Document EvymoDe8OYpXJwpdybKG9jRBg

FILE NAME Owens Corning OC DATE 1941 DOC OC071 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION Consultant Report - Fiberglass Health Hazard Investigation 306 , Fiberglas Health llard llard Investigation , Plaintiff's Exhili 9 ~ a . 7. => bs By Walter J. Siebert M. D. . ae Pathologist to De Paul Hospital Lutheran Hospital St. Vincent's Hospital all of St. Louis to St. Joseph's Hospital Altoh Illinois and St. Mary's Hospital . Cairo Illinois Formerly Professor of Pathology Washington University School of Medicine St. Louis ilo IL Foreword This investigation was carried out at the instigation of Mr. William H. Hartley of the law firm of Bartley and Mayfield 208 North Broadway St. Louis Missouri who is attorney for the International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers Local Union No. 1 of St. Louis Missouri of the investigation is to study the problem of possible health The purpose which are used or may be used by the workers in the hazards of Fiberglas products and International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators Asbestos Workers The author of this paper Walter J. Siebert H. investigation as an unbiased independent consultant D. who has carried out this is not in any way other associated with either the International than to carry out the present assignment and Asbestos Workers or the Corning Association of Heat and Frost Insulators Fiberglas Corporation aE % The investigation was carried out by gathering and interpreting information collected as 1 follows Information obtained in Toledo and Newark Ohio from officials and Corning employees of Fiberglas Corporation sources independent of Corning Fiber- 2 Information obtained from glas Corporation Research and experiments independently conducted by the author 3. Ss %  -- 2 Fiverglas Health Hazard Investigation . 3 nm - af Toledo and I. Information was obtained in Newark Ohio from officials and of Corning Fiberglas Corporation in the following ways employees ! 1 Conferences with Mr. E. J. Marshall general counsel for Owens- Corning Fiberglas Corporation in Toledo Ohio June 2 1941 with Mr. Edward C. Ames assistant to the president 2. Conferences in Toledo and Newark Ohio June 2 of Corning Fiberglas Corporation 3 4 1941 technical director of Owens- 3. Conferences with Mr. Tyler S. Rogers Corning Fiberglas Corporation in Newark Ohio June 3 1941. During these access to information regarded conferences Mr. Rogers gave the author complete with the understanding that the author was as trade secrets by the Corporation of this information which was pertinent to his investifree to use that portion | | gation 4. Conferences with Dr. Fay Babcock organic chemist members of Tooley glass technologist the laboratory and research and Dr. Donald staff of Owens- Corning Fiberglas Corporatioinn Newark Ohio June 3 1941 with Dr. H. A. Campbell and Dr. C. S. Bishop plant 5. Conferences assistant in the office of the plant physician physicians and Miss Betty Laird in Newark Ohio June 3 1941 . under working conditions at the Fiberglas 6. Inspection of each department plant in Newark Ohio June 3 1941 7. Inspection examination and private conferences with production employees at the Fiberglas plant in Newark Ohio June 3 1941 of the medical records of employees of the 8. Inspection of the ray plates of old and new workers 9. Inspection Newark at the plant Newark plant 10. of tuberculosis and silicosis victims Inspection of records ~ 3 ta the Fiherolas plant r se ed , e ~ . Fiberglas Hazard Investigation 1 3 II Information obtained from sources other than officials of Corning \ Fiberglas Corporation as follows Laboratory Reports 1. of Leroy U. Gardner M. D. Director of Saranac . Saranac Lake New York on injections ingestion and inhalation experiments _ with Fiberglas| 2. Reports of the Industrial Commission of Ohio regarding claims or compansa- tion paid for or on account of occupational disease arising out of work with Fiberglas 3. Reports of Dr. Adolph B. Loveman Louisville Kentucky regarding skin patch tests for allergy to Fiberglas textile products 4. Confidential conferences with employees engaged in production work at the Fiberglas plant in Newark 5. Research in world medical literature regarding health hazards in the manufacture or handling of glass wool Fiberglas and similar products 6. Personal communication with industrial physicians regarding health hazards of Fiberglas including Dr. W. K. Wilson plant physician of the Fisher Body Corporation St. Louis and Dr. Clarence D. Selby Medical Director General Motors Corporation Detroit III Independent research investigations regarding chemical and physical properties of Fiberglas and of binders used in the manufactured products which relate to possible health hazards as follows 1. Alkalinity fiber sizes chemical composition physical properties 2. Biopsies of skin of workers 3. Personal inspection of employees hands arms eyes chests nasal and bronchial mucous membranes 4. Study of dust properties of Fiberglas insulating materials a Raw products Fiberglas Health Hazard Investigation 40 b Dust properties under experimental conditions on skin eyes mucous membranes 5. Study of ray plates of employees and of interpretations from . am a Dr.L. A. Mitchell Newark Ohio roentgenologist b Dr. H. L. Sampson Saranac Lake roentgenologist 6. Study of Dr. Gardner's microscopic slides of animal experiments a Inhalation experiments b Intravenous experiments c Intraperitoneal experiments 7. Report on solubilities of Fiberglas products in relation to possible health hazards 8. Study of binder substances used in Fiberglas insulating materials in relation to possible health hazards a Bakelite b Mineral oil 9. Comparison of Fiberglas insulating wool with other insulating materials in relation to possible health hazards This may take the form of a chart indexing binders free silica asbestosis hazard sodium silicate hazard for following a Fiberglas b Mineral wools c Asbestos d 85 magnesia e Rock cork 1. Rock wool bats g Lead slag 10. Comparison of insurance rates of workers in various insulating materials 11. Insurance rates of Corning Fiberglas Corporation compared with other industrial insurance rates Fiberglas Health Hazard Investigation ae 5 12. Comparison of eye infections upper respiratory infections lower respiratory infections including t b skin infections and intestinal disturbances with Ohio Department of Health reports showing incidence of these disorders in general population and with workers in other insulating materials 13. Report of eye inspection carried out by the author on employees to be supplemented with possible inspection and report by an independent ophthalmologist 14. Report of possibilities of exciting or aggravating a latent or healed pulmonary tuberculous process a Chemical nature of Fiberglas is not such as is known to do this Only free silica is known to have this effect b Possibility of Gardner's carrying out such experiments 15. Report of possibility of laying the background for producing chronic sinus infection No evidence in factory workers or in statistical reports nor does it appear so from medical records of employees in Newark 16. Report if possible or available on experiences with health hazards of Fiberglas from a United States Navy b Budd Manufacturing Co. c Gustin Bacon Kansas City d Boeing Aviation Co. through American Airlines for whom Boeing builds Fiberglas Clipper ships 17. Reports of physicians in Newark Ohio not connected with Fiberglas Corporation as to incidence of a eye ear nose and throat disorders of Fiberglas employees compared to general practice -- statements to be obtained from four eye ear nose and throat specialists in Newark 18. Report of Dr. H. L. Sampson of Saranac Lake N. Y. who has reported on 1100 routine chest plates of new and old employees of Corning Fiberglas Corporation Fiberglas Health Hazard Investigation 19. Report of Aetna Insurance Co..on 20. Report of Dr. Roy Philip Scholz a health hazards of St. Louis on use 6 Fiberglas group of Fiberglas as suture Bulletin 58 inOccupational Disease material in nose and ear operations Prevention 21 Report of Safe Practice No. Series of Department of Labor and Industry of Commonwealth of PennsylvaniaFeb. 1940 Sheet F4.2.1 22. Report in Fiberglas Standards a F4.2.1 F4.2.1 entitled How Workmen Handle Fiberglas Thermal Insulation on industrial hazards of spun 23. Reports of A.M.A. library references glass etc. 24. Reports of Corticelli 119 West 40th Street New York City on use of Fiberglas for surgical sutures reports on settling characteristics of Fiberglas wool 25. Purdue University 26. Reports of other insurance companies on experience *a Fiberglas Health Hazard Investigation ST 7 7 ~~ Conferences between the author and Mr. E. Corning Fiberglas Corporation in Toledo J. Marshall general counsel for Ohio June 2 1941 indicated that he are 4 Mr. Marshall as well as the officials am completely satisfied that there are no of Corning Fiberglas Corporation serious health hazards associated with the manufacture or handling of Fiberglas products ae the author has been at considerable pains In the course of his investigation from interested sources and to disabuse himself to discount this assertion as coming that the of anya priori assumption and officials should be accepted as contention of the corporation's general counsel valid unless supported by his own objective examination of the records and by conclusion independently reached evidence adduced from disinterested sources warranted by objective that the contention that Fiberglas The author finds however by the author as and his own mind manufacture and serious health hazard rests on the following evidence handling is accompanied by no supported by the Exhibits as enumerated 1. Factory experience of nine years duration in the State of Ohio This experience covers by production employees in the Newark Ohio approximately twenty when production of glass with the manufacture of Fiberglas millions of man hours worked plant in number ranging from wool began in Newark in 1932 up to more than 1800 employees in 1941 See EXHIBIT NO.1 a statement furnished to Corning Personnel Director at the Newark the author by Mr. D. plant setting forth A. O'Neill O'Neill employment figures by months from January 1937 through May 1941. author Records to which the was given untrammeled access