6 in - in time? 7 A Well, let me think. Probably in the early 8 '60's, earlier - possibly mid - probably mid-'60's 9 I guess. 10 Q Uh-huh. 11 A A wild guess the mid-'60's, but it's 12 strictly a guess. 13 Q 14 A A n d -I was involved for a long time. 15 Q And your involvement I gather would have - 16 at least in the early part - would have been while 17 you were at American Cyanamid? 18 A I don't think so. 19 Q 20 A Was chat -I didn't get involved in many of these 21 things until at least when I was with the Bell 2 2 System because I was not a- corporate medical 23 official of Celanese. I was a plant official. And. 24 plant officials didn't have the same stature as 25 medical directors of divisions or medical divisions 131 1 what we had told him he could not do. And we had a 2 quick vote, and he was terminated. 3 So - and shortly thereafter Dan Braun was 4 brought back in because he familiarity with it. And 5 he was getting along in years, but he's still -- He 6 was there for quite a few years. I don't know 7 what's happened to him subsequently, but ... 8 Q And do you know where Dr. de Treville went 9 after -- 10 A He was an Air Force officer who - a 11 physician officer who came to Kettering on an Air 12 Force-sponsored fellowship. And I don't remember 13 where he took his third year. But he went to IHF 14 fairly soon at an early part in his career after 15 leaving Kettering. And when he was terminated, he 16 ended up going back to the Air Force. And I think 17 he remained there the rest of his career. 18 Q And what direction was it that 19 Dr. de Treville wanted to go in? 20 A I can't recall the details of it now. It 21 was policy matters and how we wanted to operate it 22 and so forth, the direction of research. And it 23 seemed to have been agreed upon by a few of the full 24 board that that was wrong. And the President is 25 always at the beck and call of the board. And he 132 1 chose not to follow the course that we felt was 2 essential, and that's what happened. 3 Q Okay. Well 4 A It was a very painful episode as you can 5 imagine. 6 Q Yes, sir. Now, the Industrial Hygiene 7 Foundation had been in fact organized by industry as 8 a - as a - what, an organization to do hygiene work 9 I guess? 10 A Yes, and research in the field. They were 11 organized by the people I guess primarily at the 12 Carnegie Melon Carbide group and the people involved 13 with the early studies of the silica problems, 14 particularly the ones they encountered in West 15 Virginia. I have a mental block. I can't think of 16 their names. But anyway -- But it involved large 17 components of industry, primarily 18 chemically-oriented industry. Well, I take that 19 back. Because they were interested in other things, 20 too, particularly some of the inhalation or dust 21 disease or - well, primarily silica. I don't recall 22 of any others. 23 Q Well, I'm thinking that - I remember a 24 photo with -- 25 A Hatch - Ted Hatch was one. And then I 134 1 A The history was of interest. 2 Q I'm recollecting that Dr. Lanza - once of 3 Metropolitan Life Insurance Company - was active on 4 that board. 5 A He may have been. That was before my 6 time. 7 Q And some of the folks from Johns-Manvilie 8 were involved in the early years of -- 9 A I'm not aware of that. 10 Q -- the foundation. 11 A Yeah. But I'm not surprised. 12 Q As an industry controlled organization was 13 the IHF focused on do you think defending industry 14 from - from outsiders and claims by workers and so 15 forth? Is that what this -- 16 A Oh, no, I don't think that had anything to 17 do with that. It was a research and practical 18 dissemination of information organization. And it 19 had no political or other thrusts toward any group. 20 It was about the field and information relating to 21 it and studies about it and so forth. I don't -- 22 I'm not aware of any thrust of that sort, at least 23 not during any time. So ... 24 Q Okay. And that -- Nothing like that had 25 anything to do with Dr. de Treville's departure? 133 1 can't think of his counterpart in the textbook on 2 that. 3 Q Drinker. 4 A Huh? 5 Q Drinker. 6 A No. 7 Q Wasn't it Drinker and Hatch? 8 A Well, Drinker was out of Harvard; and 9 Hatch was out of Pittsburgh. They did -- 10 Q They collaborated. 11 A Yeah. But then there was another -- Who 12 was the main researcher then? 13 Q Brandt? 14 A Huh? 15 Q Brandt -Allen Brandt? 16 A No. No. No. Allen Brandt was over at 17 Bethlehem Steel. 18 Q Right. 19 A I can't recall. But anyway -- I've 20 forgotten where we were. 21 Q Well, we were talking about the origins of 22 the Industrial Hygiene Foundation. 23 A Yeah. That was prior to my time in any 24 event. 25 Q Yes, sir. 135 1 A No. It had to do with some operating 2 directions and administrative matters. He was 3 getting kind of luxurious and motivated and doing 4 some things that we just didn't think were very 5 appropriate. 6 Q Okay. Well, I don't -- I don't mean to 7 belabor that. 8 A I don't want to get into it too much 9 anyway. Some of it is literally suppressed in my 10 memory because it was so painful. 11 Q All right, sir. You do remember, however, 12 the industrial hygiene Digest from that 13 organization? 14 A Yes. I had forgotten about it. It's been 15 so long since I've seen one. 16 Q And I don't know when - when it ceased to 17 be published -- 18 A I don't either. 19 Q -- if it has. 20 A Yeah. 21 Q But that would havebeen one of the 22 reasons -- 23 A That was the predecessor thing you were 24 talking about - the journal? 25 Q No, sir. This - this was --- 136 1 A Okay. 2 Q -- separate. 3 A Okay- 4 Q Yeah. This was I think called the 5 industrial hygiene - it may have been the IHF 6 Dige s t 7 A Digest I believe as I recall it. And it 8 was in existence during my early time I'm sure. 9 Q Oh, yes. 10 A Yeah. But I don't recall its demise or 11 whatnot. 12 Q I really don't know, but I was thinking 13 that this - this Digest of medical- and 14 industrial-hygiene-related articles would have been 15 a resource at hand in the '40's, '50's, perhaps 16 beyond, for occupational physicians and industry 17 hygienists? 18 A Well, I remember it back in the - after 19 the '50's, perhaps even early '60's; but I can't 20 recall. It was in existence I'm fairly sure when I 21 was on the board. 22 Q And at least in its earlier -- 23 A Huh? 24 Q At least in its earlier form this Digest 25 provided the service of abstracting articles of 137 1 interest -- 2 A Yes. 3 Q -- to health professionals and -- 4 A And that was part of the information 5 dissemination project as well as at meetings and so 6 forth. 7 Q And the Digest would - would review a articles published in foreign countries as well as 9 in the 0. S. -- 10 A Possibly. 11 Q -- for inclusion there? 12 A Yeah, it's quitelikely.Although there 13 wasn't a great deal of foreign article use in the 14 United States in general. I'm sure there was some 15 of it, but I don't recall very much of that. And 16 maybe a Digest might have picked up some of that 17 more readily than regular journals would. But I 18 just can't recall. 19 Q Okay. And wespoke ofthe Journal of 20 Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology. 21 A That's what I don't recall. 22 Q I'm not sure but what - that that wasn't 23 ultimately taken over by your -- 24 A AIHA? 25 Q -- your Industrial Medical 138 1 Association -- 2 A No. 3 Q -- and incorporated into -- 4 A I don't think so because I -- 5 Q What - what is the journal of the -- 6 A Ourassociation? 7 Q The JOM, ain't it? 8 A The JOM, yeah. The JOEM now, yeah. 9 Q Well --- 10 A I had all of the copies of that way back. 11 But it must have started -- It had a predecessor 12 journal, but I don't recall what it was. I think it 13 started about 1950. And I had all of those copies 14 way back. I got an extra copy of that out of the 15 laboratory in the early days. 16 Q I invite you to answer that trivia 17 question then when you come across your early 18 journals, because I'm faintly recollecting that the 19 Journal of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology ended 20 up being the - the predecessor of JOM, but -- 21 A I'm quite sure that's not correct, but -- 22 Q Okay. 23 A I can't vouch forit. 24 Q Okay. 25 A It might have been a forerunner of the 139 1 AIHA journal, which as I recall was a quarterly in 2 the early days -- 3 Q Quartez'ly, yes. 4 A -- AIHA quarterly. 5 Q That's - that part is correct. 6 A But that didn't start until '46 - after 7 '46. 8 Q And that Industrial Hygiene Quarterly and 9 then later I guess the monthly journal -- 10 A Yeah, the journal of the AIHA. 11 Q -- is - is a book or a periodical that 12 you would have been receiving once you became a 13 member -- 14 A Yes. 15 Q -- around 1958? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Okay. 18 A And I had -- I had access to it before 19 that, of course. 2 0 Q I had hoped per chance you might have a 21 C.V. to bring with you today, but -- 22 A I didn'tbring anything to the - relative 23 to the thing today. 24 Q Do you havea current ----- 25 A I do. 140 1 Q --- C.V.? 2 A I do. 3 Q I would request if we could that we - we 4 obtain a copy from you through Mr. Hutchins to 5 provide to the reporter that we might attach as an 6 exhibit. 7 A Okay. 8 Q Which I willpre-identifysomewhere back 9 h e r e -- 10 THE WITNESS: Is that 11 acceptable? 12 Q - - - a s Exhibit240111 DIX ERN M. Thank 13 you. Okay. Now, let me see if I can fumble forward 14 here. I'm afraid I'm boring you again. We are 15 getting into the afternoon slump, and I have got to 16 refer back to my cheat sheet. 17 Okay. You did your third year as you told 18 us as a practicum - and perhaps that's the right 19 word - associated with the American Cyanamid 20 Company. 21 A Yes, sir. 22 Q This would have beenaround1957, '56? 23 A '56 to '57. 24 Q And did that time with Cyanamid as a 25 student as a Kettering student last for 141 1 approximately a calendar year -- 2 A No, it was ... 3 Q -- 12 months? 4 A ... a half year. Medical school training 5 years are July to July. That's universally in the 6 United States. 7 Q Well, I'm sorry. Were you there with a Cyanamid as a student for 12 months or 6 months? 9 A 12 months. 10 Q 12 months. Okay. 11 A A year. 12 Q Very good. And it was in this 13 assignment - I guess you started out at the 14 headquarters in New York,- but not too long 15 thereafter I think you said you got sent out to one 16 of the plants, the one in New Orleans? 17 A Yes, sir. That's correct. 18 Q Okay. As - at the beginning of this 19 12-month term with American Cyanamid in 1956, were 20 you a Cyanamid employee or still a teaching fellow 21 at Kettering or -- 22 A Well, nominally an employee. We were on 23 their payroll. And I think 1 got credit for that as 24 a year of service later, but it was under special 25 circumstances. 142 1 Q And you were working for then - what, the 2 corporate medical director under his supervision? 3 A Well, as a matter of fact that's right. 4 Yes, in the beginning. 5 Q Yes, sir. 6 A Yeah. When I moved to the plant, I 7 reported to the Plant Manager on a straight line 8 basis and a dotted line basis back to Dr. Hamlin. 9 Although it was a much more nearly straight dotted 10 line than a dotted line because he was very 11 concerned with his responsibility in training. 12 Q And how long did you work actually in New 13 York under - directly under the doctor? 14 A About a month. 15 Q And that was Dr. Hamlin? 16 A Hamlin - H-a-m-l-i-n. 17 Q Where was the -- Where was the Cyanamid 18 headquarters located in 1956 when you -- 19 A In New York at Rockefeller Center. 20 Q Okay. 21 A 30 Rockefeller Center. It's a famous 22 address. 23 Q Did you -- Did you get a chance during 24 this all too brief time in New York to get involved 25 in the local section of the AIHA or the medical 143 1 association or -- 2 A No, it was too brief. And it was the 3 summert ime anyhow. 4 Q Okay. 5 A It wasthe summertime, and they don't 6 operate in the Summer. And I did not -- 7 Q And then the next thing you know you are 8 shipped off to Louisiana? 9 A That's right. 10 Q And how long did youremain at the New 11 Orleans plant for -- 12 A For just a little over a year. I guess it 13 was a year and three months. 14 Q What did you -- What, if anything, did you 15 get to observe about the Cyanamid medical program 16 during this - this first month in New York? 17 A Well, I got to know the details of how the 18 corporate program worked and got to know the key 19 people in both - in each of - in occupational 20 medicine, the doctors, the industrial hygienists - 21 Bill Bradley and his staff. At that point not too 22 many of the plants or divisions had their own 23 industrial hygienists. So, they had a group of four 24 or five industrial hygienists on a corporate staff 25 that went to the operations by in large. 144 1 Q Uh-huh. 2 A Some of the plants did - like my plant at 3 Bound Brook did later. But -- And then the 4 toxicology department -- Boyd Shaffer - the chairman 5 was there - or the head of it was in New York. And 6 it gave him a wonderful time to have meetings with 7 each of them and learn the full gamut of their 8 program and interests and so forth. And then I 9 toured around a number of the plants. I went to 10 each of the plants in the immediate New York 11 vicinity. There were five or six major plants 12 including the Bound Brook, the corporate research, 13 Lederle Laboratories - the drug pharmaceutical 14 division. Well, there were a number of others in 15 the industrial chemicals and so forth. Agricultural 16 chemicals at Princeton and at the corporate research 17 center at Stamford, New York - Stamford, 18 Connecticut. 19 Q How large a facility in terms of 20 professional staff do you recollect the corporate 21 research place being in Connecticut? 22 A Of the total facility? 23 Q (Nodding affirmatively) 24 A I would estimate - and this is strictly a 25 guess - because it's been so long ago now. 1,000 145 1 people. 2 Q Huh, 3 A It may not be that much, or it might be 4 more. I just -- 5 Q A pretty respectable operation? 6 A Oh, it was a very respectable operation. 7 It was a big facility. 8 Q Can you tell us anything about 9 Dr. Hamlin's background? 10 A Yes. He married a girl named Mary Jane 11 Jeffcott whose father was President, Chief Executive 12 of Calco Chemical Company. And Cyanamid bought 13 Calco Chemical, and that was the - at the Bound 14 Brook facility, which was the biggest plant of 15 Cyanamid and the head of organic chemicals division. 16 And they were counting too many dead bodies, and 17 Jeffcott said, "We need a medical guy." 18 And Mary Jane said, "Well, hire my 19 husband," who had just graduated from the University 20 of Virginia Medical School. So, that's how he got 21 in there with no training. And he was strictly a 22 medical school graduate, and he had an internship I 23 guess and maybe a little other training but not much 24 else . 25 So, he came in and had to teach himself 146 1 how to do this. Of course, that was many years 2 ago. They both had very excellent schooling at the 3 University of Virginia. It was an excellent 4 school. And, in fact, she was Dean of Women; and he 5 was a medical student. That's how it happened. 6 Q How many years ahead of you was 7 Dr. Hamlin, do you remember approximately? 8 A 2 5 - 2 0 or 25, 30 years. 9 Q Okay. 10 A He was in his probably late 50's when I 11 joined the company. I'm guessing, but it's in that 12 range. 13 Q So, he had -- He'd been there for 14 about -- 15 A Most of his career. 16 Q Okay. 17 A First as medical director at - or plant 18 physician at what was then called Calco but it 19 became the organic chemicals division of Bound 20 Brook, New Jersey. And then when the company 21 decided they needed a corporate medical presence, 22 they promoted him to be the corporate medical 23 director some years later. And I don't know the 24 date of that. 25 Q And we are talkingabout when Cyanamid 147 1 promoted -- 2 A That's right. 3 Q -- Dr. Hamlin -- 4 A Yes. 5 Q -- to be the corporate medical director? 6 A Right. 7 Q Do you place that in the '40's, or can 8 you - can you even get within a decade? 9 A I honestly have no idea. I don't recall 10 what year he started there. I just don't know those 11 facts. I may have known them at some point. 12 Q All right. 13 A But it's not in myrecollection now. 14 Q Can you outline for us what the Cyanamid 15 medical program consisted of as it was shown to you 16 in 1956? 