on June 3 1941 = in Newark cover the health experience . in the office of the Plant Physician of these employees not Corporation was formed only during on November the period since 1 1938 but also Corning Fiberglas during the preceding six when the plant was operated by Illinois Glass Company and half years duration 1932 to 1941 of The author regards as significant the year Fiberglas Health Hazard Investigation . , - 8 this period as providing a sufficiently long exposure on which to generalize concerning the likelihood of the appearance of possible occupational hazards that might arise from handling products manufactured from or fabricated from fibrous glass Further observations of the employee health record established at the Newark plant by men engaged in jobs necessitating continual handling of Fiberglas insulating products will be made later in this report It is appropriate at this point however to include as EXHIBIT NO.2 Fiberglas Standards No. F4.2.1 entitled How Workmen Handle Fiberglas Thermal Insulating Materials published by the Corporation in May 1940 with the following explanatory note Because of their noteworthy health record and their unequalled fund of accumulated experience we feel that a description of the technique of our employees in handling Fiberglas insulating materials is the best guide for others to follow The recommendations below are based on practices followed by our employees 2. The fact that no claim for workers compensation in Ohio has been validated during this year period nor has compensation been paid on the basis of an industrial disease arising out of employment in the manufacturing or handling of Fiberglas Documentary proof of this assertion is made in a letter of June 17 1941 from Mr. J. A. Shaw Claims Referee of the Industrial Commission of Ohio Legal Section to the author in which Mr. Shaw writes as follows For your information we recognize diseases of the respiratory tract as compensable occupational diseases such as silicosis asbestosis anthracosis and siderosis - ED As a matter of fact there is a provision under the law to recognize any disease of this type which is caused by the inhalation of any injurious dusts _ Fiberglas Health Hazard Investigation , - 9 Te We endeavor to keep a complete statistical record in the Department of Safety and Hygiene of all cases of of this type I have made a thorough check with this & Department and to date we have never hada claim filed for a disease of the upper respiratory tract caused by the alleged inhalation of fiberglass particles We did have an inquiry several months ago from the Corning Glass Company Newark Ohio but nothing ever came of it At that time the writer referred the matter to Mr. L. M. Merritt our Safety Engineer in the Department of Safety and Hygiene who handles such matters and he made an inspection of this plant and it was his opinion that there was absolutely no hazard due to fiberglass particles However about six months ago a claim was filed by a man in Toledo who was a glazer by trade and in his application he alleged that he had developed a severe lung condition probably tuber- small culosis as a result of the inhalation of particles of glass We investigated this claim and disallowed it for the reason that there was no proof that he could possibly have contracted an occupational disease from that source See EXHIBIT NO 3 3. The favorable reports of Dr. Leroy U. Gardner Director of the Research Division of the Saranac Laboratory for the study of Tuberculosis and member of the Council on Industrial Health of the American Medical Association upon animal injection ingestion and inhalation experiments which were conducted with glass wool dust Documentary evidence of Dr. Gardner's Fiberclas Health Hazard Investigation pa 10 NO me a A letter labeled EXHIBIT 4 addressed to the Illinois Glass '- Company dated May 5 1936 in which the animal experiments of Dr. Gardner are summarized as follows r -ere soe oe To determine whether particles of glass wool are capable of producing reaction in the tissues suspensions of finely ground plain and oiled wools were injected into the ear veins of rabbits and the peritoneal cavities of guinea pigs Experi- ence in this laboratory and elsewhere has demonstrated that these methods are adequate to demonstrate the capacity of a mineral dust to produce fibrosis Investigation of over twenty types of dust has indicated that if no reaction occurs in organs other than the lungs it will not occur in the respiratory tract and that conversely dusts like silica and asbestos that are known to produce fibrosis of the lungs also cause fibrosis in other tissues when injected in sufficient quantities Conclusions based on these experiments are as follows Neither plain or oiled glass wools have caused fibrosis or any chronic progressive reaction by injection and therefore it is a reasonable assumption that their inhalation would likewise fail to produce such effects Furthermore the report of Dr. Leroy U. Gardner of May 5 1936 reveals the fact that ingestion of large quantities of both plain and oiled glass wool ols fed to guinea pigs mixed with grain by stomach tube daily for between 32 and 119 days failed to produce gross or microscopic changes in the mouth esophagus stomach small or large intestine or in the mesenteric lymph nodes Conclusions based upon these ingestion experiments are quoted as follows 11 Investigation . Fiberglas Health Hazard conclude = One may therefore that the ingestion of as much of finely powdered glass wool both plain and as 51 grams Ln oiled administered in divided doses will not cause injury reaction of at all the any In absence time in four months . as essential it would hardly seem to continue the investigation _ further b Further favorable reports from Dr. Leroy U. carried out on animals dated May experiments is labeled EXHIBIT NO.5 This exhibit evidence Gardner on inhalation 16 1941. Documentary contains the following statement Experiments still in lead to the tentative at the progress conclusion that Saranac Laboratory there can be little from exposure to glass wool dust or no injury to the lungs the material is not inhalable because A group of one hundred guinea pigs hours a day and fifty white rats over a period of one have year now been exposed eight to as high an atmospheric concentration of the finest glass dust wool as it fiber has been possible to produce available A majority of the from animals In sixteen of the guinea pigs have remained well and healthy have been sacrificed from time to and eight of the rats that there has been no evi- time during the course of the exposure dence of pulmonary injury Microscopic examination of their to demonstrate the presence of any lung tissues has failed fibers of glass Small quantities of very minute particles which are probably glass splintered in the process creating dust have been observed within the is limited to microscopic particles lungs Reaction to these collections of cells which could not conceivable influence pulmonary function oe a -F^berglas Health Hazard Investigation | '- 12 experimonts c In summarizing the made at Saranac Laboratory in a letter to Er G. A. Hodgman of the Fidelity and Casualty Company of Dr. a New York dated June 10 1941 by Carl M. Peterson Secretary of of the American Medical Association the Council on Industrial Health Dr. Leroy U. Gardner is quoted as follows ife have now eighteen months experience with animals exposed to as high a concentration it is possible to produce We have of glass wool dust as failed to demonstrate the inhalation of any of the glass in fibrous form A.few frac- tured particles enter the lung but they have caused no more reaction than most animals get from accidental inhalation of hay and other dirt The major portion of the glass fibers form like masses which adhere to any projecting obstruction in the room and I am coming to believe that the same probably occurs in the nostrils Documentary This letter evidence for was obtained the above paragraph is labeled on inquiry by Mr. Bartley from as EXHIBIT NO 6 The Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York of Dr. Gardner's work are available in sources inde- d Further reports of Corning Fiberglas Corporation pendent In the Annual Report for the Study of Tuberculosis ofthe Edward L. of the Saranac Laboratory the following statement on Trudeau Foundation for the Year appears page 11 The apparent lack of pulmonary damage from exposures to glass wool dust is being demonstrated by an inhalation experiment For over a year animals have now been exposed to as high a concentration of this material as could be maintained with no __ Finnta on their lungs The dust has been produced by 2 Fiberglas Health Hazard Investigation ._ : ; 13 's breaking into short lengths the finest textile glass that is made but none of the fibers that are floating ! me 2 ~ * > in the air can be found in the lungs of the exposed animals Their tendency unlike that of asbestos asbestos to that asbestos form like masses upon any object with which they come in contact probably prevents their inhalation Slight amounts of chronic inflammation similar to those observed with other harmless dusts have resulted from accumulated particulate debris These very fine fibrous particles are the product of the violent beating used to break up the material See EXHIBIT NO 7 e In an article entitled The Pathology and Roentgenographic Manifestations of Pneumoconiosis in the Journal of the American Medical Associa- - tion February 17 1940 Vol 114 pp 535-545 Dr. Gardner states as % follows As far as can be learned from statistical and experimental evidence the dusts other than free silica are not responsible for alteration of natural susceptibility to tubercular infection There is no proof that their inhalation increases the probability of infection with other organisms The foregoing appears on page 12 of the reprint of this article attached as EXHIBIT NO.8 f The following excerpt of special interest appears in Researches of Kellon Institute 1940-41 in News Edition American Chemical Society Vol XII p 402 April 10 1941 L. U. Gardner director The Saranac Laboratory has reported on the researches which the foundation supports at his institution saying in part Fiberglas Health Hazard Investigation ' ..- 14 at 11 ... We have been studying the effect of inhaled an r) alng fat . * glass wool Apparently even the finest textile glass set up as an atmospheric dusits not inhaled in ap- preciable concentrations and does not produce any dangerous effects upon the lung A reprint of this article is labeled EXHIBIT NO 9 Related to the subject of Dr. Gardner's research is an article g entitled Response of Peritoneal Tissue to Industrial Dusts by J. W. Miller and R. R. Sayers in U. 3. Public Health Reports 56 7 264-72 1941 A pr^'cis of this article appears in Vol XX No. 5 of the publication of the American Ceramic Society May 1941 copy of which is attached and labeled EXHIBIT NO 10 In this article glass wool is listed among twenty dusts vausing an inert reaction 4. The chemical and physical characteristics of Fiberglas and of binders used in manufacturing and processing glass fibers are not of the kind fros which serious industrial health problems would theoretically arise Facts leading the author to this conclusion were gathered chiefly from Mr. Tyler S. Rogers Technical Director of Corning Fiberglas Corporation from Dr. Fey Tooley glass technologist and from Dr. Donald Babcock organic chemist employees of Corning Fiberglas Corporation The conclusion is based chiefly upon the absence of substances which are know to be harmful in a the glass and b the binder substances used The quthor examined documentary proof in the records of the Corporation to support the following statements known a No free silica is present in the material as Fiberglas b No organic matter is present in Fiberglas thermal insulating products No carcinogenic hydrocarbons or other hydrocarbons could be present in - sek ee ** Fiberglas Health Hazard Investigation . on . 15 wv i FFiiberglabs erglas because of the extremely high temperatures employed in fusing the Fiberglas during the manufacturing process : No harmful fumes could be given off since no - are present in the Fiberglas volatile substances Absent from Fiberglas is any free sodium silicate which is used in e, some other materials employed in the insulating trade f Only three binder substances are present in glass wool products used for industrial insulation These are bakelite phenolformaldehyde a setting binder that ranges from one and half per cent to four per cent depending on the structural characteristics desired in the finishec from product a mineral oil that ranges one and half per cent to three per cent by weight in the finished products and bentonite a refractory clay that is employed as an ingredient of candy with the cognizance of the United States Food 120 block These and Drug Administration Bentonite is used in Fiberglas percentages are determined by ignition loss tests rou- tinely conducted as a part of quality control procedure during manufacture factory g There is no evidence from experience that either bakelite or the mineral oil used for binding substances is the cause of a health hazard 5. Ohio workers compensation rates as set by the Ohio Industrial Commission are lower for Fiberglas production employees than are the rates set for workers in other comparable industries The following table See EXHIBIT NO.11 sets forth comparative figures to support this statement In each case the rate represents the contribution levied upon the employer per 100 of payroll under Ohio law according to the State's appraisal of the hazard involved in the particular industry Fiberglas production employees engaged 66 in the manufacture of glass yarns production Fiberglas employees engaged ae -Tano wool products Fiberglas r- -- Hazard Investigation oo . Asbestos manufacturing cccescscvseresesesscncs 1.00 16 Rubber manufacturin1.g 00 : Building material dealers employees 1.20 Carbonate of magnesia manufacturing 1.10 Clay products manufacturing 1.60 Fiber goods manufacturing 1.10 Wood pulp mills 2.00 Paper manufacturing .. 1.60 6. The fact that the health of Fiberglas employees is regarded by Aetna Life Insurance Company which underwrites group insurance life disab- ility sickness and hospitalization for employees of Corning Fiberglas Corporation as better than average In a page letter attached as EXHIBIT NO 12 dated June 11 1941 to the Corporation John A. Hill Toledo General Agent Edward C. Ames of of Aetna Life Insurance Company writes The health of your employees is better than average This is evidenced by the fact that we now have in effect a 35 reduction in rate from standard on both the Sickness and Hospitalization insurance carried by your employees This is the result of nearly four full years exposure and develops a rate lower than any similar industry that we have insured In addition we have Hospitalization coverage which is developing a Loss Ratio after over three years experience far lower than almost any of the 200 industries we have insured in Ohio There is in effect a Fermanent and Total disability Fiberglas Health Hazard Investigation 17 as yet there has been only one claim from an employee and this was due to a occupa- < tional accident far removed from the course of his occupation or from any health hazard in his occupation Mr. Hill also writes Although your compensation insurance is carried with the State our Company does have the coverage on your new plant in Ashton Rhode Island and is writing this at a rate of approximately forty eents a hundred which will indicate how safe we regard the risk to be - not only from an accident view point but from an occupational hazard view point In other words from our own experience we do not feel that there is any different hazard than from normal manufacturing operation and we feel the any hazard is much less than in the manufacture of Rockwool Slagwool Asbestos or any of the called 85 magnesia products The author regards as highly significant the following paragraph on page of Kr Hill's letter .... our Casualty Company carries what is known as Products Liability at an extremely low rate and no claim has ever been presented indicating of course that there is no hazard in the use of fiberglas or any of its products & the statements set forth in Mr. To suppliment entitled Corning Fiberglas Corporation Hill's letter a Group Insurance brochure prepared cee. Fiberglas Health Hazard Investigation . 18 in 1940 by Aetna Life Insurance Company for distribution to employees of Corning Fiberglas Corporation to explain rates and benefits of the Aetna group coverage for which they are eligible is attached as inside EXHIBIT NO 13. The small folder in the pocket on the of the front cover of this brochure explains expanded benefits put into effect in 1940 7. Papers delivered on different occasions before the Safe Practices Conference sponsored jointly by the Pennsylvania State College and the Department of Labot and Industry of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania indicate that interest in possible hazards of Fiberglas was manifested in 1939 and 1940 among safety engineers industrial physicians personnel directors and governmental officials charged with the responsibility of administering legislation designed to promote workers welfare This interest is evidenced by publication of the following two bulletins Stream a Dr. E. li McIlvain Insulation in Trains published in 1939 as Safe Practice Bulletin No. " in the Occupational Disease Prevention series of the Department of Labor and Industry of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Photostatic copies of the cover page and pages 1 and 5 of this bulletin are attached as EXHIBIT NO 14 Dr. McIlvain who is Medical Director and Personnel Manager of the Edward G. Budd Manufacturing Company writes One insulation material may have excellent thermal efficiency but a lot of dust Another no dust but lower efficiency A third might have efficiency and cleanliness yet be vulnerable to fire or absorb and hold moisture Fiberglas provides the qualities generally sought as an insulation product in stream trains and in addition has proven safe for handling purposes by - ma ioe A be eee UN Fiberglas Health Hazard Investigation - 19 b Tyler Stewart Rogers Safe Practice in the Manufacture and Uses of Fiberglas published in February 1940 as Safe Practice Bulletin No. 58 in the Occupational Disease Prevention series of the Department of Labor and Industry of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania A copy of this Bulletin is attached as EXHIBIT NO 15 At the time of delivery of his paper Mr. Rogers was Assistant to the President of Corning Fiberglas Corporation He is now Technical Director of the Corporation The author conferred with him in Newark on June 3 A concise summary of the manufacturing processes and a description of the uses of Fiberglas are set forth in pages 3 to 10 of the Bulletin accompanied by illustrations of the manufacturing processes and install tion methods for various applications This material is prefaced by a discussion of the safety aspects of handling Fiberglas products on pages 1 and 2 of the Bulletin most of which is similar to the material to be found in Fiberglas Standards F4.2.1 already cited as Exhibit No. The following statement on page 1 of the Bulletin is of interest Fiberglas Insulating Wool can be handled in the same manner as the common rock wool and slag wool insulations which have been used for more than fifty years Fiberglas wool has longer fibers and is made by processes subject to much more accurate control than most rock and slag wools As a result it holds together better is cleaner and contains less dust and foreigh materials The author regards it as significant that these statements have not been challenged in the literature for it is reasonablteo assume that had any doubts been reserved in the minds of those present at the delivery of these papers or had any doubts been present in the Fiberglas Health Hazard Investigation od since the papers were delivered 20 such doubts or questionings would have found their way into print From his familiarity oe with problems industrial the manner in which persistent in hygiene are wont to appear in printand in view of the fact that Fiberglas thermal insulating products creasing volume since 1932 have been marketed in constantly in- the very quiescence of this subject and the paucity of references to it may be regarded as prima facie evidence not only of lack of concern with the problem among groups acutely conscious of occupational hazards but also of the nonexistence of any occupational hazard in the handling of Fiberglas Nor is it reasonable to assume that lack of interest in the subject may be attributed to general ignorance about the activity of Owens- Corning Fiberglas Corporation in the thermal insulating materials market Development of Fiberglas manufacturing has been attended by wide publicity as evidenced by the publicity and clipping files examined by the author when he visited the Corporation's General Offices in Toledo on June 2 reprints of articles about Fiberglas products that have appeared in magazines of general circulation as well as magazines that circulate to a technical audience -- reprints of which are attached as EXHIBIT NO 16 - and the Corporation's advertising program A manual of reprints of General Products advetisements inserted between November 1938 and June 1941 by Corning _ Fiberglas Corporation in magazines of general circulation including Time Fortune Week and Business Week is incorporated in this investigation as EXHIBIT NO 17 in proof of this statement 8 A search of the world literature of science and medicine since 192 fails to reveal other authoritative references to occupational hazards nae bnenA in hondling Fiberglas products Fiberglas | . 