17 A It was a very excellent program. They had 18 had many hazardous materials, a lot of serious 19 health problems, deaths and whatnot in not only the 20 Calco division but at other parts of the company 21 because they manufactured a lot of materials that 22 had a lot of hazards. 23 And they had implemented a complete 24 medical surveillance program for its day. All the 25 workers in every plant had a pre-employment exam, a 148 1 complete and full pre-employment exam and annual 2 examinations. They were not mandatory, but the 3 participation rate was very, very high. Virtually 4 everybody took advantage of it. And it was a 5 complete and comprehensive medical examination, e history, physical exam, all of the laboratory tests 7 that are conventional - blood, urines, some 8 chemistries, chest X rays above a certain area, a 9 cardiograph and so forth. 10 And then in addition, of course, they had 11 the exposure data as best we knew it at that point. 12 There was very little analytical testing done in the 13 period prior to the mid to late '60's, but there was 14 some specific things like lead and some things that IS were -- But testing was very crude and costly, 16 time-consuming and not very accurate by in large. 17 They did special tests, though, where 18 workers had some particular exposure that -- There 19 was a testing that would be appropriate for it if it 20 was a serious enough condition and so forth. So, it 21 was a very comprehensive thing. And they had an 22 excellent information source - a great laboratory 23 and people who learned to keep us posted up to date 24 as best that could be done in those days of hazards 25 of materials. 149 1 Plants were notified and kept their own 2 libraries up to date on that. And there was an 3 effort meant to do some epidemiologic work. But 4 without computers and -- Efforts at epidemiology was 5 pretty crude in those days. 6 Q Yes, sir. 7 A If they saw six cases of something in one 8 operation, that would trigger somebody to look into 9 it. Or if they had some serious problems - even 10 with a single case sometimes it would cause this. 11 So, it was a very, very excellent program. I don't 12 think any company in the country had a better 13 program as far as I know at that point. 14 Q Huh. Okay. I guess as you said without 15 the computers to make the epidemiology work easier, 16 you doctors had to rely more than you might today on 17 case reports and anecdotal -- 18 A Yeah, we used standard forms, for example, 19 and similar protocols for each of the plants. I can 20 recall in the later years trying to go back and do 21 some studies on prior years' records and whatnot. 22 It was a nightmare going through all of that 23 handwritten stuff. And it was just -- It ended up . 24 feeling like it was garbage in and garbage out 25 because of the variabilities and the difficulties of 150 1 trying to coordinate something like that. You would 2 make big tab tables and -- It was just very, very 3 difficult to do. 4 Q Well, plus the usual problems of whether 5 something was consistently coded or -- 6 A Absolutely. 7 Q -- described -- 8 A Different observers did different things, 3 and they used different terminologies at times. And 10 there were so many factors that mitigated against it 11 being something that could practically be done in a 12 valid epidemiologic sense as we think of it today. 13 It was a hell of a lot better than nothing, but -- 14 It was good at the time, but not very good to go 15 back on to get - see what the experience had been. 16 Q I suppose at the same time if we transport 17 ourselves back to the mid-'50's when you began 18 practicing, you still had - you had the dilemma of 19 having to try and prevent the diseases? 20 A That's right. Our effort was 21 theoretically and by intent 100 percent 22 preventive -- 23 Q And ... 24 A --- in its thrust. 25 Q And the best information you had to go 151 1 with is what you had to -- 2 A That's right. 3 Q -- to use; right? And if that WdS a 4 series of case reports -- 5 A Yeah. 6 Q -- then you applied your best judgment 7 a n d -- 8 A Yeah. It was past the day of body counts, 9 but not yet to the day of exquisite, accurate 10 testing medically, industrial hygiene or 11 toxicologically. So ... 12 Q But I guess regardless - as a 13 conscientious physician then -- 14 A I say that in retrospect. 15 Q Yes, sir. But I mean at the time if case 16 reports were what you had to rely on, then you would 17 take heed of -- 18 A Absolutely. 19 Q -- what had been reported in the 20 literature and try to apply that? 21 A And the company was very good about 22 supplying each of the facilities with an adequate 23 library and to notify them of developments that- were 24 important for them to know about that they might 25 miss without seeing all of the literature and so 152 1 forth in the country. 2 Q May I suggest we let you stretch your legs 3 for a moment. 4 A I feel quite good right at the moment. 5 MR. HUTCHINS: Yeah, let's take 6 a stretch. 7 THE WITNESS: Okay. 8 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off 9 the record at 2:49. 10 11 (AT THIS TIME A BRIEF RECESS WAS 12 TAKEN, AND THE PROCEEDINGS THEREAFTER 13 RESUMED AS FOLLOWS:) 14 15 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are on the 16 record at 3:17. 17 18 (By Mr. Blanks) 19 Q When I was talking to Herschel, he 20 mentioned a couple of names. Did we speak of 21 Dr. Horton in connection with Kettering earlier? 22 A We did not. That is a name, of course, 23 that I'm well acquainted with. 24 Q Okay. And what was h i s -- 25 A As a matter of fact, I identified him in 153 1 my ... 2 Q 3 A You identified him in your dissertation? No. He didn't do much of the teaching. 4 He was in the research unit more. He did some 5 teaching, but not -- As I recall he was more 6 involved with the laboratory testing and so forth. 7 But we didn't have as much to do with him as most of 8 the faculty. 9 Q And was Mitch Zavon there -- 10 A Oh, yeah, 11 Q 12 A -- at the time? Yeah, Mitch was there. 13 Q 14 A And what was his area? Well, Mitch had been an instructor in the 15 Public Health Service's facility out on Columbia 16 Pike. They did some laboratory work there. They -- 17 He was an instructor in radiation health safety. 18 And we had radiation safety and problems associated 19 with radiation and whatnot back in the early days of 20 being at Kettering. That was one of the first 21 courses we had. He was one of the instructors. He 22 came along and started to come into classes in 23 Kettering after many years. He somehow got a degree 24 and later said he was our professor. Anyway, I know 25 Mitch very well. 154 1 Q What -- Was there like a Bureau of Mines 2 or a related school in Cincinnati back then in 3 the '50's? 4 A I don't know. I wasn't acquainted with 5 it. 6 Q Didn't NIOSH ultimately have its - a 7 training -- 8 A Well ... 9 Q -- center there? 10 A ... they have their mining headquarters 11 down in I guess it's Morgantown, West Virginia, 12 now. 13 Q All right. 14 A I don't know where it was before. 15 Q Okay. 16 A It's wherever the University of West 17 Virginia is. I think it's Morgantown. 18 Q Okay. I had -- 19 A They moved there, though; and I don't 20 remember where they were before. I never had any 21 particular dealings with them. I didn't. I'm sure 22 some of the people did on the coal dust work and 23 all. 24 Q For some reason I was recollecting NIOSH 25 having a school there in Cincinnati. And I may just 155 1 be absolutely wrong. 2 A They may have more recently. 3 Q Okay. 4 A Because there was no NIOSH until after 5 '72 . 6 Q Right. 7 A There were Public Health Service people 8 like Mark Key, who was the first director. 9 Q And I guess -- I was thinking maybe the 10 public health school had started there with some 11 program but -- Okay. It doesn't matter. 12 A I'm fuzzy about it. 13 Q I can't remember. Well, you were 14 describing for us when we took a break the - the 15 outlines of the American Cyanamid medical program as 16 you found it in the -- 17 A What? From what? 18 Q I said when we - when we took our 19 break -- 20 A Yeah. 21 Q -- you were describing the outlines of 22 t h e -- 23 A Oh, the outlines. 24 Q -- or you were outlining for us -- 25 A Yeah. ---------------------------- -- -- --- __-------------- 156 1 Q -- the Cyanamid medical program -- 2 A Yeah. 3 Q -- as you found it in 1956. 4 A {Nodding affirmatively) ' 5 Q And I think you have pretty well covered 6 that. Did you get a chance other than just meeting 7 Mr. Bradley and the handful of hygienists that 8 worked for him - did you get a chance to learn much 9 about Cyanamid's industrial hygiene program -- 10 A Oh, yes. 11 Q -- in 1956 when you started there? 12 A Very much so. 13 Q And could you do -- 14 A That was part of the responsibility of 15 them in teaching me as a preceptor. 16 Q Could you then recount for us what you 17 remember about the scope of the Cyanamid industrial 18 hygiene program as you found it in 1956. 19 A Well, it was as comprehensive a program as 20 more or less occurred in the industries. I should 21 say that the Cyanamid total program was excellent 22 like du Pont and a couple of the big companies 23 because they had so many hazards. And they h a d had 24 such a horrible experience in years past that they 25 had to devote major efforts and major resources to 157 1 coping and getting ahead of all that, which they 2 succeeded at remarkably, more so than the other 3 companies in the chemical industry. And a lot of it 4 was the industrial hygiene under Bill Bradley. And 5 he had three or four corporate industrial hygienists 6 on his staff in New York. And then there were a 7 number in the major operations out in the field - 8 the biggest plants and whatnot who reported - the 9 field people reported to him on a dotted line basis 10 locally to their plant management. 11 But they did a marvelous job in those 12 days. There wasn't much sampling done in the early 13 industrial hygiene period except for certain 14 well-established things. Lead being one of the most 15 notable. And we didn't have much lead concerns. 16 But the main thing was to constantly keep 17 surveillance on the operation. Was the equipment 18 performing correctly? Was it leaking? Was it 19 exuding vapors or dusts or whatnot? Were the 20 practices safe? Did the people know the hazards 21 that were involved? It was all of these routine 22 questions. 23 Q And, of course, each of these half a dozen 24 or so things you have just named off for us is a 25 critical part of a - of any occupational health and 158 1 hygiene program? 2 A Still is. 3 Q Those principles haven't changed --- 4 A No. 5 q -- even though the instruments have and 6 some of the standards have? 7 A Exactly. 8 Q I think the last one you mentioned was 9 that one would want to make sure that his folks or 10 employees out there knew the hazards that they were 11 facing. Why - why is that important, Doctor? 12 A Well, if one is aware of the hazards in a 13 given occupation or to a given exposure, if it's 14 significant, the best way to get their support in 15 doing the right thing for themselves as well as the 16 company is to tell them what they might have to 17 contend with and to warn them and tell them what the 18 safe practices are, et cetera. 19 Q And, of course, a fundamental - before you 20 can really know what hazards to warn the employees 21 of is to I guess acquaint yourself with the 22 potential hazards in the - the plant? 23 A Yes, sir. 24 Q And how in the 1950' s did an industrial 25 physician and the industrial hygienist with whom he 159 1 would be working go about doing that? 2 A Well, as I told you earlier, they each had 3 a good library in their own facility. And the 4 corporate medical department sent them bulletins 5 about new developments, things they might not catch 6 otherwise, and - to keep them constantly apprised. 7 And they were all supplied with any bulletins that f 8 were prepared that indicated hazards, et cetera. 9 Q And the - the other part I suppose would 10 be to know which of the - the toxic materials 11 mentioned in the bulletins were to be found or might 12 be found in the plants or the worksites that were 13 your responsibility? 14 A Yes, sir, of course. 15 Q So, any good hygiene and industrial IS medical program would entail a pretty accurate 17 inventory of the - the potential sources of exposure 18 in - in a plant? 19 A I guess that's a good way to express it, 20 yeah. 21 Q I'm trying to 22 A They had to know what they were dealing 23 with. 24 Q And in order to do that, I would imagine 25 that you the doctor would - would have to make - to 160 1 inquire of other specialists, maybe the chemical 2 engineer at the plant or the plant manager - I mean 3 you tell me - but you weren't expected at the get-go 4 to - to know everything that might be in, say, the 5 New Orleans plant of American Cyanamid, were you? 6 A Well, no. Management was given the 7 responsibility to be sure we were aware of the 8 things, but we did our own reviews of them and 9 verified them and so forth. 10 Q Okay. Mr. Bradley as I recall had come 11 from - from the Detroit municipal health department 12 industrial hygiene section by way of a major 13 insurance company on his way to Cyanamid. Do you -- 14 Did you get acquainted with him well enough to -- 15 A I don't recall what his background had 16 been. He was noted as a well-experienced and 17 superior industrial hygiene manager. And I don't 18 recall what his previous background was. 19 Q I believe I'm stating it accurately for 20 you. But you found him in your later years of 21 working with him to be extremely competent and 22 knowledgeable I would imagine? 23 A Oh, yes. 24 Q And like - like Dr. Hine in the field of 25 toxicology, you found Bill Bradley to be a leader in 161 1 his field of industrial hygiene -- 2 A Yes. 3 Q -- back at a time when there weren't tens 4 of thousands of industrial hygienists? 5 A Yes. 6 Q Okay. You wereactually pretty privileged 7 to come in contact with some first class people in 8 your early years and in your years of education, at 9 least it seems so to me. 10 A Yeah. 11 Q It would be hard to do that nowadays. At 12 least you -- 13 A Do what? 14 Q I said it would be hard to do that 15 nowadays, to match that experience I would -- 16 A It probably would, yes. 17 Q What was your mission when you were sent 18 from the big city lights of New York down to the 19 plant in New Orleans? What was the reason for going 2 0 there? 21 A It was a big new plant that manufactured 22 acrylonitrile, which is a raw material for Orion and 23 other related acrylic fibers. And the process 24 involved the use of natural gas, oxygen, hydrogen 25 and whatnot to create hydrogen cyanide, about 200 162 1 tons a day. And one whiff will kill you. Which was 2 then chemically combined with acetylene to make 3 acrylonitrile. And then there were offshoot 4 products and side products. 5 But the potential of harm from the basic 6 processes that I mentioned all were fraught with 7 substantial potential for hazard. And we had a very 8 elaborate medical program with around the clock 9 nursing and safety people and doctors on call. And 10 I was responsible for seeing that it all ran 11 successfully and to - to keep track of it and so 12 forth. 13 Q Well, what did you find when you went 14 there? I mean was the program already up and 15 running? 16 A It was. And it was running very well by 17 in large. It had a good medical director - or a 18 medical plant physician they called it - who left -- 19 I don't recall. I think he got another job or 20 something. And they were without anybody that they 21 could find with competence in that area of complex 22 toxicological needs and so forth. And, so, they got 23 authorization from Kettering for me to go down on 24 that assignment, still having time to do the other 25 things for the educational purpose and broad 163 1 experience. 2 Q So, you got shoved right into being the 3 plant physician then? 4 A Yes . 5 Q Okay. That must have been a pretty 6 significant opportunity, too - 7 A It w a s . 8 Q 9 A -- at that point? Yes. 10 Q 11 A And how big a plant was this? The population in the beginning was 12 about - between 700 and 800 people. And it was 13 being doubled in size during the time that I was 14 there. And the population was already on the 15 increase up towards 1,600 or 1,800 in training and 16 various stages of getting ready for the expansion. 