21 Health Hazard Investigation regarded 1! a an Although it may be answer to an inquiry as empirical and concerning occupational therefore unauthoritative hazards in hazards in _ wool that appearsinOccupational Hazards and Safety- handling glass in Vol I No. 4 January 1938 p 40 is nevertheless of interest as being to the subject other than the references an almost isolated reference cited above to Dr. Gardner's research An excerpt from this reference attached as EXHIBIT NO 18 is as follows Careful investigation of the possible silicosis in the handling wool indicates that there is no silicosis hazard of glass involved Extensive tests and studies have been conducted both in the laboratory and field and results indicate that the inhalation of glass wool particles will not cause silicosis b Upon request of the ation in Chicago for a of the American Medical Associ- Reference Library bibliography of references in medical literature in the handling of Bibrous glass products concerning occupational hazards fibe the author was supplied with a list of citations The list forwarded It contains the following references to him is attached as EXHIBIT NO 19. Glass Christmas Tree Ornaments in 1. Dermatitis from Spun Journal of the American Medical Association 1249 April 14 1934. Photostatic copy is Note This reference concerns labeled EXHIBIT NO 20 a product manufactured in Gerzany by a process known as the Gossler process which is entirely different from the drawing process employed by Owens- The material referred to in this Corning Fiberglas Corporation Eckhardt citation was imported by the Strauss Company of New Yor has never sought a market Corning Fiberglas Corporation ae Fiberglas Health Hazard Investigation ee 22 as officials of the Corporation know none has ever been sold for that purpose For this reason the author finds that this reference may not be construed as incriminating Fiberglas products 2. Dermatitis Due to Spun Class in Journal of the American Medical Association 1874 June 2 1934. Photostatic copy is labeled EXHIBIT NO 21 Note This reference calls attention to the article by S. von Szentkiralyi 3. Dermatitis Artificialis durch Engelhaare in Dermat Wehnschr 1302 August 15 1931. l'hotostatic copy of this article obtained from the Library of the Surgeon General in Washington . is labeled EXHIBIT NO.22 This article like Exhibit No. 15 refers to angel hair made in Germany for Christmas tree ornamentation The date of appearance of the article - August 15 1931 - precludes the possibil- ity that any Fiberglas products are under discussion since no Fiberglas was manufactured until 1932. Nevertheless it is of interest because there is some similarity in composition between the German angel hair and Fiberglas In this connection a translation of a paragraph in the article is of some significance Author's translation Glass wool which is used for various purposes occasionally causes marked itching especially when the material is pulverized or broken into small particles The glass wool dust is composed of fine fibers measuring 1-3 1-3 mm in length Then this dust is mechanically rubbed into the skin for instance during the - at maaking the class woollwooll the skin soon becomes becomes Fiberglas lloalth Hazard Investigation ) 23 reddened and itches markedly The occurrence of a dermatitie is however an extreme rarity and is found only in especially predisposed individuals The skin manifestations completely disappear in twenty hours after the fragments have been removed with the aid of a skin microscope of The author of the cited article describes a case moderately severe dermatitis which completely healed in ten days He employed ten per cent calcium bromate intravenously daily and a local soothing ointment The author of the article also points out that his patient displayed a marked predisposition to mechanical irritation of the skin and otherwise would prob- ably not have developed the dermatitis Note This case undoubtedly represents an allergic manifestatic to glass wool This is the only case of allergy to glass wool that the author has found in medical literature 4. Dermatitis from Angel Hair in Journal of the American Medical Association 103 1934. Photostatic copy is labeled EXHIBIT NO 23 Note Like the material discussed in the reference cited in Exhibit No. 15 this article refers to a product manufactured in Germany 5. Dermatitis in Glass Wool Industry -- Salt in Heat Exposure in Journal of the American Medical Association 1644 November 24 1934. Photostatic copy is labeled EXHIBIT NO 24 Note An inquiry from Dr. H. A. Campbell of Newark Ohio with whom the author conferred in Newark on June 2 1941 the reference sets forth Dr. Campbell's query as follows Fiberglas Health Hazard Investigation a 24 I have been doing some industrial work for a firm that makes glass wool ( The reference is to Illinois 1 a Glass Company which inaugurated the manufacture of Fiberglas before formation of Corning Fiberglas Corporation ) Minute particles of glass collect on the workers skin and together with the intense heat produce a dermatitis which is very irritating and difficult to combat These men are required to take a shower at the end of the shift but the cases of dermatitis continue From the sketchy details given could you suggest a treatment Queried at the request of the author by Dr. Carl M. Peterson Secretary of the Council on Industrial Health of the American Nedical Association concerning his experience since 1934 Dr. Campbell replies in a letter labeled EXHIBIT NO 25 as follows Thousands of tons of glass wool have been manufactured here since my inquiry was published in the Journal 1644 on November 24 1934. Since 1934 I have had a great deal of experience with the health aspects of manufacturing and fabricating glass wool as well as glass textile products having spent an averagoef two hours a day five days a week carrying Physician out my duties as Plant I have examined hundreds of workers in the plant and have devoted a great deal of attention to the possibility that they might be subjected to a dermatitis hazard or to any other occupational hazard in the course of | handling glass fiber products Our health records which have been carefully kept show excluded Evidence that dermatitis as a problem is practically Fiberglas Health Hazard Investigation - . 25 industrial compensation on an occupational dermatitis This statement can be verified in the records of the Ohio Industrial | . . Commission in Columbus Occasionally new employees suffer a mechanical irritation job of the skin for a few days at the start of the For relief from this irritation during the stage when they are becoming accustomed to handling the products I recommend that they sO apply as a soothing agent calamine solution containing one per cent phenol an emollient that may be obtained at any corner drug store without a physician's prescription But invariably - except in extremely rare cases where an individual may be allergic to an ingredient of binders or lubricants used in processing glass fibers -- the irritation disappears within a few days the new workers apparently become immunized against the action of the fibers and they suffer no further discomfort We recommend that they wear clothing loose at the neck and and in warm weather many of them work on production lir grists stripped to the waist The employees whose work brings the int almost constant contact with fibrous glass wool in rooms where particles of it might be in the air have compiled an outstandir health record covering millions of man hours Some have been employed continuously for nearly ten years as Just in the case of they use plentoyf soap and any manual water when labor I recommend the day's work is that done Soap and water is most effective in removing particles of fibers whether of glass or any other material from the skin We find that there is seldom if ever need for gloves armlets or other special or protective clothing Without gloves or 26 Fiberglas Health Hazard Investigation there is less tendency for similar articleosf clothing cote eat fibrous particles to be rubbed into the skin . . reveal that there is no special eye hazard in Our records handling fibrous glass that is not found in other insulation materials or in any other materials under conditions where small particles may fall into the that the eyes should be protected eyes under Common sense indicates certain conditions of such as is the case when materials exposure overhead and loose particles may fall in the are being installed eyes I know of mo case where any harm to the throat or lungs has resulted Dr. Campbell's letter than refers to the investigations carried out out at Saranac Laboratory by Dr. Leroy U. Gardner He then point that dermatitis at the Newark plant has practically dis- appeared because of improvements in manufacturing techniques Significant in regard to the dermatitis question is the that has been brought about in manufacturing proimprovement work as Plant Physician nearly seven cesses since I began my years ago When I made my inquiry of the Journal in fibers in the glass wool then being manufactured for 1934 the thermal insulation were less subject to precision control than they are now Because of this improvement , substantial reduction in the amount of unfiberized material has resulted Tramp fibers of relatively coarse size for example have been practically eliminated For these reasons in my work as Plant Physician my concer is limited to normal safety practices and good housekeeping programs that will hold to a minimum routine accident cases rat bul an Ante called occupational hazards 4: -e os Fiberglas Health Hazard Investigation 27 The author cited Dr. Campbell's letter at length because its temperate tone and reasonable explanation of the evanishment of what appeared to be a perplexing confrontation of circumstances seven years ago are not unlike the matured point of view of many medical men who engage in industrial or private practice and encounted problems that are solved by time and patient study The author moreover is able to offer his own evidence which he personally gathered through physical examiniation of production employees to substantiate Dr. Campbell's statement This evidenc is set forth in a subsequent section of this paper c An independent Bearch by the author of world medical literature since 1927 failed to reveal any further references to occupational hazards of fibrous glass products 1. The files of the Quarterly Cumulative Index Medicus yielded only references to use of glass for rhinoplastic purposes eye wound by solid glass fragment criminal administration of powdered glass visualization of shatter proof glass in tissues roentgenographic study of glass and its visibility as a foreign body study of glass particles resulting from breaking of glass azules injurious effects of ingesting pulverized glass experimental tests with powdered glass administered in food and injected into circulatory system in rabbits and frogs case proving harmlessnes of eating powdered glass experimental and medico considers tion of evidence that ingestion of glass not always harmful The files of the Cumulative Book Index yielded only references to works on opportunities and conditions of work for minors in the glassware industry composition of glass development of Lmerican place makin~- and olaec fortnry vaan honk an oo 28 Fiberglas Health Hazard Investigation . Because the title of none of these references is pertinent to the subject the author finds none of them significant for 4 4 mad the purpose of this investigation ... Sgt! V3 of references to the subject in medical and other scientific The paucity literature is compansated for to some extent by evidence of the favorable experience of made of glass manufacturers and other wool This evidence is consumers presented using thermal insulation in the following Exhibits to the United States Navy under seven Navy a Fiberglas is supplied Department and 32C14 specifications Nos 32G2 59B4 32G5 covering thermal insulation for use on 3211 32015 3203 fighting ships and auxiliaries In addition Fiberglas electrical insulation is supplied to the United States Navy under four Navy Department specifications Nos 17-1-31 Int 15 4G and 9A covering uses in electrical equipment aboard Navy vessels These specifications are set Standards N5.2.21 Fiberglas in forth on pages 2 and 3 of Fiberglas Naval Service -- Where Why and How Fiberglas Products Are Used in Navy Fighting Ships and Auxiliaries which is attached as EXHIBIT NO.26 references are made to Fiberglas Standards On pages 4-8 of this Exhibity sheets in the G series where full descriptive details are given of covered in these Navy Department specifications A manual of products these G sheets is attached as EXHIBIT NO 27 The author regards these Exhibits as prima facie evidence of acceptance of Fiberglas products by the United States Navy and he believes it to be a reasonable assumption that Fiberglas products would not have been admitted to Navy Department specifications and applied in volume aboard vessels unless Navy Department officials had previously taken the Navy precaution to assure themselves that application of these products is da -and hur nonunational hazards not encountered in alternative Fiberglas Health Hazard Investigation materials . : 29 Inquiry to the Division of Labor Standards U. S. Department of Labor in Washington C. by the author has failed to reveal .... ser the publication or availability in any other form of information regarding health hazards of Fiberglas products although information regarding health hazards in practically every industry is available This situation warrants the author in the belief that ho serious hazard is associated with the manufacture or in the handling of Fiberglas products in industry b Esperience of the Moore Corporation of Joliet Illinois manufacturers of ranges and water heaters as reported in a letter of March 19 1941 to A. G. Brauer Supply Company of St. Louis from W. R. Baker Works Manager indicates that Fiberglas insulating wool is regarded by the Moore Corporation as having handling characteristics superior to other materials and as lacking properties present in competitive materials that necessitated use of respirators This letter labeled EXHIBIT NO.28 reads in part as follows We have used this material now for approximately a year and believe it to be every bit as efficient as as the various makes of rock wool and slag wool on the market today Besides this we think it has one great advantage of being a much cleaner insulation than the average run that you find as it is almost entirely free of any kind of shot material and is practically dustless This is to our advantage as we have had some materials in our plant that made it necessary for our men to wear respirators while handling it This material however is clean enough for us to Health Hazard Investigation 30 Fiberglas the eliminate use of respirators in our present set We also find that this material is easy to cut and very easy to handle due to the long fibres which give it_ sufficient tensile strength to withstand the abuse in handling which it naturally receives on an assembly line Naturally there is a certain amount of irritation coming from this insulation but I would say that this is not azy more serious than other types of material on the market today c The favorable experience of General Motors Corporation whose Frigidair = several subsidiary subsidiary in Dayton Ohio has used glass wool several years to insulate domestic refrigerators ee In a letter to the author Dr. Clarence D. Selby , Medical Director of General Motors Corporation and Member of the Council Industrial Health of the American Medical Association writesas follows 31 Fiberglas Health Hazard Investigation This lettel r abeFl IBIT FIe BIT d NO -29.- . C. Because wool as cowl insulation in bears on the use of Fiberglas it manufactured in Canada the author desires to Motors cz General automobiles oe Oe include reference to a letter dated March 24 1941 to Walter Korris Sales Manager Fiberglas Canada Ltd. Oshawa Ontario from Thos resident in Oshawa of the United MacLean International Representative Automobile Workers of America The author is informed that the letter was written to Mr. Morris after members of the Oshawa local of the United Automobile Workers of America had considered whether they had any objection to installing Fiberglas insulation in an operation in automobile body assembly The author regards as significant the following excerpt from Mr. MacLean's letter which is attached as EXHIBIT NO 30 After going through the Fiberglas Department on the morning of Saturday Feb. 15th the employees are satisfied that your product without any can be used successfully by General Motors un due hardship or discomfort to the employees involved The author believes that the context of Mr. MacLean's letter justifies the bracketed emendation in the excerpt quoted d Photographs water heaters of workers installing Fiberglas thermal insulation in ranges oil burners and airplanes further indicate that these glass wool products are being widely used without personal discomfort handling them & manual containing or occupational hazard to the employees at random by the author from files opened seven such photographs -- picked of manufacturers to whom Corning to him in Toledo and taken in plants -- is attached as EXHIBIT NO 31 Fiberglas supplies the material They are as follows ? 32 Fiberglas Health Hazard Investigation _ 1. Workers applying Fiberglas insulating bats to a water heater 2. Worker installing Fiberglas insulating bats in a domestic range Worker draping Fiberglas wool insulating bats in the oven of a 3. tae domestic range line in the factory of a domestic range manufacturer . 4. Production workers installing Fiberglas thermal insulation in showing domestic ranges insulating wool bats in a domestic 5. Workers installing Fiberglas oil burner insulating wool bats in the oven of 6. Worker installing Fiberglas domestic range thermal and acoustical insulating 7. Worker installing Fiberglas blankets in a Clipper ship built by Boeing Aviation Co. for American Airlines be considered as illustrating an Photograph No. 7 in Exhibit No. 31 may glass article on the use of fibrous in airplanes which appeared in the Times of Sunday April 13 1941. Written Aviation Section of The New York the article describes uses of Fiberglas thermal and byFrancis Hewens and the substance of the story relates acoustical blankets in aircraft in the Clippers built by Boeing for American to use of these blankets labeled EXHIBIT NO 32 is attached to substantiate A reprint of this story that uses of Fiberglas products have been further the author's assertion of references in the literature to widely publicized and that the absence those uses may be regarded as significar occupational hazards attendant upon regards as significant also the experience of Consolidated e The author as related in the following two letters Edison Company of New York Inc. 1. Letter of May 2 1941 to W. B. Dias Corning Fiberglas Beardsle n 718 Fifth Avenue New York N. Y. from C. R. Fiberglas Health Hazard Investigation 33 Manager Contract Inspection Department Consolidated Edison Company of New York Inc. 4 Irving Place New York N. Y. in which lir Beardsley asserts that Consolidated Edison of New York has no specific rules setting Fiberglas products apart from other insulating materials as requiring special precautionary or protective devices Photostatic copy of this letter is labeled EXHIBIT NO 33 2. Letter of June 13 1941 to W. B. Dias Corning Fiberglas Corporation 718 