17 Q And you had I guess a clinic at the plant; 18 you worked there full time at the plant? 19 A A small hospital, yes. 20 <2 Did you have nursing staff? 21 A Around the clock there were numbers of 22 people. 23 Q Did you have any assistant physician, -or 24 were you t h e -- 25 A Not initially. At a later point we did. 164 1 We had a number of physicians in the community who 2 we had trained and whatnot who were on call to be of 3 assistance should it become necessary, and to fill 4 it for me if I wasn't there and so forth. 5 Q Now, you described for us earlier that - 6 how the American Cyanamid medical program in 1956 7 included pre-employment physicals and periodic 8 physical examinations for the employees who wanted 9 to have them with exams and X rays and blood work 10 and so forth. Is this the program that existed at 11 the New Orleans plant when you arrived as well? 12 A Yes, sir. 13 Q Okay. So, that was to your understanding 14 a universal feature of the Cyanamid medical 15 program? I mean it was -- 16 A Yes, it was a standardized program that 17 was in all of the plants. 18 Q And it fell on your shoulders to perform 19 these periodic re-examinations of employees? 20 A Yes, some of them. 21 Q Andto examine the would-beemployees, the 22 new hires as well? 23 A Yes. 24 Q Did - did you find that there wasalready 25 a set of forms for these pre-employment exams and 165 1 the periodic exams when you got there to Cyanamid? 2 A Yes. As I said, they were standardized 3 programs that were adopted for use throughout the 4 company. 5 Q Okay. I'm sorry. I didn't -- 6 A Okay. 7 q -- follow that to mean - to include that. 8 And this basically allowed for each doctor at the 9 different Cyanamid plants, even making different 10 things, to report on the same form and ... 11 A (Nodding affirmatively) 12 Q How much of this fairly vast amount of 13 information about plant workers made its way up to 14 Dr. Hamlin for a review of any sort? I mean what 15 would - would be worth his attention? 16 A Well, it was the medical -- It was the 17 plant physician's responsibility to prepare a 18 monthly report which told them how many of each 19 category of job work he performed of all types, how 20 many exams, et cetera, and to list any items that 21 were of noteworthiness, adverse occurrences, if any, 22 trends, special problems, that sort of thing. 23 And he summarized information that might 24 have been developed during that time. Essentially 25 it was supposed to be a report that gave Dr. Hamlin 166 1 a reasonable picture of the activity and the special 2 concerns that were going on at that plant each 3 month. 4 Q And then did - 5 A It had to be there on the day it was 6 prescribed. 7 Q Okay. 8 A It wasn't a casual thing. 9 Q Would Dr. Hamlin then during the year make 10 a visit to the plant medical department? 11 A He usually had done so. He was then 12 getting involved in a lot of special projects and 13 whatnot. And more often it would be one of the 14 assistant medical directors like Dr. GJolz or - in 15 particular he or Dr. Manglesdorph or both tended to 16 be the ones who did more of the visiting at least to 17 the facilities I was in. Occasionally he did. And 18 he went to -- He went to a lot of meetings. He was 19 always the host for the Occupational Medical 20 Association for the doctors attending and that sort 21 of thing, too. 22 Q Did Dr, Hamlin ever get certified in 23 occupational medicine? 24 A Yes, he was grandfathered. 25 Q You, however, sat for examination? 167 1 A 2 Q I beg your pardon? You were certified, though, by virtue of 3 an exam I gather? 4 A Yes. 5 Q And besides the acrylonitrile and the raw 6 ingredients that went to make it up, did you have 7 any other particular problems of interest in the New 8 Orleans plant of American Cyanamid in '57? 9 A Well, there were a number ofother things 10 that were just as much a concern to me really as the 11 nitriles or the cyanide components. We made a lot 12 of agricultural chemicals, particularly 13 ammonia-based products - fertilizer and so forth - 14 as by-product usage. And we had a newly developed 15 monomethyl styrene plant, which was a real pain in 16 the ... 17 Q It was a real what, sir? 18 A It was a real pain in the neckplant. It 19 was constantly having problems. They ultimately 20 abandoned it. But there were a lot of hazards 21 there. And we had to keep pretty close watch on it 22 as it was being developed in a period of adversity. 23 Oh, there were a number of other things. 24 It was a huge plant and a magnificently beautiful 25 petrochemical plant. You would fly into New 168 1 Orleans, and it was right across from the airport. 2 And you'd see it and -- "Boy, what in the world is 3 that magnificent thing?" It was really a jewel. 4 <2 Did - during your time at American 5 Cyanamid did you have maintenance workers that were 6 Cyanamid employees who were under your program as 7 well? 8 A Yes, sir, they were Cyanamid employees by 9 in large. They were contract people that were in on 10 special projects, but by in large they were our own 11 staff. 12 Q So, we had both -- 13 A I say "our own staff." They were supplied 14 by a subsidiary corporation called Ebasco. They 15 were a construction and maintenance firm owned by 16 Cyanamid. And as I recall, most of those people 17 were at least under the direction of the Ebasco 18 people. They worked right along with the other 19 employees, but they -- I might have that a little 20 mixed up, but essentially that's right. We oversaw 21 them just like we did our own employees. 22 Q Oh, okay. 23 A Yeah. 24 Q And in your medical program at the New 25 Orleans plant, would the - the medical monitoring 169 1 part of the exams be targeted at the kind of - at 2 exposures that you would expect from the work the 3 man was doing? 4 A They would be if there were something 5 that - for which that was appropriate. But my 6 recollection is that we didn't have - had virtually 7 nothing in that category except some lead workers 8 who worked in some storage facilities that had the 9 potential for lead exposure. And I don't recall any 10 other -- I could be wrong, but I don't recall any 11 others at this point. 12 Q And what --- 13 A It was a general surveillance and ... 14 Q What - what special tests did you do with 15 the people that were potentially exposed to lead? 16 A Well, we did blood leads, for example, or 17 urinary lead exposure. There weren't very many of 19 them. 19 Q And is that one of those tests where you 20 can detect in the blood or the urine the exposures 21 pretty soon after the exposures have occurred? 22 A Well, relatively. Lead tends to 23 accumulate, of course. But you could do lead 24 studies, and they would demonstrate the actual lead 25 levels themselves, not some indicator -- 170 1 Q Oh-huh. 2 A -- if they were elevated and would know 3 whether or not exposure had been excessive or 4 whatnot. 5 Q And would the health effects of the lead .6 exposures - in other words, where it would be 7 harmful to somebody - you could detect the exposures 8 in the blood work or the chemical work before a man 9 might show symptoms otherwise that would let you 10 know you had a problem. Am I right? 11 A Yes, that's possible. 12 Q It's not put very well, but --- 13 A That was -- The answer is yes. 14 Q And I guess it follows that you much 15 preferred to be able to detect the onset of an 16 occupational disease or a health consequence in the 17 laboratory much better - much more than you would 18 like to find it showing up in sickness or illness in 19 the man? 20 A Always, yes. 21 Q Because then you still had a chance to do 22 something about it? 23 A That's correct. 24 Q Okay. At this - at this New Orleans plant 25 of Cyanamid, did the processes there involve any 171 1 high temperatures where they had to use thermal 2 insulation in the plant? 3 A Some, yes. Actually more extensive cold 4 insulation, but there was some high temperature 5 stuff. 6 Q More of the -- More of that plant was a 7 cold process? 8 A Well, for the largest amount of insulating 9 material because they had some huge like -- What do 10 you call the subfreezing temperatures of -- Liquid 11 Oxygen, for example. 12 Q Cryogenics? 13 A They had large facilities of that sort. 14 Most of the other insulation was pretty well bound 15 in and outer jacket wrapped. It was rarely touched. 16 It had an aluminum or some other metal external 17 surface. And they were big distillation columns 18 which you don't very often have to fool with. 19 Q I take it that at this Cyanamid plant in 20 New Orleans in '56, '57 there was not a program to 21 monitor workers potentially exposed to asbestos? 22 A No. 23 Q Now, the year - the last year of your - 24 Kettering program ended and found you still down 25 there in New Orleans I suppose? 172 1 A Yea, sir. 2 Q What happened then? Did you -- Did you 3 stay there or move back north or what? 4 A We wanted to move back north. And they 5 were getting ready to set up a medical program of 6 more intensity than they had at the central research 7 laboratory. So, as soon as we were able to get my 8 replacement down there, I moved up to Stamford, 9 Connecticut. 10 Q And went to work at the medical - I'm 11 sorry - I mean at the central research facility of 12 Cyanamid? 13 A Yes. 14 Q And this was the one you described earlier 15 as maybe having as many as 1,000 -- 16 A Yes. 17 Q -- professionals working there? And what 18 was your job there, Dr. Dixon? 19 A Well, Iwas plantphysicianoriginally; 20 and then they later turned - changed the title to 21 director of medical services. They adopted that 22 term for all of the plant physicians in the 23 company. 24 Q Andeven though this research facility 25 wasn't actually a factory, they - the company 173 1 referred to it as a plant? It was one of the 2 plants? 3 A No, it was a laboratory - a central 4 research laboratory. It had a lot of plant-type 5 operations - pilot plant operations, for example, of 6 various stages and then routine bench-top chemistry 7 and other laboratory -- It was quite an advanced 8 laboratory that had many amazing facilities 9 including a Van de Graaff generator. 10 Q I think Mr. Bradley told us that Cyanamid 11 had maybe the first or second mass spectrometer in 12 the country, too, way back when. 13 A That's quite likely. 14 Q So, your job there was being doctor for 15 the approximately 1,000 Cyanamid employees that 16 worked at the research facility? 17 A That's right. And we had some outlier 18 places. Like we had a partial operation down in 19 Princeton that later became - that's New Jersey - 20 that later became the agricultural research 21 headquarters. And I had responsibility overseeing 22 that. We had a doctor there, but -- And I believe 23 chat was the full extent of it . 24 Q And am I right that this program of 25 A I take that back. I was mistaken. The 174 1 agricultural thing originated out of my Bound Brook 2 experience later, not from the research 3 headquarters. It was a research program, but it 4 was -- It was at a different time. 5 Q Okay. But the Princeton facility was 6 among your -- 1 A Later. 8 Q Oh, okay. 9 A Not from -- Not from Stamford. From Bound 10 Brook. That was my next assignment. I got the two 11 mixed up. 12 Q And the people that worked at the American 13 Cyanamid laboratories in Stamford, Connecticut - 14 these - these folks also had the periodic physical 15 examinations -- 16 A Yes, sir. 17 Q -- just like the other Cyanamid 18 employees? 19 A Exactly. 20 Q I suppose that theworkers in this 21 laboratory or facility had the potential for 22 exposures to troublesome chemicals just as folks in 23 a plant might? 24 A Yes. Yes, sir. 25 Q And there must have been an industrial 175 1 hygiene program then at this laboratory just as was 2 available in the plants; is that true? 3 A Well, it had been from New York 4 originally. And then I hired - as I told you 1 5 hired Warren Virchow as our own industrial 6 hygienist. And, so, we had our own program overseen 7 by the New York group, of course. 8 Q Okay. So, before you got there New York 9 was providing the industrial hygiene services for 10 the research lab? 11 A That is correct. 12 Q And then you went therein about '57? 13 A Yes. 14 Q And how long was it before you hired 15 Mr. Virchow? 16 A Fairly soon. Within the first six months 17 I would hazard a guess. As soon as I could line up 18 somebody good. 19 Q And where did Mr. Virchow comefrom, 20 Doctor? 21 A God, I was afraid you would ask me that. 22 He came out of training in Ann Arbor. I believe he 23 had a job up in Detroit or somewhere, but I -- -It 24 escapes me right at the moment. He was well trained 25 and a very good industrial hygienist. 176 Q Do you have some sense of how - how long Cyanamid had had a research laboratory? A Well, they had had various research facilities since the inception of the corporation. You don't have a chemical company without that. I don't know that - the long early history of it. At least I don't recall it now. I probably heard it at some point, but I don't remember. Calco, for example, must have had one for quite a few years. But I don't recall the details. And I don't remember when they moved to Stamford. Q What kind of business was Calco in? What was their major -- A That was the Bound Brook - became the Bound Brook plant. Do you remember I told you about the Jeffcotts? Q Yes, sir. A Yes. Q And what wastheir line -the Calco Company? A About 900different chemicals, specialty chemicals, commodity chemicals, highly toxic materials, anilines, aromatic hydrocarbons. It -was a huge facility with all types of highly hazardous materials. They used to have frequent deaths and 177 1 horrible: occupational health problems before 2 Cyanamid bought it. That's why they hired 3 Dr. Hamlin. 4 Q How long did you remain at the Stamford 5 laboratories of -- 6 A Until 1962. 7 Q -- Cyanamid? So, the duration of your 8 Cyanamid time was spent there - the balance of it? 9 A The rest of it, y e s . First New York and 10 then New Orleans and then Stamford and then Bound 11 Brook. That was in '58 that I went down there. 12 Q I'm sorry? 13 A I was there until '58 when I went down - 14 or '59 I guess it was when I went down to Bound 15 Brook. 16 Q Okay. Let me -- I apologize. My mind 17 must have wandered. You spent the first year in New 18 Orleans and then went to the Stamford 19 laboratories -- 20 A That's correct. 21 Q -- of Cyanamid? 22 A A little over a year each. 23 Q A year each. So, in 1958 you left the 24 research laboratory and went to the Bound Brook 25 plant? 178 1 A Right. '58 or early '59. I was -- I'm a 2 little fuzzy on the date. I overlapped actually. 3 So , it's kind of hard for me to remember which date 4 w a s -- 5 Q Well, it's close enough. And this was 6 in - down in New Jersey? 7 A Yes. 8 Q And then where in Cyanamid did you work 9 after Bound Brook? 10 A I was there the remainder of my career 11 with them. I was the head of the organic chemicals 12 division. So, that was the headquarters of the 13 organic chemicals division, and I headed the medical 14 operation in the organic chemicals division, which 15 consisted of a number of other smaller plants. 16 Q Okay. Bound Brook was far and away the 17 biggest one. That was the former Calco plant? 18 A Exactly. 19 Q And then there were some Cyanamid plants, 20 smaller ones, that were part of the organic -- 21 A Yes. 22 Q -- chemicals division? 23 A Right. 24 Q And did you have at the Bound Brook plant 25 of Cyanamid in 1958 a plant industrial hygienist? 179 1 A Yes. I told that you earlier. It was 2 Russ Hunt. 3 Q Okay. And what kind of particular 4 problems do you associate with the challenging Bound 5 Brook plant, Doctor? 6 A Well, I mentioned a bunch of them just a 7 moment ago. 8 Q Okay. 9 A It was a plant that had around 900 10 chemicals - from pharmaceuticals to commodity 11 chemicals to highly hazardous - amino, organic 12 compounds, anilines, all sorts of plants - all sorts 13 of materials that were very highly potentially 14 hazardous. 15 In fact, we had to have help from a New 16 York industrial hygiene group to keep track of that 17 it was such a big vast plant. At one point it had 18 6,000 employees. After World War II it dropped down 19 to about 3,000 when I was there. 20 Q Now, how far away from New York City was 21 the Bound Brook plant? 22 A 30 miles. 30, 35 miles, something like 23 that. 24 Q Down there when we speak of another state 25 we think it could be several hundred miles away. 180 1 A I'm sorry. I heard a noise. I couldn't 2 hear you. 3 Q I said down in Texas when we speak of 4 something being in a neighboring state, and it could 5 be 1,000 miles away. But -- 6 A Right. 7 Q -- you were practically a suburb of New 8 York City? 9 A You could get to the neighboring state 10 quicker than we could get to New York. 11 Q And your office, though, was actually out 12 there in New Jersey -- 13 A In Bound Brook, yes. 14 Q -- at the plant? And, so, your contact 15 with the headquarters in New York City was - well, 16 occasional? Just pick up the phone and -- 17 A We visited frequently actually. 18 Q Where did you tend to have your 19 professional activities? Was it in New York or out 20 there in Jersey or some combination? 21 A In the early time it was in New Jersey 22 Q And w a s -- 23 A For - for locals. 24 a For the local section? 25 A Yeah. 181 1 Q Okay. Were there not also combined like 2 multi-section meetings that -- 3 A There were, yes. 4 Q A n d --- 5 A We were free to go from one to another 6 easily if we needed to if it was something of 7 interest. 8 Q Okay. Now, how - how active was the 9 industrial hygiene section up there in the New York, 10 New Jersey area back -- 11 A Very, very active always, yeah. It was a 12 big one. And itwas quite active. At one point I 13 think they called it a tri-state group, and then 14 they went back more to the -- And that was New York, 15 New Jersey and Connecticut, which included, of 16 course, Long Island and so forth. But by in large 17 New Jersey had its own - was a separate entity. 18 Q I don't think of New Jersey as being that 19 big. 20 A I'm a little fuzzy about how it evolved 21 during that time, but that's essentially the essence 22 of i t . 23 Q Yeah. I think Mr. Laubly had described it 24 as a tri-state -- 25 A Yes. 182 1 Q --- group. 2 A For a good part of the time it w a s . But 3 then New Jersey had its own subsection meetings and 4 so forth because it was more convenient for people 5 to do that. 6 Q Do you -- Do you recall having occasion 7 while at Cyanaxnid to call on any outside consultants 8 in either medicine or industrial hygiene or 9 toxicology? 10 A Toxicology, yes. Although it was not my 11 responsibility, I was involved with it. I had 12 become very close to the toxicology group, which had 13 its testing facilities up at Stamford when I was 14 there earlier. But much of the major work we did 15 was farmed out to outside consulting toxicologists, 16 particularly the Hazleton Laboratories. 17 Q Which I think you mentioned earlier. And 18 where was the Hazleton Laboratories? 19 A Right up Route 7 here about 2 miles. 20 Q Okay. 21 MR. HUTCHINS: Two miles? 22 THE WITNESS: Three roughly. 23 Q Did your meetings - your attendance at the 24 medical association or the Industrial Hygiene 25 Association bring you in contact with folks in New J , 183 J v.>*`y . ..! York like Tony Lanza at NYU? -] 2 A I don't know what year Tony died. I had 3 met him and had corresponded with him when I was looking at Columbia as one of the training 3 fc-uJ s facilities. But my recollection about him "l J 6 thereafter is somewhat fuzzy. I can't recall whether he ever came out to Kettering or not. Do 7 8 you know what -- Do you recall what year he died? J 9 Q -, 10 A I'm straining to recall that, but -He had retired from Metropolitan Life and 11 went over to New York University to establish 12 that -- - 13 Q Yes, sir. J 14 A -- school of industrial medicine. 15 Q And that - that was clearly after the 1.6 war. 17 A Oh, yes, it was well after the war. This 18 was in '54 that I'm talking about when I had contact 19 with him - '53 and '54. I did not visit there. I 20 talked with him on the phone several times. I 21 correspon ded with him. I know I met him, but I 22 don't rec all -- I never became familiar with him. I 23 have a recollection that he died somewhere along in -- 24 there or retired or - a second time or something of 25 the sort; but I'm very fuzzy about that. 184 1 Q 2 A Yeah. I knew about him and all that. 3 Q Okay. Well, now, as we said earlier, 4 Dr. Lanza had formerly been with Metropolitan Life 5 Insurance Coverage. 6 A Metropolitan Life. He retired from 7 Metropolitan and then went to establish the school. 8 Q And he had been active as a physician with 9 the U. S. Public Health Service for some many years 10 as well, do you recall? 11 A I believe that's right. I couldn't recall 12 that earlier, but I believe that is right. I didn't 13 know him, however, during any earlier period. 14 Q I am thinking 15 A I didn't know anybody in the field really 16 to speak of prior to '54. There were very few 17 people I had met; just a few people in the course of 18 my work with Cyanamid on pesticides. 19 Q But you were - I suppose you came to be 20 acquainted with Dr. Lanza's reputation as an 21 industrial physician once you came into the -- 22 A More or less, not with a lot of the 23 particulars. But he was notable as a very early and 24 important leader in the field. But I wasn't 25 intimately connected with - aware of all the work he 185 1 had done; but I knew some of it. 2 Q I wasn't going to grill you on the 3 particulars of his - of his writings, but would you 4 say when you began to practice occupational medicine 5 that Dr. Lanza had a very good reputation in the 6 field of industrial medicine? 7 A My recollection was that he was. He was 8 one of the leaders as I just said. He was respected 9 and he - he had a big name out there. 10 <2 And would I be right in thinking that back 11 in the '5Q's then that he would have been considered 12 fairly authoritative on - on the medical areas that 13 he worked on and had written on? 14 A I have to assume that. I wasn't involved 15 in any of it, but he had certainly a wonderful 16 reputation that way, and as a teacher, too. 17 Q Did your work at - up to the time you were 18 at Cyanamid bring you in contact with any doctors or 19 hygienists from any insurance companies? 20 A Oh, I'm sure it did in that time through 21 the association because I was in the 22 industrial/medical association by then. And, of 23 course, we met with the industrial hygienists. So, 24 I think the answer has to be yes. I don't recall 25 offhand just who or where, but -- 186 1 <2 Am I right in thinking, Dr. Dixon, that 2 back at this - during this era of the mid-'50's that 3 some of the larger insurance companies like some of 4 the larger chemical companies, automotive companies 5 and so on had industrial physicians on staff like we 6 mentioned Dr. Lanza, for example? 7 A Oh, well, the insurance companies, of 8 course, have always had physicians, largely for 9 actuarial-type work. And some of them I presume -- 10 I later learned that insurance companies - I don't 11 know about life insurance companies - but casualty 12 and other types of insurance companies often had 13 industrial hygiene and even provided services to 14 corporations. 15 Q And what I was wondering about was in 16 terms of the resources that would have been 17 available back in the mid-'50's to a company. 18 A Well, think of this. I was a very junior 19 young pup at the time. I was just out of training. 20 I had met a lot of the key people when I was at 21 Kettering, but I was just a plant physician. I 22 wasn't a leader in the field at that point. And my 23 contacts were as they occurred, not as we had them 24 developed at Kettering, for example. So, I wouldn't 25 have met very many high-level sorts of people in 187 1 that job certainly in the early period. 2 Q Okay. I appreciate that. And my -- Maybe 3 we were talking past each other. I was -- I was 4 just asking you whether you could confirm that - 5 that there were at the casualty companies and the 6 different insurance companies - some of them, not 7 all of them - professionals that were available to 8 consult with their insureds -- 9 A I only knew of it with respect to the 10 casualty or nonlife insurance carriers. But I 11 don't -- That certainly was not something with which 12 I was familiar -- 13 Q Okay. 14 A -- at that time. 15 Q Now, you later came to find out that that 16 was the case? 17 A Later? 18 Q Later. 19 A Well, more -more surely, yes. 20 Q Did you make - make friends with any 21 industrial hygienists or doctors from any of the oil 22 companies while you were up in the New York, New 23 Jersey area? 24 A Yes. 25 Q Who - who do you recallfrom there? 188 1 A Well, one of my particular favorites was 2 Norm Roberts who was medical - who became medical 3 director after Dr. Wade of Exxon and -- Then it was 4 Esso - Standard Oil. Oil companies - I knew several 5 of the Mobil medical directors. And his name 6 escapes me right at the moment. 7 Q Me, too. 8 A I can see his face. He lives in Florida 9 still. He's retired. I can't think of his first 10 name. I knew the subsequent people there very well 11 like Joe Canella and so forth. But off the top of 12 my head I can't recall any of the others. I'm sure 13 there might have been. 14 Q You think the Mobil medical director is 15 still living in Florida? 16 A Yes. As a matter of fact, I saw his name 17 in a recent directory. 18 Q What city? Do you recall the city? 19 A No. 20 Q I'm embarrassed. I can't come up with a 21 name either. 22 A Oh, I can see him so clearly. And it may 23 come to me in a moment. I knew him quite well - I 24 mean relatively well. 25 Q I think his --- 189 1 A It was in a social sense really, 2 Q I'm beginning to think this memory lapse 3 is a communicable ailment. 4 A Yeah, particularly when you get in your 5 70's. Although I've been noted for that for years. 6 Q Do you remember the medical directors from 7 Texaco - Dr. Baylor maybe -- 8 A No. 9 Q -- Curtis Baylor? Who preceded him? You 10 would know him, or maybe you wouldn't. 11 A No, I don't recall. I think I knew 12 somebody later, but I can't recall. 13 Q Do you remember meeting Texaco's 14 industrial hygienist - Allan Dooley? 15 A Oh, yes, I knew Allan very well. 16 Q And did you find Mr. Dooley also to be a 17 pretty knowledgeable and competent industrial 18 hygienist? 19 A To the best of my recollection he was 20 outstanding by reputation. I never had any personal 21 experience with him, but he had a reputation of 22 excellence. 23 Q I think he had come out of the 24 Pennsylvania health department. 25 A He might well have, as many did. 190 1 Q And did you ever met Arthur Pabst from 2 Mobil? 3 A The name doesn't ring a bell. 4 Q He was their first industrial hygienist at 5 New York. 6 A Yeah. 7 Q I thought you might have run into him 8 there. 9 A I don't remember his name. 10 Q How about -- 11 A I don't recall it at this point. 12 Q How about Nathan Van Hendricks from Exxon? 13 A Oh, I knew Van Hendricks very well. 14 Q And what was -- 15 A He was ... 16 Q -- his reputation? 17 A Well, he was in New York. 18 Q Yes, sir. 19 A He was with Exxon; right - Esso - Standard 2Q Oil? 21 Q Right. And what was his reputation? 22 A Very excellent. I got to know him quite 23 well. 24 Q 25 A How about Bob Eckard? Oh, I mentioned him initially. 191 1 Q 2 A Well, I -I'm sorry. I did not. I mentioned Norm 3 Roberts, 4 Q 5 A Norm Roberts. Bob Eckard and I became very, very close 6 friends over the years. 7 Q Were you ever a member of the U. S. Public 8 Health - I'm sorry - The American Public Health 9 Association? 10 A Was I? 11 Q Ye3,sir. 12 A Yes. 13 Q What - what period were you a member 14 roughly speaking? 15 A Oh, my. From I guess the mid-'60's to the 16 mid-'70's. I gave up on it and dropped out finally 17 when Tony Robbins became President of it. It sort 18 of degenerated for a time, and I gave up on it. So, 19 I was a fellow actually. 20 Q And you don't think you joined it until 21 the mid-'60's? Why so late? 22 A I - I don't recall. I may be wrong about 23 that. I can look at my certificate and tell you 24 tomorrow, but I just don't recall. It never loomed 25 highly important. I went to one of their national 192 1 meetings, and the most I got out of it was a good 2 private lecture by a podiatrist. 3 Q Okay. Idon't guess youmade the --- 4 A The journal was sickback in the old days 5 by in large, although I published an article in it 6 in the '50' s . 7 Q You said it was thick or sick? 8 A Stinks - or sick, 9 Q It could have been both I suppose. 10 A Public health reports, I don't know if it 11 still exists even. 12 Q I don't either. 13 A I presume it does. 14 Q I don't guess you made it to the 1948 15 meeting in - in Boston? 16 A No, I wasn't in the field then. I was an 17 intern. I didn't get into any of this until '54 as 18 you recall. 19 Q Okay. 20 A Well, a little bit before that when I was 21 at the Public Health Service. 22 Q If you do happen to recall the name of 23 that Mobil medical director -- 24 A No. 25 Q -- throw it out there. 193 1 A Wait a minute. It just almost hit me. I 2 can check it, I think. And you want my Public 3 Health Service date. I remember him so well because 4 I was due to go down there the day they had the big 5 explosion in the lobby of the Mobil offices in New 6 York; and I was late, thank God. It was a horrible 7 disaster. If you try to go into a Mobil facility 8 now anywhere, and you've got to - it's worse than 9 getting on an airplane. 10 Q Okay. We talked about some of the oil 11 company folks that you - that you met. You never I 12 don't suppose ever met a Roy Bonsib with Standard 13 Oil or Esso, did you? 14 A What was the name again? 15 Q Bonsib - B-o-n-s-i-b. 16 A I don't remember that name. 17 Q He was a safety engineer - that was his 18 title,- I guess a precursor to being an industrial 19 hygienist. 20 A I don't recall him. 21 Q D r . Denno - did you ever -- 22 A Who? 23 Q Denno - D-e-n-n-o. 24 A No. 25 Q And I think you said you were well 194 1 acquainted with the folks from du Pont at some 2 point. When did you become acquainted with Dr. Zapp 3 and his colleagues there at Haskell laboratories? 4 A Probably - well, through the trade - some 5 of the associations a little bit earlier; but mainly 6 after I joined -- Well, I guess while I was with the 7 Bell System; but mostly after I joined Celanese. 8 And that was '65. 9 Q Okay. 10 A I'm sure I knew a number of them previous 11 to that, but it was really after '65 when I really 12 got to know them particularly. I met some of the 13 higher-ups when I was at Kettering, the medical 14 director and people like that. But -- And the 15 safety director and so forth. But ... 16 Q I was thinking because they had at least a 17 couple of plants in New Jersey that you might have 18 met somebody at the local section meetings, but -- 19 A I did, but I don't recall the names of the 20 people in the plants. I recall going to one of the 21 plants down off the turnpike. I can't think of 22 which one it was at this point. It was back in that 23 period. 24 Q U h -h u h . 25 A I've been to plants subsequently. And-we 195 1 did some when I was at Kettering, but not in the New 2 Jersey area. 3 Q Did Bill Andresen work at Cyanamid -- 4 A Yes, he did. 5 Q 6 A -- while you were there? He was one of the key New York industrial 7 hygienists - he and Jim Rook, John Pendergrass and 8 two or three others. John McHenry -- Well, McHenry 9 is the last name. There must have been five or six 10 of them at various points during my time there. 11 Q Did any of these fellows work under your 12 supervision? 13 A No. 14 Q Was there a time, Dr. Dixon, when you did 15 any work in connection with Cyanamid's project down 16 in Texas - the Jefferson Chemical Company? 17 A N o , I didn't . 18 Q Do you know -- 19 A I do. 20 Q 21 A -- what I'm talking about? Jefferson Chemical Company; right? 22 Q A n d -- 23 A I was aware of it, but I never had any 24 involvement with it as such. 25 Q We had the idea that you may have provided 196 1 the - the American Cyanamid standard medical form 2 package for use by the -- 3 A I wouldn't -- That wouldn't have been my 4 responsibility. That would have come out of New 5 York. X had nothing to do with them whatsoever. 6 Q Okay. 7 A I don't even recall if I ever knew anybody 8 there. I probably did, but -- 9 Q You never visited that plant? 10 A X don't think so. Not to my recollection. 11 Q Okay. 12 A Where was the plant? 13 Q It's - it's down in Jefferson County - 14 Nederland. 15 A Jefferson County? What state? 16 Q Texas. 17 A Oh, Texas. Yeah. I was thinking of the 18 parishes in New Orleans - I mean in Louisiana. No, 19 I never did. 20 Q And there is a second plant in Conroe, 21 which is north - north of Houston. 