Fifth Avenue New York N. Y. from R. Beardsley Manager Contract Inspection Department Consolidated Edison Company | of New York Inc. 4 Irving Place New York N. Y. which is attached as EXHIBIT NO 34 The author regards as significant the following paragraphs from this letter Examination of our medical and insurance records has not disclosed any case of accident or disbbilities due to working with mineral wools or Fiberglas In order to complete the search we have also reviewed the practises of contractors men in their work in our stations The use of Fiberglas is of recent origin in this Company The chief uses have been for expansion joints where the woven fabric or glass cloth has been valuable Contractors men installing these fabrics did not use respirators or goggles or gloves However in filling spaces with rockwool gloves were used to pack the material : but respirators and goggles were not used Recently metal mesh blankets of Fiberglas were installed experimentally as duct insulation Globes were used As these blankets were applied on horizontal and vertical surfaces in location easily 340 e Fiberglas Health Hazard Investigation Another experimental installation of moulded Fiberglas pipe covering was made This cut easily with a knife for fitting or shortening the standard lengths without causing dust or flying particles Cloth gloves were used but goggles and respirators were not used This work was finished in spring 1940 Hoven fabrics have been used in our Shops by Company employees for coil insulation Gloves respirators goggles are not used As to the general contractor practices with rockwool goggles and respirators blankets on the are used with loose materials or when applying underside of ducts where materials may drop Respirators are used in closely confined quarters where dusts may be present Rubber gloves are used when mixing and handling all types of insulating cements Leather gloves are used when handling metal reinforcements and bindings We have consistently required our own employees to take all necessary precautions and our accident record is such that we believe the precautions are adequate Likewise we encourage contractors to apply for the protection of their employees the same precautions we require of our own men We do not encourage practices we deem unnecessary The two letters cited above from Hr Beardsley to Mr. Dias are pertinent to a statement that appears in the minutes of the meeting of the Board of the International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers on March 12 1941 as reported in The Asbestos Worker Vol XI No. 15 April 1941 See EXHIBIT NO 35. The statement as follows , .* Fiberglas Health Hazard Investigation 35 To those Local Unions whose membership work with glass insulation the Board suggests that their membership adopt the precautions taken by our membership on the Edison Power House New York City where the employer at his own expense furnished respirators for mouth and throat protection goggles for eye protection cloth gloves for the handling of glass insulation and rubber gloves for glass cement The author believes that the foregoing creates a misimpression of the conditions under which glass wool insulating products were applied at Consolidated Edison in view of the letters from C. R. Beardsley cited above It is evident that members of the International Board received incomplete information which as set forth in the record leads to invalid inferences For example Mr Beardsley writes above in the excerpt quoted Rubber gloves are used when mixing all types of insulating cements Thus while it is true as the minutes in The Asbestos Worker indicate that rubber gloves were worn for glass wool cement on the Consolidated Edison job this is a general practice and not one adopted exclusively when glass wool cement was being used | " 36 . Fiborglas Health Hazard Investigation 10. The author finds that isolated cases of skin irritation attributed to contact with glass wool are insufficient to incriminate glass wool as the cause of any severe dermatitis Pertinent to the subject of skin irritation is the following paragraph that appears in the Minutes of March 12 1941 of the Board of the International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers already cited as Exhibit No.35 The Board considered the question of the application of glass insulation and testimony given in relation to same coming from both Union and Union men who applied it one of whom a the member of an affiliated Local Union in employ of a shop with a signed International Agreement appeared and testified that as a result of severe skin irritation the shop in question sent him to the city hospital for immediate treatment after which the shop's compensation Doctor informed him he would have to quit this class of work " The author notes that the report of the case as recorded in the Minutes 0 is in the realm of hearsay evidence and is lacking in scientific diag- details or nostic or clinical any further documentation That the worker in question may have suffered discomfort is not denied But the author wishes to point out that the causative factor leading to the worker's condition may have been an allergy or predisposition to secondary similar effects of mechanical irritation of the skin to that described by S. von Szentkiralyi the article cited as Exhibit No. 22 Scrupulously to be avoided in attempting to reach any scientific conclusion is the after the fact therefore on account of it fallacy hoc emo propter hoc which is common in effect a posteriori reasoning To a large extent the science of medicine -- certainly the science of the . . ~ ---. . - ~~ . Fiberglas Health Hazard Investigation 37 diagnostician and of the pathologist - depends upon the accuracy with which causes may be isolated and assigned the responsibility of producing observed effuencdtesrlying recognizing The medical may go astray by treating symptoms without fundamental causes Conversely inexperience may lead the medical man and the layman to overstress the importance or seriousness of superficial symptoms and to assign as a cause of those a condition or circumstance that may be present only as a symptoms coincidence The generaligations these generalizations being adcepted as valid by the profession to the degree that they are reached through inductive reasoning from accumulated masses of clinical and case histories subject always to revision and biological studies in the light of research On this basis tha medical man carries on his practice observing symptoms making diagnoses prescribing treatment watching response of the patient to that treatment In so doing he uses deductive reasoning and his collegaues estimate of his skill depends upon the success with which he can produce a desired improvement in the condition of the patient by supplying a cause sufficient to bring about that effect The foregoing dissertation on the way in which a medical man relies upon the logic of cause and effect relationships both through inductive and deductive reasoning is included in this investigation to point out that sufficient clinical histories and biological investigations must be accumulated to warrant a generalization and that a hunch or hypothesis must be substantiated by authoritative case histories and biological investigations before it can be accepted by the medical profession as a sound generalization Exhibit On page 13 of the reprint attached as No. 8 Dr. Gardner writing in the Journal of the American Medical Association expresses on. 38 Fiberglas Health Hazard Investigation this words same thought in these An apparently comprehensive evidence of a single autopsy occupational history and the histologic does not warrant the inference specimen silica has caused the fibrosis that a mineral other than free of this point has been throretical The author offers So far the discussion of whether glass wool zay the evidence of his own research on the question be incriminated as a factor causing dermatitis Dr. H. A. Campbell removed two biopsy At the request of the author specimens of skin Corning Fiberglas from the arm of a Corporation plant newly employed in Newark The worker worker in the Owensfrom whom the taken had a moderate degree of a skin irritation biopsy specimens were case of significant skin irritation were taken from the only These specimens two hundred which the author observed in his inspection of approximately employees during his in question had been visit to handling the Newark both plain plant on June 3 and bonded glass 1941. The employe wool for four days of this tissue show a mild degree of Serial microscopic sections dilatation in the coriuomf the skin capillary around several of the few scattered lymphocytes In addition there are a The dilated capillaries epidermis is entirely normal No glass particles are found There is to bacterial infection allergy or hyperkeratosis evidence of fibrosis small amount of a brownish pigment Several of the serial sections show a shows in the corium which reaction around it It is no inflammatory The fact that there is no foreigh assumed that this pigment is bakelite body reaction around and that it does not this indicates produce either that this a foreign material is an inert substan body reaction or a fibrosis reaction in the corium of the skin The extremely mild inflammatory Fiberglas Health Hazard Investigation ae Final Diagnosis of Biopsy Study 39 Mild mechanical irritation of skin which cannot be regarded as a progressive irritation sections The are available for study in the author's pathological labora- tory in DePaul Hospital St. Louis and a colored photomicrograph of a representative section will be furnished later as an Exhibit to supplement this investigation So far as the author is aware this is the first biopsy study of the skin lesion encountered by workers inexperienced in the handling of glass wool The author attached as EXHIBIT NO 36 copy of a letter dated June 5 1940 written to C. G. Staelin of Corning Fiberglas Corporation by Adolph B. Loveman M. D. Louisville dermatologist The author regards as significant the following excerpts from Dr. Loveman's letter .... I patch tested ten individuals including the eight employees at the Louisville Textile Incorporated to the following materials staple continuous fiber coating glass fiber lint glass fiber thread and the finished fiberglas fabric All of these tests were negative The fact the above patch tests were negative proves conculsively that none of the materials were a source of primary chemical irrita- tion It also makes me feel that the possibility of some chemical allergy is a rather remote one This is especially unlikely in view of the fact that two or three employes tested were among those wh complained of itching when they handled the material In my opinion the mild itching was due to a mechanical irritation from the fine glass particles It is nevertheless possible to have a mild cherical allergy which is only made manifest following prolonged mechanical irritatio..n .. 