22 A No, I didn't have any dealings with that. 23 Q I know Bill Bradley had actually gone down 24 there to make an initial survey before they built 25 the plant. 197 1 A Yeah, that was a practice in industry by 2 in large for the industrial hygiene people to review 3 a plant prior to its purchase. That was done by 4 most of the companies. S THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Joe, can we 6 go off the record to change tapes? 7 MR. BLANKS: Sure. 8 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off 9 the record at 4:11. 10 11 (AT THIS TIME A BRIEF RECESS WAS 12 TAKEN, AND THE PROCEEDINGS THEREAFTER 13 RESUMED AS FOLLOWS:) 14 15 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back 16 on the record at 4:12 p.m. 17 18 (By Mr. Blanks) 19 Q To your knowledge did Cyanamid have any 20 responsibility for providing health or safety 21 services to the Jefferson Chemical joint venture? 22 A I don't know. It strikes me that they 23 were somewhat of an odd duck in the whole mix of - 24 maybe a subsidiary of some sort. But I didn't think 25 they were integrated into the corporation quite as 198 1 well as the operating divisions, but I don't know 2 this for a fact. 3 Q Well, my - my understanding is that Texaco 4 and Cyanamid partnered up on these two or three 5 plants. And I suppose -- 6 A Of Jefferson -- I'm -- I just really have 7 no knowledge of the history. 8 Q Okay. 9 A I shouldn't have even answered that. 10 Q I was just going to say that Texaco and 11 Jefferson Chemical both - I'm sorry - Texaco and 12 Cyanamid both owned Jefferson Chemical 50/50. 13 A I didn't even know that, no. 14 Q And we - we think that Texaco had provided 15 some of these industrial hygiene services or medical 16 services, and Cyanamid had some of - some other 17 part. But -- 18 A I have no idea. 19 Q -- you had no contact with it? 20 A No. 21 Q Okay. Were there any of the - the plants 22 of Cyanamid that you were acquainted with where 23 there was specifically surveying or monitoring done 24 for asbestos exposures? 25 A I wasn't aware of any. I can't say there 199 1 was or wasn't, but I wasn't aware of it. 2 Q It would follow I suppose that you didn't 3 have any particular part of your medical program 4 that focused on asbestos exposures? 5 A Not to my recollection, no, except a chest 6 X ray would look at any kind of a respiratory 7 problem. But that would be all there was, and that 8 never was an issue. 9 Q Okay. Certainly you were trained to be on 10 the lookout for signs of dust diseases of the lungs? 11 A Yes. Although when you don't expect it, 12 you aren't looking as much as you would if you did 13 expect it. And we did have any expectation of it 14 that I recall. 15 Q Okay. And then 16 A That's a somewhat misleading answer. You 17 know what I mean happens. An index of suspicions 18 always makes you more attentive, but we didn't have 19 that. So, my recollection of it was nil. 20 Q Do you have any recollection of asbestos 21 being used in the laboratories at Cyanamid? 22 A I don't recall it, no. 23 Q Did you ever yourself make or use a gooch 24 filter? 25 A I have heard the term, but I can't even 200 1 recall what it is. 2 Q Okay. Well, we are up to about 1962 now. 3 And you told us this morning that you left to join 4 the Bell System in '62. 5 A That's right. 6 Q What - what caused you to make this big 7 change from the chemical industry to the Bell 8 System? 9 A They made me a very good offer, and it was 10 a very attractive opportunity; so, I accepted it. 11 It was advancement. 12 Q And where did this job take you? 13 A New York City. 14 Q And I think you have told me you were 15 first at the headquarters and then -- 16 A The Western Electric headquarters. And I 17 was the headquarters medical director. 18 Q Of Western Electric? 19 A Of Western electric, yes. 20 Q And as I remember, Western Electric was 21 the manufacturing arm of the -- 22 A Yes. 23 Q -- phone company. 24 A And co-owner with AT&T of Bell 25 Laboratories and a few other teletype and some other 201 1 organizations. 2 Q And what - what sort of problems unique to 3 the Western Electric business did you encounter 4 there? 5 A Well, Western Electric was primarily an 6 electronics-type manufacturing facility, largely 7 telephone equipment and telephone transmission 8 equipment, cables, wiring, switching, switch gears, 9 all of the things that are normally used in a 10 communications operation. And it also had a very 11 large civil defense - not civil defense - defense 12 operating unit. And I was responsible for all of 13 that, which included the White Alice, the Dew Line, 14 the Project Mercury communications, all of those 15 things that were all around the world that were 16 extremely fascinating. 17 And even though the Bell System didn't 18 have the challenge of - quite the - quite the 19 challenge of the chemical problems that we did in 20 the chemical industry, it had every other amazing 21 problem in the world, including very remote and 22 peculiar locations and all sorts of odd 23 circumstances. And it was very fascinating. 24 Q And then after a year at Western Electric 25 you moved to the - what, the international 202 1 operations did you say? 2 A Of AT&T, yes. dust a sideways upgrade. 3 Q And what - what did that entail? 4 A Very similar. Less exotic and less 5 interesting sorts of things, but it was a very fine 6 job. The Bell System was a wonderful organization. 7 And - but it helped to make going back to the 8 chemical industry when the offer came more 9 attractive than it might have been otherwise. IO Q And this - this assignment with AT&T was 11 also in New York? 12 A Yes, it's a different location,* but at the 13 headquarters of the -- It was nicknamed the Long 14 Lines Operations Department. 15 Q And through this - these years at Bell and 16 Western Electric you were still active in your 17 Industrial Medical Association and in the Industrial 18 Hygiene Association? 19 A Much more so. That's when I really became 20 active and a national figure and so forth. 21 Q You mean you had a little more time? 22 A No. 23 Q Or just located better for it or what? 24 A Well, yes. And I had mentors at that 25 point who kicked me along pretty hard. 203 1 Q Was there any point along the way, Doctor, 2 that you were an adjunct instructor or a professor 3 at any of the medical schools? 4 A Not in that period of time, no. 5 Q When do we find you doing that - after 6 Celanese? 7 A While I was - a little bit while I was 8 with Celanese, but more since I've been back down 9 here in '81. 10 Q Well, be sure when we get to the Celanese 11 part to mention that if - in case I forget. 12 A Celanese? It wasn't during Celanese -- 13 There was not much of it during Celanese. It 14 w a s -- 15 Q The last few ... 16 A -- during my consulting period since I've 17 been down here. 18 Q Oh, okay. 19 A I had some involvement up there. I was a 20 director of the university's occupational resources 21 center, which was a coalition of the five schools: 22 M t . Sinai, New York University, Rutgers, one of the 23 other schools in New York, and the Hunter's School 24 of Nursing program on occupational health under 25 Dr. Selikoff, who was chairman of it at that point. 204 1 Q 2 A And what time period are we talking about? That was in the period from '75 until '81 3 roughly. I'm not sure of the beginning year, 4 but ... 5 Q Do you remember, sir, a textbook or a 6 reference book by Hueper called Occupational Tumors 7 and Allied Diseases? 8 A Yes, I do. 9 Q Is that -- Is that one that you had at 10 Kettering? 11 A I had it -- No, I don't think I had it at 12 Kettering. It may have been there. I had one of my 13 own when I was in New York, and I must have left it 14 up there because I was looking for it the other day 15 just out of curiosity about something. 16 Q Is that -- I guess you wouldn't have had 17 it if - if you hadn't been looking for it -- 18 A I'm sorry. What? 19 Q 20 A Excuse m e . I need to look at you -Yeah. 21 Q -- when I - when I speak. I said like 22 the Patty's and some of the other texts you have 23 mentioned, this - Hueper's book would have been one 24 of the reference books that you would have relied on 25 in your practice? 205 1 A Oh, no, it wasn't a reference book in the 2 usual sense. It was a compendium of chemicals. In 3 fact, as I recall, there were two or three volumes 4 of it at different times, in which he enumerated S chemicals and alluded to some of them as being 6 carcinogenic or potentially carcinogenic and gave 7 some limited data. It would be a book that you 8 would go to just to look up something like that. 9 And it wasn't considered highly authoritative.. 10 Q Which one are you speaking of now? 11 A The one you just --- 12 Q O h , Hueper's --- 13 A Hueper's books, yeah. 14 Q Okay. IS A I rarely ever looked at it unless somebody 16 threw something up about it, which was most unusual. 17 Q Had you met Mr. Hueper along the way? 18 A I don't know. I have mixed recollections. 19 I don't think I actually met him. I certainly 20 didn't know him. So ... 21 Q Okay. He had been for sometime at du Pont 22 I think. 23 A 24 Q 25 A For a time --U h -h u h . -- unhappily. 206 1 Q What was it that led you then to leave the 2 AT&T job and join Celanese? 3 A Well, I told you that just a few moments 4 ago. They had a more attractive offer. We went 5 over that just -- 6 Q Well, I'm sorry. I don't mean to repeat 7 that. 8 A Yeah. 9 Q I gathered that certainly you didn't leave 10 to take a cut in pay. 11 A No. 12 Q How did that come about? 13 A It was an opportunity for advancement 14 and - in a little different area. 15 Q Who was - 16 A It gave me a corporate medical 17 directorship status, for example. I was blocked at 18 AT&T - not at AT&T - at American Cyanamid because 19 there were two - three assistant medical directors, 20 one of which was very little older than me. And my 21 chances for advancement there was pretty stymied, 22 assuming they used the usual ladder of progression 23 scheme. 24 And I wasn't unhappy, but an exciting, new 25 opportunity came along with improved pay and 207 1 beautiful new facilities and whatnot instead of the 2 old plant. It was kind of getting crummy. And it 3 just was very attractive. So -- 4 Q Well, you are describing the move to the 5 Bell companies? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Okay. 8 A To Western Electric. 9 Q Right. And then after staying there 10 through - '62 through early '65, you decided to 11 leave and go to Cyanamid? 12 A No, Celanese. 13 Q I'm sorry. Back with those C's again. 14 A I went from Cyanamid to Bell System first 15 and Western Electric, then in - that was in long IS lines or long distance international, and then to 17 Celanese Corporation. 18 Q Who was it that recruited you to join 19 Celanese in 1965? 20 A Well, one of the men who had been a former 21 personnel director of one of the divisions in 22 Celanese - in the Celanese Corporation and who 23 reported to the Vice-chairman of special projects 24 there, when they were looking for a new medical 25 director he remembered me from my time in Cyanamid J 208 1 where we had had some experiences together- And he 2 thought well of me. And, so, he recommended me to 3 the Vice-chairman of the corporation, and I ended up 4 being employed. 5 Q And what was the name of the doctor that - 6 that preceded you at Celanese? 7 A John Osterritter - O-s-t-e-r-r-i-t-t-e-r, 8 I believe. I think it's got two t's and two r's. 9 I never could remember that. 10 Q And what was Dr. Osterritter's background 11 as you came to understand it? 12 A He was very well trained. He came out of 13 the Pittsburgh - University of Pittsburgh program. 14 And he had been recruited by a consulting medical 15 director that was - had worked for a number of years 16 at Celanese. A former medical - - H e was a former -- 17 He was a retired former medical director of Union 18 Carbide; a man with a very high reputation named 19 A. G. Cranch. 20 Q Now, Dr. Cranch retired from Union 21 Carbide -- 22 A That's right. 23 Q -- and served as a consulting medical -- 24 A He was a medical - consulting medical 25 director. 209 1 Q To Celanese? 2 A To Celaneae Corporation. 3 Q And you say Dr. Osterritter who had his 4 schooling at the University of Pittsburgh was 5 trained then by Dr. Cranch while Dr. Cranch was -- 6 A No. No. Dr. Cranch was medical director 7 of Carbide in New York. He was trained by Dolph 8 Kammer and the people at Pittsburgh. They are a 9 different corporation. Carbide wasn't in 10 Pittsburgh. 11 Q I'm sorry. I thought Dr. Osterritter got 12 some experience through Dr. Cranch. 13 A No. He was employed by - or recommended 14 by Dr. Cranch -- 15 Q Oh, I see. 16 A -- to the Celanese Corporation. And the 17 two worked together there at Celanese for a number 18 of years. And when Jack Osterritter left Celanese, 19 Dr. Cranch was still there and was going to be my 20 sort of consulting assistant medical director, but 21 he became ill and died shortly after I joined. So, 22 jack Osterritter stayed on for a little while. I 23 know that was confusing, but Jack was a Pitt 24 trainee. 25 Q I got that. 210 1 A 2 Q 3 A Okay. I just didn't choose my words carefully. A very similar program to Kettering; not 4 as good, but it was adequate. 5 Q 6 A Not as good but it had to do? Huh? 7 Q I said, "Not as good but it had to do?" 8 A Yeah. Well, I just said that sort of 9 surreptitiously. 10 Q Dr. Cranch I remember from articles 11 a n d -- 12 A Yes. He was ... 13 Q -- meetings for some good time ago? 14 A Yeah. He and Dr. Hamlin were very much 15 alike in that respect. They were early timers who 16 were self-trained who became very expert in the 17 field and were - both of them were authors in the 18 Patty textbook as a matter of fact. Very highly 19 regarded. He actually selected me for the job. He 20 was asked to -- 21 Q And ... 22 A -- make the assessment to the 23 Vice-chairman. 24 Q And you had met Dr. Cranch earlier through 25 your professional associations? 211 1 A You know, I don't think I had because he 2 had gotten out of the loop in a sense ten years 3 earlier. This was in 1964 when we were looking at 4 it. And that was the year I started. Ten years 5 earlier was the year I started at Kettering. And I 6 had heard his name and knew it from seeing it in 7 books and from some articles. But I had -- I 8 don't -- I never knew that I had met him. And when 9 I saw him, he didn't look familiar. But we became 10 very friendly for the brief period that we worked 11 together. He knew more about me than I knew about 12 him just by chance I guess - or he probably made it 13 a project to find out. 14 Q Now, would you describe for us the scope 15 of the Celanese medical program when you arrived on 16 the scene in March of 1965, please. 17 A It was very interesting. Celanese was a 18 diversified, very large company, very much in the 19 size range of Cyanamid's sales, the same number of 20 people and so forth; and it was a totally different 21 company. It had largely well-known commodity 22 chemicals. If you think of how it began as a 23 supplier of raw materials for the fibers operations 24 at a lower cost to make it a - at the - in the open 25 market. 212 1 They build the Bishop plant first for that 2 purpose, and then the other plants expanded because 3 you get raw materials and an excess of this and that 4 and others, and the first thing you know you are S into other chemicals. But surprisingly it had very 6 few chemicals or products that were considered 7 highly hazardous. And they were nearly all 8 self-contained processes in very elaborate 9 self-contained distillery-type equipment where raw 10 materials were fed in automatically, the process 11 ran, it came out at the end and were automatically 12 offloaded into holding tanks, railway cars, 13 transport trucks; and the employee exposures were 14 extraordinarily low. 15 And through their history, which was close 16 to 50 years since the beginning of Celanese 17 Corporation - not the chemical company, but the 18 corporation - they had had very few problems. And 19 all of a sudden one time back in the - I guess it 20 must have been -- When did I say Dr. Cranch 21 started? Ten years, '55 -- It must have been in the 22 early '50's they suddenly ran into a problem with 23 one of their fiber products manufactured into 24 clothing causing skin reactions in people who wore 25 them. 213 1 And they hired the -- I have a mental 2 block. I always have trouble with his name, and I 3 can't think of it now. He's a leading dermatologist 4 that came out of the Public Health Service years 5 ago. He was a dermatologist who had done some of 6 the early skin testing work and who then was a 7 consultant. They hired him to come in and help them 8 resolve the problem. But he had a broader picture 9 of occupational health than most doctors did. 10 And he insisted on reviewing the whole 11 plants' - there were several plants involved in this 12 possibly. They weren't even sure where this thing 13 was coming from. And he then worked on the problem, 14 got it resolved very quickly. But his 15 recommendations to the corporation was that they 16 really needed to join the modern world and have a 17 medical department. 