11Tn and^,rtn make this report complete I wish to state that I dic * toe . - _ . _ _. . Fiberglas Health Hazard Investigation 40 * not find any evidence of a definite contact dermatitis in any of the employes although some complained of a mild itching when handling the product1 The dermatitis produced was unquestionably of a very mild and transient nature - I did examine one patient who complained a great deal of a skin eruption and who felt certain that it was due to Fiberglas He presented however a toxic eruption and upon questioning him I learned it had been present at times prior to working with Fiberglas Nevertheless we removed him from this work for a period of two or three weeks after which time I again examined him and he presented the same type of eruption In this partidular ease it is my opinion that his teeth were probably the foci of infection The patient described in the last paragraph cited above presented a case that may very well parallel that of the worker described in the minnes of the Board as reported in The Asbestos Worker attached as Exhibit No. 35 The author deems it desirable to point out that laymen are sometimes proze to jump to conclusions on the basis of insufficient evidence and that this human tendenc mayy well have made it seem reasonable to members of the Board to record for the benefit of the Union's membership the case about which the Board received testimony To provide a scientific approach to this case however and to the whole question of whether handling glass wool products is attended by a dermatitis hazard the author has devoted this section of his investigation to setting forth medical findings that warrant the following generalization Contact with glass wool may cause ephemeral discomfort among workers inexperienced in handling the material The skin irritation however cannot be regarded as a progressive dermatitis for it is toxic and usually disappears in a few days In extremely rare instances where a worker may be predisposed to secondary effects of ~ 41 Fiberglas Health Hazard Investigation ,, mechanical skin irritation because of idiosyncrasy allergy or the of foci of infection elsewhere in his body and otherwise presence disassociated from the effects of mechanical irritation lesions may persist but these cases are encountered with such rarity that they do not justify incriminating glass fiber as a causative factor It should be noted in this connection that in the case described by Dr. Loveman in the last paragraph quoted above it was the patient who suggested incriminating Fiberglas as a cause for his condition In lack of familiarity with scientific other words because of the patient's logic he was ready to rush to a conclusion after the fact on account of it -- the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy therefore Dr. Lovemar however set this time relationship straight with the patient's admission that he had suffered a toxic eruption prior to working with Fiberglas The author reports as additional evidence his own examination on June 3 of the wrists arms ankles neck eyes shoulders and waists of 1941 two hundred production employees engaged in handling glass approximately in the Newark Ohio plant of Corning Fiberglas Corporawool products tion These workers were employed on production lines and at fabricating cutting sawing shaping transporting and packaging glass operations white wool and bonded wool of various densities wool both plain eye The author did not see a single case of irritation or conjunctivitis during this inspection Only the worker who had begun his employment in the factory four days before on a referred to fabricating job -- the worker from whom the biopsy above were taken - showed evidence of significant specimens skin irritation The author was given free opportunity by Dr. Campbell the Flant Physician who accompanied him on an unannounced tour of __putan at random any worker with whom the all departments author chose to of the talk factory ? 42 Health Hazard Investigation Fiberglas the author with these workers A Private conversations conversations were had by . the author following his plant visit typical examination reconstructed reconstructed by was as follows THE AUTHOR How long have been working here you THE WORKER About six months fibers ever get in your eyes THE THETHE AUTHOR Do any glass If they do I blink THE WORKER Haven't noticed any them out THE AUTHOR I'm a doctor Mind if I have a look at your eyes THE WORKER No go ahead The author then palpated the worker's eyes rolling back the eyelids to reveal any symp- toms or other evidence of irritation or inflammation) THE AUTHOR How about your hands THE HORKER Here they are The author then examined the worker's or other evidence of skin for symptoms hands irritation THE AUTHOR Let's roll back your sleeves The worker then rolled back his sleeves above the elbow and the author examined his wrists and other evidence of skin Lower arms for symptoms or irritation THE AUTHOR How about your waist The worker then trousers pulled loosened his belt opened out his shirt opened his his under- and the author examined his waist for symptoms wear Fiberglas 44 Health Hazard Investigation " THE WORKER THE AUTHOR THE MORKER Nope Loose clothing is the thing difference in hot weather Do you notice any Well I've only been here since December but most of the boys strip to the waist in the summer TILE AUTHOR Do you ever wear a respirator THETHE WORKER Nope in the factory wear a respirator THE AUTHOR Does anybody THE WORKER Sure the boys in the batch house do THE THE AUTHOR WORKER Why Well you're the doctor but the batch they don't want to when they're mixing breathe any sand even though they've got a good set over there it desirable to call attention at The author considers batch house operation and mention of description of the used therein in EXHIBIT HO 37 collecting system this point to the the Pangborn central which is a reprint at Corning Plant in Glass Industry of Precise Product Control house observed no special collecting August 1939. The author other than in the batch his tour of the Newark factory equipment ) during TIL AUTHOR Why not THE WORKER They might get silicosis afraid of getting silicosis from THETHE AUTHOR Aren't you wool dust that might be in the air glass This is glass Those fellows in THE WORKER Not a chance the batch house are dealing with sand -- silica they call it THE AUTHOR What's the difference THE WORKER Flenty There's just about as much difference Fiberglas Health Hazard Investigation 45 chlorine and table salt THE AUTHOR How do you know that THE WORKER Learned it in high school chemistry And remember Doc Newark's a glass town If there was any danger of getting silicosis from this glass wool dust we'd be wearing respirators There's no use taking chances THE AUTHOR Do these glass fibers ever get in your nose or throat THE YORKER Not so I notice it THE AUTHOR Ever have colds or sore throat THE WORKER : No more than anybody else THETHE AUTIIOR Have you had a cold in the six months since you have been working here THE WORKER Had one about Easter time Most generally do get one in the spring THE AUTHOR How do you account for the fact that new workers seem to have trouble at the start of the job and then as you say the itch disappears after a few days THE WORKER Ever get blisters on your hands when you mow your your lawn first time in the spring Ever have your feet get too big for your shoes when you go on a hike and aren't used to walking a lot You just got to get hardened to it just the way a bricklayer has to get his hands toughened up to handling bricks THE AUTHOR Have you got any callouses on your hands .. . Fiberglas Health Hazard Investigation THE WORKER No that's just a way of putting it You have to get used to any job Ky girl is 46 always talking about dishwater hands She reads the soap ads THE AUTHOR Do you really get used to it once and for all or does it still trouble you now and then THETHE WORKER No Doc I'm honest about that It really don't bother me none All you have to do is get over that little hump at the start and take a good bath every day when you get through work THE AUTHOR Bath THE WORKER Sure Bath or shower Shower's better Get all soaped up and if you have picked up any slugs they wash right off THE AUTHOR What are slugs THE WORKER Oh now and then there may be a few fibers get beneath your collar or on your wrist But it's not as bad as it used to be THE AUTHOR Why not THE WORKER The Quality Control boys watch it pretty close and they're getting better wool than they used to THE AUTHOR Have you noticed any difference in quality in six months THE WORKER Not in six months but there's a lot of fellows who've been around here for six or seven years and they tell me this stuff isn't near so itchy now as it was when they started THE AUTHOR Maybe they're just used to it s- Fiberglas Health Hazard Investigation THE WORKER Could be but it don't bother me none 47 # # The author heard it don't bother me none repeatedly in conversa- tions with the employees Only the new employee from whom the biopsy specimens were taken His attitude was not revealed symptoms one of complaint of significant skin irritation rather it was one of expecta- that tion that the irritation would soon disappear and he would get used to handling the glass wool just as his fellow workers had become accustomed to the materia When the author called Dr. Campbell's attention to that the worker go to the the skin irritation Dr. Campbell suggested and obtain some calamine solution with office of the Plant Physician cent one per phenol to apply as an emollient The worker readily accepted the suggestion and agreed to do so Dr. Campbell explained to the author that he found this treatment effective in relieving the skin irritation for sometimes experienced by workers a few days after starting on the job who told the author he had worked in the One year employee factory for to handling two and half years said that although he became accustomed glass and suffered no discomfort while continuously on the job he had noticed a mild skin irritation for a few days upon returning to the job following his week vacation As long as I'm working right along he told the author I stay toughened up to it But if I haven't been handling it for a while like then it takes a few days to get over the itch when I'm on my vacation when I start in again carried out by production employees Typical of the operations handling glass wool products graphs in the manual labeled are the EXHIBIT scenes pictured in the three photoNO 38. These photographs selected rad > Health * Fiberglas Hazard Investigation >. 