18 They had pieces of a medical department. 19 The fibers company had nurses in all the plants. 20 They had doctors assigned to it. The chemical 21 company had a different program. They had doctors 22 locally and medical services provided on an 23 as-needed basis. And that was true - or a variance 24 of that - for all of the other divisions of the 25 company at that point. 214 1 None of them had an ongoing periodic exam 2 program as such. They did do special exams where 3 there might be a reason to. And they usually - 4 usually utilized local physicians by in large 5 selected by or approved by the corporate medical 6 director. And we had general medical practices. 7 But never through my whole time did we ever get all 8 of the divisions of the company on track to have a 9 uniform policy. And this was due to the fact that 10 we didn't have much urgency associated with the 11 need - like these other companies with all these 12 hazardous chemicals, and the fact that every time we 13 just about got it approved, there was a downturn in 14 the economy or one thing or another. 15 Finally as I was leaving we did develop 16 all of that in the last few years I was there. But 17 our experience - and diligence and experience and 18 all was exceptionally fine. We did have industrial 19 hygiene services provided outside. We contracted 20 out toxicology. I was steward of product safety as 21 well as occupational health. In essential that's 22 the nature of the program. It was typical of a 23 nonhazardous industry company in the chemical or 24 chemical-related industry at that time. 25 Q Now, again, you were describing for us 215 X what you found when you arrived in 1965? 2 A Yes. 3 Q Okay. 4 MR. HOTCHINS: Joe, can we go 5 off the record? 6 MR. BLANKS: Sure. 7 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off 8 the record at 4:33. 9 10 (AT THIS TIME A BRIEF RECESS WAS 11 TAKEN, AND THE PROCEEDINGS THEREAFTER 12 RESUMED AS FOLLOWS:) 13 14 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are on the 15 record at 4:58 p.m. 16 17 (By Mr. Blanks) 18 Q Okay. I think you had just - - W e had -- 19 When we stopped you had just described for us the 20 shape of the Celanese medical program as you 21 inherited it so to speak in 1965. And is it 22 reasonable for us to infer that Dr. Cranch, formally 23 of Union Carbide, had played a perhaps large role in 24 shaping this program during the prior decade or - or 25 not? 216 1 A I think that's true, he had. 2 Q I remember his name from maybe as far back 3 as the '30' s -- 4 A Yeah. 5 Q 6 A -- in association with Union Carbide. That's correct. 7 Q So, he must have had a long tenure there. 8 A I'm sure he did. I don't recall, but -- 9 Q And I suppose you would tell us that 10 Carbide, because of the nature of its business and 11 its products, likely had more potential for 12 hazardous exposures in its chemical plants than 13 Celanese did again because of its product mix? 14 A Yes, sir. 15 Q So that I guess Celanese would have had 16 the benefit then of Dr. Cranch's experience at Union 17 Carbide? 18 A Yes. 19 Q And we know that Union Carbide had 20 industrial hygienists on its payroll back at least 21 to - well, during the war? 22 A I think that's correct. 23 Q You will recall perhaps that Carbide was 24 one of the contractors at the TBA projects, and I 25 suppose they were making weapons material. 217 1 A 2 Q (Nodding affirmatively) And there was a pretty sophisticated 3 industrial hygiene program associated with the - the 4 nuclear weapons projects around the country? 5 A That's ray recollection. 6 Q Even though it might not have been well 7 publicized at the time, it was there? 8 A (Nodding affirmatively) 9 Q 10 A Okay. I wasn't there; but I became aware of it. 11 yeah. 12 Q Doctor - let me get his name in my mind 13 here - your predecessor - Dr. Osterritter? 14 A Yeah. Osterritter, yeah. 15 Q Osterritter. Had he: just reached 16 retirement age or had he moved on to another 17 opportunity? I mean what led to his leaving in 18 1965? 19 A Well, I'm trying to think how to answer 20 this. He opted to leave. 21 Q And where did he go after Celanese? 22 A Well, he did some consulting for a time 23 and then ended up with the Federal Reserve System in 24 New York as a medical director until he retired a 25 few years ago. 218 1 Q Well, I have to say that's one of your 2 more cryptic answers for the day. But -- 3 A Well ... 4 Q -- I understand you are attempting to be 5 judicious and diplomatic. 6 A Yes. It wouldn't be helpful. 7 Q All right, sir. Then I will not intrude 8 upon his privacy or yours in that regard. Okay. 9 So, you joined Celanese in 1965 to take the place of 10 the prior doctor? 11 A {Nodding affirmatively) 12 Q And you are looking forward I suppose to 13 continuing to work with Dr. Cranch and get some 14 benefit from his experience; unfortunately that 15 relationship doesn't last very long; correct? 16 A That's correct. 17 Q Did - did you have some charter or 18 directive from the - the superior at Celanese about 19 what they - the company - wanted you to do with the 20 program at Celanese in 1965? 21 A More or less, yes. 22 Q Would you -- Would youshare that with us? 23 A It wasn't a writtencontract, but it was 24 that.I would continue to oversee the medical 25 operation, keep them advised of needs and expansion 219 1 or whatever else was required, and staffing - 2 because I had a very limited staff at that point. 3 And they assured me they would give me as much 4 support as possible. 5 They obviously didn't want to build an 6 elaborate program like du Pont or Carbide or some of 7 the others because they didn't feel there was a need 8 for that. And - but they wanted me to make nry own 9 judgment of that and come back to them with 10 recommendations early on so that we could agree - 11 agree or disagree. So, that was essentially it. It 12 was open-ended to a degree. It was cooperative, 13 but .. . 14 Q Well, I'm not getting a clear feel here. 15 I mean I guess -- You have told us you think that 16 Celanese had an adequate medical program when you 17 arrived. Am I right or wrong? 18 A It had been adequate up until that time. 19 But looking down the road you could see that it 20 wasn't geared to cope with the coming era as well as 21 it might be. It didn't have any urgent things at 22 that instant. But in the big chemical companies 23 there was a move afoot to expand and develop more 24 elaborate programs. And we knew OSHA would be 25 coming in a few years and other regulations were 220 1 coming down the pike, and that we wouldn't be geared 2 to operate as well as we should without some change. 3 Q So, part of your charter then was to 4 improve the program to deal with these things that 5 everyone -- 6 A Yes, sir. 7 Q -- expected? 8 A Yeah. 9 Q Okay. And as you said, it was somewhat 10 open-ended. 11 A Well, I use that term to say that there 12 was no contractual or stated position as to exactly 13 what this would constitute. But whatever we needed, 14 it was negotiable. 15 Q Well, that was the word I was going to 16 use. 17 A Yeah. 18 Q But basically youhad to ---- 19 A I would have tosell it, of course. 20 Q -- go out and assess the needs as you -- 21 A That's right. 22 Q -- saw them and then go back and sell it 23 to management? 24 A That is right. 25 Q And I guess in the best of situations 221 1 that's difficult anyway. 2 A (Nodding affirmatively) 3 Q And it's hard to ask you how to - how to 4 assess your experience there. I mean you kept 5 trying to sell to management for a number of years 6 anyway. 7 A (Nodding affirmatively) 8 Q You stayed there until when, sir? 9 A And we succeeded to a degree, yes. 10 Q 11 A You stayed until -Until '81. 12 Q -- '81, some 16 years. So, you must have 13 had some success? 14 A Yes, sir. 15 Q I don't think you would have stayed if you 16 couldn't have accomplished -- 17 A Right. 18 Q -- at least the minimum of what you felt 19 was needed? 20 A Yeah. 21 Q What - what changes did you -- Let me back 22 up. What did you do, Dr. Dixon, in 1965 to sort of 23 assess the situation? How did you approach that? 24 A First of all I made a concerted effort to 25 visit all of the plants - the major plant locations -- r-- ------------------------------ -- --------- --- ------------- ------ 222 1 certainly in the early days. And I had a very 2 excellent guide, the corporate safety director who 3 was very knowledgeable in occupational health and :.4 \ 4 industrial hygiene. He was very supportive, very 5 helpful. And the first thing we did within a few 6 months really was screen down on the industrial 7 hygiene needs, and as a consequence we hired Chuck 8 Laubly in that following year. 9 Q Who was the safety director that was your 10 guide? 11 A Glenn Fleming, now deceased. 12 Q And do you have a sense of how long 13 Mr. Fleming had been with Celanese? 14 A I believe about 15 to 20 years at that 15 time when I went there. He worked again for another 16 five or six years and then stayed on as a chief 17 consultant for two or three years. 18 Q Could you share with us anything you 19 recall about Mr. Fleming's background in terms of 20 his training and credentials? 21 A He had had very good past experience, some 22 training. I don't recall the details of his 23 training. There was no safety training program as 24 such, but he had had I believe chemical engineering 25 training in college and had worked in the safety- 223 1 field by default as so many did in the early days. 2 He had a broad experience. And I don't recall just 3 what that was at this point. He was widely known 4 throughout the country; very highly regarded. He 5 was a wonderful person to work with. S Q Was Mr. Fleming a degreed ----- 7 A Yes. I believe he was a chemical 8 engineer. 9 Q That - that was the impression I was 10 getting. And you indicated that Mr. Fleming was 11 knowledgeable about industrial hygiene matters -- 12 A Yes, sir. 13 Q -- more than you would expect from I 14 guess just a plain, old safety man? 15 A Absolutely. 16 Q Do you have any recollection of where 17 Mr. Fleming had gotten his degree? 18 A I don't . 19 Q A n d --- 20 A I may have known, but I don't recall. 21 Q -- did he ever tell you or had you ever 22 heard where he may have worked before coming to 23 Celanese? 24 A I'm sure I did know it, but at this moment 25 it escapes me. I think it may have - some of it had 224 1 been with the national underwriters or something of 2 the sort, but I don't know for sure. 3 Q Were you - - D o you have a sense for how 4 long Mr. Fleming - approximately how long he had 5 been the safety director for Celanese? 6 A I said about 15 to 20 years at the time I 7 went there. 8 Q Oh, okay. 9 A And he stayed on another six to seven 10 years before -- 11 Q I'm sorry. I - I thought I had asked you 12 how long he had just been with the company, 13 A Well, he was the safety director the whole 14 time. 15 Q Okay. And I suppose that throughout this 16 time as a safety director he would been a member of 17 the National Safety Council? 18 A All of the main organizations. 19 Q And Celanese, of course, would have been 20 an industrial member of the National Safety Council 21 as well? 22 A Yes. 23 Q You said you focused early on on the need 24 to hire an industrial hygienist for Celanese. 25 A For our own 225 1 Q Before ... 2 A Huh? 3 Q Excuse m e . 4 A Go ahead. 5 Q Before 1965 had Celanese had its own 6 industrial hygienist employed? 7 A No, we didn't. 8 Q Had Celanese used outsideconsultants to 9 do industrial hygiene work prior? 10 A Yes, sir. 11 Q And who would have provided those 12 services? 13 A Kemper, which was theAmerican -Liberty 14 Mutual - not Liberty Mutual. 15 Q Lumberman's? 16 A Lumberman's Mutual, yeah, and casualty had 17 provided it for most of the operations for many 18 years. 19 Q You visited all of the plants in that 20 first year or so. That must have had you traveling 21 almost every week. 22 A Well, I traveled extensively throughout my 23 career there. I visited virtually every plant every 24 year. Sometimes I might miss a plant for part of 25 the year or something, but that, was part of my 226 1 mission. 2 Q What did you do to check out the Celanese 3 Company and the people that you might be working 4 with when you first were recruited to - to come 5 there and before you made the decision to join them? 6 A Well, I talked to some of the other 7 leaders in the field who -- I talked to Jack 8 Osterritter at some length because he and I were 9 friendly, and to Dr. Cranch even for that matter. 10 And I learned about its reputation in the field and 11 its marketing and its corporate excellence. And I 12 had a very favorable view of it, and I made the 13 decision. 14 Q At the time you began there in '65 at 15 Celanese the company had - what, maybe 30 or 40 16 plants around the world? 17 A Something of that order. 35,000 or 18 40,000, you know, around the world. 19 Q I said 30 or 40 plants. 20 A Yes. 21 Q And I thought you said -- 22 A Yeah. I'm sorry. I meant plants, 23 We had about that many employees. 24 Q Okay. 2S A Forgive me . 227 1 Q I didn't - didn't want t o -- 2 A That's my fault. 3 Q -- leave us confused. And these plants 4 stretched from Canada to Mexico and on into South 5 America and over to Europe as well? 6 A 7 Q That is right. Okay. 8 A A major concentration in North America - 9 of course, Mexico, Canada, U. S. , and then less in 10 other parts of the world. 11 Q I know Celanese had some plants in the 12 south over on the Atlantic Seaboard - South 13 Carolina, North Carolina, as well as plants in Texas 14 and up in New Jersey and elsewhere. Did - did your 15 Cyanamid work ever bring you in contact with 16 Cyanamid plants down in the south? We have already 17 talked about Jefferson Chemical and such in Texas, 18 but ... 19 A To a minimal degree. I visited some of 20 them as part of that preceptor year in training. 21 And occasionally we would have meetings - corporate 22 medical meetings at one of the plants or otherwise 23 or if some project came up or a medical director at 24 one plant invited you to come down and visit him or 25 whatnot . And you could do that. But. there was no 228 1 systematic -- 2 Q Uh-huh. 3 A -- visitation. 4 Q When you hired on with Celanese, you were 5 again back in New York City? 6 A I stayed in New York. 7 Q And stayed there the whole 16years? 8 A Yes, sir. 9 Q Commuting in from New Jersey? 10 A Yes. 11 Q Okay. And the offices of Celanese in New 12 York were located where? 13 A Originally on 5thAvenueat 44th and 45th 14 Street in the Morgan Guaranty Trust Building. And 15 then subsequently we had our own building in the new 16 Rockefeller Center on 6th Avenue - the expansion of 17 Rockefeller Center which had Exxon, McGraw-Hill, 18 Stevens and so forth - J. P. Stevens Company. There 19 were five new buildings on the west of - the east 20 side of 6th Avenue. 21 Q And Celanese had its own building there? 22 A It's own building, yeah. 23 Q I suppose your early survey of plants also 24 took you to the Celanese research facility? 25 A Well, there were a number of Celanese 229 1 research facilities. There was the corporate 2 research facility -- The answer is yes. 3 Q And the corporate research facility was 4 somewhat like the one that Cyanamid had? 5 A Yes. 6 Q That is, it was the main one for the 7 company and had a large -- 8 A The corporation, y e s . 9 Q -- had a large number of professionals 10 employed there? 11 A Yes. 12 Q And I suppose like the Cyanamid Chemical 13 Company, Celanese's research arm stretched - or 14 dated back to the early days of the Celanese 15 Company, too? 16 A Yes. By in large, yes. 17 Q Do you know much about the history of 18 Celanese, its origins and such? 19 A Basically, yes. 20 Q Could - could you share that with us? 21 A Celanese was started by twoSwiss brothers 22 named Dreyfus who had developed a new process for 23 developing a cellulosic material that they felt 24 could be extruded into fiber. And World War - this 25 was prior to World War I. The first plant was built 230 1 in Cumberland, Maryland, 50 years before I went 2 there. So, that would have been 1915, wouldn't it? 3 Yeah, '15 - roughly '15. It was early wartime. 4 And very quickly it became evident that 5 this cellulosic dope that they manufactured and 6 extruded into fiber was the best thing they could 7 use for aircraft wing coatings, which in the early 8 period of the war were fabric coated airplane wings 9 and fuselages that then were heavily impregnated 10 with an impervious - water impervious and weather 11 impervious coating that was light in weight. 12 And, so, the production basically 13 throughout the war was of the dope,- and then 14 immediately after the war converted over to actual 15 fiber. In fact, the facilities were already 16 complete. And then they built other plants because 17 they were successful with their acetate fibers - 18 cellulose acetate fiber, which was wood products 19 digested in solvents and whatnot and extruded in an 20 acetone base. 21 And then there are four other plants in 22 the Celanese coatings company. And by I would say 23 the late '40's it was evident that it would be 24 prude.nt for them to build a chemical facility to 25 make their own raw materials for the fibers rather 231 1 than purchasing them at a much higher cost from 2 other m a n u f a c t u r e r s . And t h a t 'a how the Bishop 3 plant came into being. Then the other ones are 4 expansions from that nucleus. The rest of Celanese 5 grew largely by acquisitions and so forth. 6 Q Now, you have mentioned -- I thought I 7 heard that there were four other plants in the 8 Celanese -- 9 A Fibers company. 10 Q 11 A Besides Cumberland, Maryland -There was the Amcel plant at Cumberland, 12 Maryland. I believe the second one was about 1939 13 at the Celco plant in Western Virginia. Probably 14 the -- Well, there were two other plants. One of 15 them was at Rome, Georgia. And actually that was an 16 old Viscose plant. And they purchased that as I 17 recall. And then the final one was the Celriver 18 plant at - right across the river from Charlotte. I 19 can't think of the town. Well, they called the 20 plant Celriver. They were all basically acetate 21 plants and triacetate, which was a new development 22 Celanese pioneered. 23 Q And then did you mention Celanese 24 coatings? 25 A Yes. That was paints and coatings and 232 1 industrial finishes and so forth. 2 Q 3 A And what --And that was all purchased. Dabney Jones 4 a n d -- 5 Q Devoe ? 6 A Huh? 7 Q Devoe? 8 A Yeah, Devoepaints and anumberof other 9 companies. Some were all purchased initially, and 10 then others were added on to it later. 11 Q Oh, okay. So, Celanese got into the paint 12 or coatings business by acquiring -- 13 A Yes. Yes. 14 Q Okay. 15 A I believe that was the origin of all of 16 it. They purchased -- Devoe I'm sure was the first. 17 Some of the others made specialty products and 18 industrial coatings. 19 Q I was thinking for a minutethere the 20 coatings business grew out of the dope for the 21 airplanes? 22 A No, that wastotally unrelated. 23 Q Okay. 24 A That was auniqueexperience, and they 25 never went back to that. That market disappeared 233 1 with aluminum and so forth. 2 Q Right. There's not even a market left for 3 that in model airplanes. 4 A 5 Q I don't guess so. Those nifty shrink films that you -- 6 A 7 q Yeah, I guess that's right. -- put on with an iron. They really are 8 quite strong. And the Dreyfus brothers from 9 Switzerland came to America then and built this 10 first plant in 1915? 11 A That's right, 1915. It must have been 12 around '15. It was prior to World War II - World 13 War I - II. And ... 14 Q Well, it sounds like prior to our 15 involvement in World War I . 16 A Well, I think it was prior to our 17 involvement. And at some point -- Because they had 18 the 50th. anniversary shortly after I joined the 19 company of the corporation being founded. 20 Q Had the Celanese company -- Oh, okay. So, 21 the beginnings of it were then with this Cumberland 22 plant? 23 A -..'if1 That's right. Amcel it was .called. 24 Q There was not a predecessor that - or a 25 Celanese company that existed in Switzerland before 234 1 t h i s -- 2 A I don't think so. They might have had 3 some -- I was cogitating about that issue. They - I 4 don't know exactly what they were doing over there 5 or why they came here even at that point. Celanese 6 had a lot of European connections at various times 7 with the British later. And I just don't recall - 8 remember the sequence of that. They were Swiss as I 9 recall. 10 Q They may have come here for capital. 11 A I beg your pardon? 12 Q They may have just come here because the 13 capital was -- 14 A I can't -- I probably did know, but I 15 don't recall it. I have a book on the history of 16 the company, but I don't remember now what it was. 17 Q Okay. Now, I believe we learned - 18 although correct me, please, if I'm wrong - that 19 Celanese had plants in Germany, Italy, England? 20 A I don't remember Italy or Germany. We did 21 in -- You said England? 22 Q That' s what I was thinking. 23 A Yeah. Well, now, of course, they might 24 have occurred in the early days before I was on 25 board. But I don't recall any in Italy. We had one 236 1 A That must have been very late because we 2 didn't get into nylon until after I joined the 3 company. 4 Q 5 A And I - I -And polyester, that was in ventures with 6 ICI. 7 Q And I fabricated the - the Italy plant. 8 A Yeah. 3 Q I just invented it. In fact, he mentioned 10 Belgium 11 A Belgium, yes. 12 Q -- a fibers plant, and Switzerland - an 13 agricultural chemicals plants in Switzerland. 14 A Maybe. 15 Q And Columbia and Mexico and Canada. 16 A Yeah. There were others. 17 Q Okay. All right. I'm sorry. I did not 18 mean to mislead you 19 A That's okay. 20 Q And you didn't - apparently didn't have 21 any experience with the German plant? 22 A I never heard of it, no. I don't recall 23 it even. It may have been -- I don't think it was 24 there later. I just don't remember it at all. 25 Q Can you recall any -- 235 1 in - not Sicily. What's the island out there? But 2 that was after I joined the company. 3 Q Sardinia? 4 A No. 5 Q Malta, Crete? 6 A No. Crete is not Italian. 7 Q It all depends on who you ask. It's like 8 when you ask for a German beer, and they offer you 9 Heineken. And you say, "Well, maybe it was in 10 ' 4 3 " -- 11 A Yeah. 12 Q -- "but not now." 13 A I don't recall that early history that 14 well. But there was one plant on one of the islands 15 that was a grand fiasco. That was after I joined 16 the corporation. 17 Q No. My notes - and correct me -- I didn't 18 make any note of England. 19 A There were -- 20 Q Germany -- I think Mr. Laubly mentioned a 21 joint venture in Kelsterbach. 22 A Never heard of it. 23 Q Okay. 24 A At least I don't recall it. 25 Q A nylon plant I think. 237 1 A 2 Q I remember the Belgium plant very well. That was -- That was existing when you 3 joined the company -- 4 A Yes, it was. 5 Q 6 A --- in '65? It was -- It was a cellulose acetate plant 7 in - in Ghent. 8 Q Ghent - Ghent did you say? 9 A Yes. I visited it. 10 q More than once I hope? 11 A No, just one time actually. 12 Q Alas. 13 A I had to go through -- To go into 14 Brussel's I had to go through a corner of Germany to 15 get to it because it was way up in the -- 16 Q Uh-huh. 17 A But I was never aware of anything in 18 Germany there. And then, of course, not Italy 19 either. 20 Q All right. 21 A There was an English/British Celanese 22 Company as you probably know, and their relations 23 with Courtaulds. But I don't remember. They all 24 proceeded m e . 25 Q You are saying an English/American 238 1 Celaziese Company? 2 A No. It was called British Celanese. And 3 I don't know what its role -- I don't know that they 4 were part of our corporation. I visited over 5 there - well, particularly with the Courtaulds 6 people on occasion because we had some parallel 7 program interests healthwise. I met with their 8 medical people. But I can't remember what 9 relationships there were there. They were like 10 second cousins or some such -- 11 Q Now, who is this Courtaulds that you are 12 speaking of? 13 A They are a very big corporation in Great 14 Britain - fibers manufacturing primarily. I don't 15 know whether we shared technology or what. There 16 was a close bond of affection at least. And I don't 17 remember now just what the - the bonding might have 18 been otherwise. 19 Q And I guess we 20 A And I think the British Celanese was a 21 totally independent company. And I don't think it 22 ever had any real focus - focus in the U. S. 23 Celanese,- and I believe Courtaulds took it over at 24 some point. But that's been a long time ago, and I 25 can't remember. I haven't heard of it in recent 239 1 years. Courtaulds is still quite a big name. 2 Q Well, it may have started as a joint 3 venture back some time ago between Courtaulds and 4 Celanese. And I guess we can answer that from some 5 other - other source. But you did at least make one 6 tour over there, huh, perhaps more? 7 A I made more than one. But as far as that 8 plant in Ghent, I only went once. 9 Q Okay. 10 A But I was doing it for other reasons and 11 whatnot, too. 12 Q But the British Celanese plant you visited 13 you say several rimes? 14 A No. No, I never visited it. 15 Q Oh, I beg your pardon. I'm sorry. 16 A No. I visited the headquarters of 17 Courtaulds. I met with their medical staff. I 18 don't think I ever visited one of their facilities. 19 I met with them several times in London, and they 20 met with me over here. I can't even remember what 21 the project was. There was some health issue that 22 we were all concerned with as we were - many of us 23 were in the early '70's and so forth with impending 24 OSHA and so forth. But I can't remember just what 25 they were now. I can't even remember the names of 240 1 their medical people. I should, but I don't right 2 now. 3 Q I don't guess your Cyanamid job took you 4 overseas on any occasion, did it? 5 A No, I was a local plant-level physician, 6 not a corporate -- I take that back. I was assigned 7 a time or two to do some outside work like in Mexico 8 once and visited some plants out in the western 9 U. S. that were not ours. But that was the extent 10 of i t . 11 THE REPORTER: That was the 12 extent ? 13 THE WITNESS; Huh? 14 THE REPORTER: Speak up a little 15 bit, please. 16 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. 17 A I visited one Mexican facility and visited 18 several southwestern United States facilities of 19 other companies, too, at the behest of the corporate 20 program. 21 Q I think you told us earlier when I was 22 asking you about any teaching that you had done that 23 at some point you became affiliated with the 24 M t . Sinai group or -- 25 A I was not teaching there. I was on the 241 X board of their^pecupational health resource center. 2 The Federal Government, OSHA and NIOSH set up with 3 universities around the country - there was about 4 eight or ten centers for environmental or 5 occupational health research and resources. And the 6 one in New York was a combine of five universities. 7 I think I told you all of that. And I was -- 8 Dr. Selikoff who was the head of it from M t . Sinai 9 appointed me to the board I would think around 1975 10 or '76, somewhere in there. 11 Q How did you make that connection to begin 12 with that led to this appointment? 13 A What? 14 Q With Dr. Selikoff or any of the other 15 folks there? 16 A Well, he knew me and I knew him. And I 17 guess he decided I would be a good one, and he 18 picked m e . So ... 19 Q Was this an acquaintance that went back a 20 number of years before your appointment? 21 A Yes. 22 Q Do you recollect around when you became 23 acquainted with him? 24 A Exactly. It was in the Fall of 1964. I 25 was the medical section chairman at the AIHA annual 243 1 point. I've tried to dig it out, and I can't figure 2 it out because he didn't list who the session 3 chairmen were in the publications of the book. You 4 know, it was published as a -- 5 Q Yes, sir. 6 A And he didn't list who the session 7 chairmen were. I haven't pursued it in any depth, 8 but I don't remember which session I chaired at this 9 point 10 Q And so we are clear here, you are talking 11 about the end of the year 1964 symposium on asbestos 12 and the biological effects of asbestos -- 13 A Y e s . That is correct. 14 Q -- that was put on by the New York 15 Academy of Sciences? 16 A Under their auspices, yes. 17 Q And published the following year? 18 A As a proceeding of the academy, of which I 19 was a fellow. That may have been one of the reasons 20 he picked me. I don't know. 21 Q How long had you been - been in that ' 22 organization. Doctor? 23 A I joined it while I was with Cyanamid. 24 A Vice-president - one of the Vice-presidents of 25 Cyanamid wanted me to join. And, so, I did. I went 242 1 convention which was in Philadelphia. And he 2 presented a paper in my section on asbestos, 3 asbestosis and made some preliminary remarks about 4 the carcinogenic potential. It was not long before 5 the New York Academy of Sciences meeting, which he 6 asked me to chair one of the sections. He asked 7 many people to chair sections because there were 8 many, many sections to that meeting. 9 Q And did you accept that -- 10 A Yes. 11 Q -- request? So, this was the first time 12 you met him then in -- 13 A In '64. 14 Q '64. And - well, you must have made an 15 impression on him, either that or -- 16 A And vice versa. 17 Q -- he was desperate - desperate for help 18 with the conference, maybe both. 19 A Perhaps. 20 Q What - what role did youplay in the - 21 that 1964 conference? 22 A I chaired one of the many, manysections. 23 There must have been -- Sessions. And there must 24 have been 40 or 50 sessions - or 30 or 40 anyhow. 25 And I can't even recall which one I chaired at this 244 1 with him to the very first meeting and -- I'm sorry. 2 He was a Cyanamid Vice-president. And I was a 3 member ever since. Not very active in recent years, 4 however, in it. 5 Q Now, what did these - these resource 6 boards or whatever it was that -- 7 A Resource center. 8 Q Resource center? 9 A Yeah. 10 Q How did that function? What was the 11 purpose o f -- 12 A Well, it was set up regionally around 13 country. I know in Minnesota, for example, they had 14 the Mayo and the University of Michigan - Minnesota,- 15 and out in California two or three of the schools; 16 and down in Carolina, the same thing. I have 17 forgotten where all they were. There were eight or 18 ten of them at that point set up to be regional 19 points for people to home on for getting help with 20 occupational research - occupational health research 21 or information. They were developing strategy as 22 time went on to serve. And they still exist. And 23 they have many courses in training for people in the 24 field periodically through the year. And I have not 25 been active in it since I retired and came down 245 1 here. I had to retire because I was no longer a 2 resident up there. 3 Q Now, this - these resource centers that 4 OSHA organized were -- 5 A There was another one in Chicago. That 6 was a big one. And I ended up on their board for a 7 time, too. Forgive me. I'm sorry. 8 Q That's all right. These resource centers 9 you say made - made available to industry and I 10 suppose businesses a place where you could go for 11 occupational medicine information, consulting -- 12 A That was essentially part of its mission. 13 And it was to actually develop the mission more 14 fully. And I haven't followed exactly how they 15 evolved. But I know they have a lot of training 16 programs now. 17 Q Was this -- Although OSHA was new in 1972, 18 this sort of a service was not really new then, was 19 it? 20 A Yes, it was. And it was -- it was 21 actually fostered by either NIOSH and/or OSHA. I 22 think it was a combine of the two that they 23 initiated the concept of it. and presented it to the 24 universities and they adopted it,- and that's what 25 followed. 246 1 Q I guess what I was - was thinking of and 2 didn't ask you about very well was the kind of 3 services that were provided routinely by the New 4 York Department of Labor, for example, in prior 5 years, Surely you must have come in contact with 6 that while working in New York. 7 A Well, I was aware of them and knew some of 8 the people. But that had nothing to do with ERC's. 9 Q With the what, sir? 10 A I said I 'm sure I knew some of the people 11 like Morris Kleinfield. But that had nothing to do 12 with the ERC's. These were organized at the - in 13 response to OSHA and/or NIOSH. I believe it was 14 both of them. They set up a method where the 15 universities in those areas would be able to be 16 useful to people interested in the field in those 17 regions -- 18 Q Okay. 19 A -- essentially. I don't recall now -- I 20 haven't kept track of how they - what they have 21 evolved into really. I get the notices of all their 22 training missions, but I don't -- I haven't had any 23 dealings with them whatsoever since. 24 Q I'm sorry. I didn't mean to equate the 25 ERC's with these - these -- 247 1 A 2 Q 3 A They weretotallyunrelated -- earlier efforts. Yeah. entities. 4 Q But what I did want to ask you about was 5 the kind of - the activities and the services that 6 were available from the New York Department of 7 Labor, for example -- 8 A Yeah. 9 Q -- back when you first went up to New 10 York. I'm aware of it, but I never had much 11 occasion to require it. As corporate medical 12 director of companies headquartered in New York, 13 there was no reason to particularly. And neither 14 during my time at the Bell System or at Celanese do 15 I recall having any particular operations, 16 manufacturing or otherwise, in the regions that they 17 were involved in. So, I don't -- My contact was 18 nominal. I was aware ofsome of them in the trade - 19 not in trade - but in professional associations. I 20 believe Morris Kleinfield was the head of it for a 21 long time. 22 Q Do you remember Dr. Greenburg - Leonard 23 Greenburg? 24 A I do. He - he had been very active in it; 25 but he died about the time I - or retired or 248 1 whatnot. He disappeared along about the time I got 2 into the New York area. He was a well-known 3 industrial hygiene giant. He did much of the early 4 work on testing, sampling and so forth. We met him 5 at Kettering. 6 Q Okay. I'm -- 7 A Yeah. 8 Q I think you are certainly correct. He was 9 there at the Department of Labor back into the '30's 10 and maybe even earlier. 11 A Possibly. It was a long time. 12 Q But do you recollect the Industrial 13 Hygiene Bulletin and other publications from the 14 Department of Labor that would have been coming to 15 industry back then? 16 A That sort of twinkled my recollection. 17 But I don't remember very specifically. I'm sure it 18 was there, but I read it if it was present. 19 Q At various times I think they called it 20 the Industrial Bulletin and then the Industrial 21 Hygiene Bulletin, then finally -- 22 A Do you have one there? 23 Q I've got one from the '70's. 24 A Let me just see the front of it. 25 Q It's nothing but a cover. The Industrial 249 1 Hygiene Review is somewhat later. Oh, you are 2 right. Here is -- Here is Morris Kleinfield just by 3 happenstance here on the - on the cover of this one. 4 There you go. (Tendering) 5 A (Reviewing) Yeah, he was the director. I 6 knew him quite well. I didn't know the other people 7 listed, but -- And I didn't know Nelson Rockefeller. 8 God, you've brought back a lot of recollection 9 today. You have rambled all over the place. 10 Q You say I've been rambling all over the 11 place? 12 A Yeah. 13 Q I know. It's - it's a fault of mine. 14 Well, you know, the - just sort of as an aside - it 15 seems like every generation thinks they start, you 16 know, everything new and made all of the discoveries 17 a n d -- 18 A That's right. 19 Q -- I'm sure you would concede that the 20 people that went before you sure set a big stage to 21 walk on and did a lot of important work; and you 22 tend to forget that. 23 A That's right. 24 Q I just happened to have those with me. I 25 didn't get a chance to even look at them until the 250 1 flight up here. But again, though, at American 2 Cyanamid 3 A Cyanamid? 4 Q At American Cyanamid and I suppose perhaps 5 at Celanese, though, this - you would have had this 6 kind of expertise in-house; that is -- 7 A Industrial hygiene? 8 Q -- occupational physicians, industrial 9 hygienists and so on -- IG A Yes. 11 Q 12 A -- by the 1950's when you got there? (Nodding affirmatively) 13 Q Nonetheless, the State of New York at 14 least was providing this sort of professional help 15 on a consulting basis to industry when requested? 16 A That's my understanding. 17 Q Okay. So, if you didn't have your own 18 industrial hygienist on the payroll, you could at 19 least call the Department of Labor and --- 20 A I presume that's how it worked. We didn't 21 have any operations needing that service -- 22 Q Yeah. 23 A -- in that area of jurisdiction. So, I 24 wouldn't have any experience in -- 25 Q You might be interested - and I guess I ' 251 1 could tell you after we quit - but I read in one of 2 these - I don't remember if it was back in the '30's 3 or the '40' s - they - they actually had an 4 occupational health clinic organized in New York 5 City with certain hours when they were available for 6 consulting and so on. 7 A Under the Department of Labor? 8 Q Affiliated with it, yes, sir. 9 A 10 Q I'm not aware of that. Okay. As we plow on toward 6:00 p.ra., and 11 I keep getting disorganized here as we digress. 12 Before we leave this issue of the ERC's - 13 the resource centers - you have got to tell me 14 again, please, what the "E" stands for. 15 A I have forgotten. X guess it's 16 environmental. But I - I have a mental block. I'm 17 sorry. I was thinking you would probably ask me 18 that, but I couldn't ... 19 Q Okay. 20 A Education resource center.Education 21 resource center. 22 Q Okay. And whatspecifically did you do in 23 connection with - with that program over the years? 24 A Well, I was on the board of directors. We 25 went to meetings several times a year to discuss how 252 1 it was evolving and the evolution of who was 2 involved in it and so forth within our local thing, 3 and some of the ways in which it was going to 4 proceed. It hadn't evolved to that great of a 5 degree by that time I left up there that I can 6 recall; just what they ended up doing ultimately. 7 But I do know they did achieve the status 8 of having what are well-regarded training programs 9 for people who were interested in occupational 10 health, short of full-time training and so forth; 11 courses on all sorts of things periodically. 12 Q Okay. So, this was a way among other 13 things of offering short courses -- 14 A Yes, mostly short courses. 15 Q -- all around the country to where it IS w a s -- 17 A All around the country at each of the 18 centers. 19 Q -- to where the folks could get there 20 without great expense -- 21 A Exactly. 22 Q -- and at least get a good introduction? 23 A Yes, that's essentially right. 24 Q Okay. When you -- When you joined 25 Celanese in 1965, Doctor, what if any kind of a 253 1 program did you find in existence there to - to 2 medically monitor workers potentially exposed to 3 asbestos? 4 A Asbestos? 5 Q 6 A Yes, sir. None. 7 Q And when you joined Celanese in the Spring 8 of 1965 what if any kind of an industrial hygiene 9 monitoring program did you find there for workers 10 potentially exposed to asbestos? 11 A None. 12 Q Was there any industrial hygiene program 13 for monitoring workers potentially exposed to other 14 dusts at Celanese in 1965? 15 A I don't recall that there were any dust 16 problems. There were mist problems and solvent 17 vapor problems; but, no, I don't recall any dust 18 problems. 19 Q Did there --- 20 A I say problems. I mean potential 21 problems. 22 Q Yes, sir. Did there -- Did there come a 23 time when you developed a medical monitoring program 24 for workers potentially exposed to asbestos at 25 Celanese? 254 1 A Yes. 2 Q And when was that, sir? 3 A At some point shortly after the OSHA 4 regulation - the first standard was on asbestos; and 5 it required monitoring if one was using and could 6 expose workers to - had the potential exposure of - 7 to asbestos. And we had a very limited operation at 8 that time in one facility. And it was 9 extraordinarily limited, but nevertheless it did 10 exist. 11 Q Are you -- Are you referring to that 12 Celanex product line? 13 A Yes. 14 Q And that was down in the Bishop plant, I 15 believe? 16 A In the Bishop plant, yes. 17 Q Can you tell us what that Celanex product 18 was and what it was used for? 19 A Well, it was essentially a specialty 20 polyester resin with certain high-quality 21 characteristics that lended it well to become an 22 engineering plastic. And small amounts of asbestos 23 were added to it because of its capability to add 24 strength, durability, heat resistance, et cetera. 25 Q And what sort of uses were made of this 255 1 product? Could you give me some examples? 2 A Well, various parts of automotive bodies, 3 for example, like extensions on fenders and molded 4 parts; not machine - not motor ports, but body parts 5 internally and externally on cars and other devices 6 of that sort. It was a very strong material, and 7 essentially it mimicked the qualities of metal in 8 its strength and whatnot. 9 Q And was this Celanex product still being 10 made when you retired from Celanese? 11 A Yes. It had not only -- Well, yes. As 12 far as I recall it was, yeah. 13 Q And was it still using the asbestos as an 14 ingredient -- 15 A I ... 16 Q -- when you retired? 17 A I believe so. 18 Q Was the Celanex production line then the 19 focus of your medical monitoring program for 20 asbestos? 21 A What do you mean by "the focus"? 22 Q Well, I inferred from the way you answered 23 earlier about setting up a medical monitoring 24 program for workers potentially exposed to asbestos 25 that it was limited to the Celanex line. 256 1 A Okay. 2 Q 3 A So, let m e -Yes. That is correct, it was limited. 4 Q 5 A I guess I should make my inferences -Yeah. The word "focus" threw me off. 6 Q 7 A -- clear. I'm sorry. That's okay. 8 Q Did the program for medically monitoring 9 workers potentially exposed to asbestos at Celanese 10 ever get expanded beyond the Celanex workers; that 11 is, the workers on the Celanex manufacturing line? 12 A Well, I don't know this firsthand, but I 13 understand that there was limited experience in 14 sampling around where some asbestos insulation spot 15 jobs were being done for a time. And I don't 16 recall the -- But the levels were extraordinarily 17 low. And I don't think -- I don't know whether it 18 was continued or -- There didn't seem to be any 19 reason to. 20 Q When was it, Dr. Dixon, that the medical 21 monitoring program for workers potentially exposed 22 to asbestos at -- 23 A Well ... 24 Q --- Celanese began? 25 A ... it was required under the OSHA first 257 1 standard, which was issued in 1970 - it was either 2 late '71 or '72. I guess in '72 sometime. It was 3 an emergency temporary standard, and then you had 4 the permanent standard. 5 Q So, you are remembering the program would 6 have begun around '72, '73? 7 A Yes, soon after the enactment - that 8 standard being put into effect. There is always a 9 date associated with its beginning. 10 Q Yes, sir. 11 A I don't remember what the date was, but 12 probably sometime in late '72 or possibly even '73. 13 Q Was - was there ever time in your career * 14 at a chemical company * that is, was there ever a v 15 time before you retired from Celanese that - that 16 you observed asbestos thermal insulation being 17 installed or removed out in a plant environment? 18 A I don't recall it. It's possible that I 19 did, but I don't recall any time specifically. 2 0 Q Do you recall whether any of the 21 manufacturing processes or operations at Cyanamid 22 involved the - the use of asbestos? 23 A I'm not aware of it. Of course, I can't 24 speak for the whole corporation. But for the 25 facilities in which I had responsibility, I was 258 1 never aware of it . 2 Q 3 A Did It didn't surface as an issue. 4 Q Okay. And I suppose this wasn't 5 particularly an issue at Western Electric? 6 A No. 7 Q In '62 when you were at Western Electric, 8 where were the telephones manufactured? 9 A Oh, a variety of places. Kearny, New 10 Jersey, was a big plant. Chicago - right outside of 11 Chicago - Skokie, and various points around the 12 country. The two big ones were the Hawthorn plant 13 and the Kearny plant - outside of Chicago and right 14 outside of Newark for the telephones and a lot of 15 related equipment. Then they had a variety of 16 plants scattered all around. The cable factory was 17 in Baltimore. Teletype was outside of Chicago and 18 different facilities. They were scattered about 19 quite extensively. It was a big corporation - 20 250,000 employees. And, you know, it was a big part 21 of the Bell System actually - almost a quarter of 22 the Bell System. 23 Q And Western Electric employees actually 24 manufactured the telephones and -- 25 A Absolutely. 259 1 Q Do you - - D o you recollect that Western 2 Electric was still using Bakelite in its phones back 3 in '62 when you -- 4 A I don't recall what plastic was actually 5 used. '62 did you say? 6 Q 7 A Yes, sir. Well, when you were there. I'm not surprised. I didn't even know 8 they used Bakelite. 9 Q Well, I don't know that they did still 10 then. But I remember the old phones being Bakelite 11 I think. 12 A That kind of surprises me, but it's 13 possible because that was one of the first plastic 14 materials. 15 Q Yes, sir. And did you ever learn that 16 asbestos was an ingredient in the Bakelite? 17 A No, I didn't. 18 O Okay. I think that was - if I remember 19 correctly was an early Union Carbide product. 20 A That is correct. 21 Q Okay. Do you have any idea what kind of 22 asbestos Celanese used in the Celanex product? 23 A Yes, it was a chrysotile, short fiber. It 24 was purchased by somebody out in California. So, it 25 was essentially a nonrespirable fiber of the best 260 1 type- And I didn't -- I'm not aware that I even was 2 aware of that at the time. But -- 3 Q How did ... 4 A -- that's probably how it was. 5 Q How did you -- I mean you - you remember 6 the California source very -- 7 A I can't think of the name of it. It was a 8 California source as I remember. 9 Q Does Caligula ring a bell? 10 A That sounds right, but I'm not positive. 11 Q There was a Caligula mine in California. 12 A I believe that is correct, but I won't 13 attest to it. It sounds right. 14 Q Also owned by Carbide. 15 A Oh. 16 Q Does that ring a bell? Maybe, maybe not. 17 A Interesting. 18 Q Before you retired in 1981 had Celanese 19 developed a medical monitoring program for workers 20 potentially exposed to asbestos who might be 21 boilermakers or pipefitters or maintenance workers? 22 A I don't think there was any that involved 23 those people. It involved the people who were 24 actually operating the Celanex operation as -- And I 25 think that was the extent of it. 261 1 Q All right. And to your understanding 2 would the same be true about an industrial hygiene 3 program for monitoring boilermakers and pipefitters 4 and maintenance workers for potential exposures to 5 asbestos? 6 A I don't understand. That sounds like the 7 same question. 8 Q I was just changing it from a medical 9 monitoring program to industrial hygiene. 10 A Oh, I'm sorry. I don't believe we felt 11 that it qualified to require that under the act, but 12 I could be wrong. 13 Q Okay. 14 A We didn't institute itwhile I was there 15 for sure. 16 Q All right, sir. 17 A I don't think - I don't recall any. An 18 exposure had to reach certain proportions and 19 whatnot, and we didn't -- 20 Q I'm sorry. It had to reach certain what? 21 A 22 23 24 25 Forget it. Scratch that,please. MR. BLANKS: Michael, it's within a few minutes of 6:00; and this is as good a stopping point as I can find. 262 1 MR. HUTCHINS: What's that? 2 MR. BLANKS : I was just saying 3 this is as good a point to stop as 4 any, if you don't mind. 5 MR. HUTCHINS: That's fine. 6 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off 7 the record at 5:53. 8 9 10 {WHEREUPON THE DEPOSITION WAS RECESSED 11 AT 5:53 ON THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 12 1998, TO BE RESUMED AT 9:00 A.M. ON THE 13 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1998.) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25