48 at random by the author from files made available to him in the Corporation's General Offices in Toledo are as follows No. 1 - Worker measuring thickness of Fiberglas No. 2 insulating wool on production conveyor Workers adjusting Fiberglas insulating wool to form sewn blankets on Norwood Stitcher No. 3 - Worker sawing refrigerator bat of Fiberglas PF bonded wool These scenes are typical of those observed by the author during his plant inspection In addition half tones of other scenes are printed in Fiberglas Standards to be found in Exhibit No. 27 11. Examination of the records in the office of the Plant Physician in Newark reveals that there is no unusual incidence of respiratory infections among Corning Fiberglas Corporation employees and statements furnished directly to the author by Newark physicians whose practices are limited to eye ear nose and throat disease and in no way affiliated or associated with the Corporation indicate that these specialists notice no unusual incidence of respiratory disturbances among private patients employed at Corning Fiberglas Corporation as compared with their private patients who are not employees of the Corporation Attached as EXHIBIT NO 39 are copies of memoranda dated May 23 1942 and June 28 1941 that tabulate data concerning upper respiratory sinus and lower respiratory disorders eye irritations and influenza covering experience among the Corporation's Newark employees from February 8 1939 to April 1 1941. Correlation of these figures with the employment statistics tabulated in Exhibit No. 1 show for example that from February 8 1939 to December 31 1939 four lost time tonsillitis cases were recorded among a total employed crown ranging from 614 in February to 966 in December of that year. Fiberglas Health Hazard Investigation 49 The figures in Exhibit No. 39 are compiled from disability and sickness claims made by employees under their Aetna group insurance Because the Aetna claim records are the source of these statistics it should be noted that they may be regarded as complete since all employees are covered by the Actna group insurance and each employee who loses time because of illness has a monetary incentive to report his illness so that he may receive the benefits of his insurance coverage under the terms of the Aetna contract Incidence of lost time cases of tonsillitis sinusitis pneumonia tuber- culosis eye irritation and influenza may readily be seen in the following table which correlates information given in greater detail in Exhibit No. 1 and Exhibit No. 39 Incidence of Representative Upper and Lower Respiratory Infections and Eye Irritations Among Newark Employees of Corning Fiberglas Corporation r Length of Size Range of Exposure of Employed Group NUMBER OF LOST THE CASES Tonsillitis Sinusitis Pneumonia Tuber- culosis Eye Irrita tions luluen February December 3 11 months 614 to 966 4 0 2 0 1 13 January December ) 12 months 979 to 1403 7 5 4 1 2 78 January March 1 | 3 months 1525 to 1723 -- 5 2 0) 0 43 * Based on claim records of Aetna Life Insurance Company The author made inquiry of the Ohio Department of Health in Columbus to determine whether data the incidence of upper and lower respiratory infections among the general population of the State of Ohio are available for comparison He received in response to his inquiry a copy of the brochure entitled Vital Statistics for 1940 published by the Ohio Department of Health which is attached as EXHIBIT NO 40. It is impossible however to correlate these statistice See EXHIBIT NO 41 with the lost time disability records of Corning Fiberglas employees in Newark because the two sets s 50 Fiberglas Health Hazard Investigation being of date not comparable the vital statistics set forth only in mortality tables available Benause these data are not the author has sought statements in Newark who are specialists in from physicians in private practice diseases of the eye ear nose and throat Attached as EXHIBIT NO 42 is a letter of June 17 1941 to the author from C. G. Faue M. D. of Newark who writes as follows It has come to my attention that you are interested in the incidence of eye ear nose and throat infections among Glass Workers Workers Since taking over an established practice in these specialities in 1937 I have infectionsnot these been impressed by a higher incidence of the workers of the various Glass Factorie among here than among the rest of the population EXHIBIT HO 43 is a letter dated June 17 1941 written to the author by John E. Hendricks H. D. of Newark Dr. Hendricks writes as follows I am one of five E. H. T. ear nose and throat specialists located in this city I have practiced my specialty in Newark for three years following a four year residency in an Eastern hospital During these three years I have Owens Corning employees I can safely say treated my share of that I have noticed of head or throat infections among these no unusual preponderance people as compared to my other patients who If I ever make a table showing percentages are not employed there of different diseases that I have treated I feel sure that there would be a normal pro- of Owens Corning employees in each classification portion I would be willing to make a sworn statement of the above statements Another letter is directed to the author by Clark B. Hatch H. D. Dated - . oar Ilazard 51 Fiberglas Health Investigation At the request of Dr. Harold Campbell I am writing you regarding the incident sic of diseases of the nose and throat inflamatory or infectious among my patients who are of the Corning Fiberglas Corporation employees section of all parts of Newark Ky practice covers a cross and I have never felt that from an occupational standpoint with respiratory infections there was any larger percentage of the above mentioned corporation than among the employees from any other walk of life In fact until Dr. Campbell asked me for I had never given any thought to my opinion the matter as I naturally would have had there been more of these cases among those employed at the Corning factory The the author chests examined several bundred stereoscopic of employees These were selected at ray plates of random by the author from the files of some instituted a policy in fifteen 1939 of hundred plates taken since the raying all Newark employees company These plates kept in the office of the Plant Physician chest ray plates of the The author selected for special inspection following three groups with records of tuberculosis Attached as a Employees in nine pages is a statement furnished the author EXHIBIT NO 45 by Dr. 11. A. of chest rays and employment Campbell setting forth diagnoses histories of workers having tuberculosis The eight employees listed are as follows James Fleming John Lusetti Murray B. Orr Richard Wolford Herbert Hilemon Paul Karriott Glen Lightle Lawrence Hannigan 52 Fiberglas Health Hazard Investigation Diagnoses of the plates for Fleming and Lusetti as made by the 1 of Exhibit No. 45. Copies Saranac Laboratory are recorded on page made at Licking County Ohio Tuberculosis of Diagnostic Chest Charts Sanatorium of Orr Marriott Lightle Wolford Mileman and Hannigan of the Exhibit With one possible ex- are on pages 3 to 9 inclusive all cases of the author was convinced these records encompass ception of Corning Fiberglas Corporation tuberculosis among Newark employees since the manufacture of glass wool began or of Illinois Glass Company in Newark of one Virginia Lee Vandenbark The one possible exception is the case at the Newark plant from March who was employed in the Chemistry Laboratory to the record on file in the office 2 1935 until May 31 1935. According work during that period consisted chiefly of of the Plant Physician her wool weighing out twenty milligrams of the taking a small sample of glass taking the slug count fiber length and fiber diameter sample and then of the wool The records shows that Miss Vandenbark was absent from work on March 22 because of a throat ailment 23 24 25 and 26 1935 officials that she had contracted contended to company Subsequently she a pulmonary disorder because of her occupation The claim was not pressed however and the be construed as the result of any author finds that such a disorder cannot occupational hazard encountered in the course of her work in of the brevity of the period of exposure Laboratory because the Chemistry even assuming that such a hazard did exist these employees the author has b Batch house employes Concerning directed to him by Louis A. Mitchell attached as EXHIBIT NO 46 a letter is limited to roentgenology Dr. K. D. of Newark Ohio whose practice va white statement is as follows 53 Fiberglas Health Hazard Investigation . Beginning on May 19 1937 I have made serial stereoscopic chest films of the following men who have been employed in the batch house of the Corning Fiberglas Corporation plant in this city John Clectner Eugene Harris Clyde Buckingham Joseph A. Billman Lawrence A. Billman Harold Kyers Dana Woolard John Kaharg John Weisent Arthur C. Pierpont Jacob Pugh Kenneth Walters Carl Street A repeat examination on all of these men has been made during the past two weeks In no case has there been any radiographic evidence of silicosis or any active pulmonary disease In a letter to the author dated June 28 1941 See EXHIBIT NO 47 which supplements his letter of June 17 1941 already cited as Exhibit Mo. 41 Dr. Mitchell corrects the spelling of the name Hrold yers to Harold Never and points out that the list of thirteen batch house employees given in his June 17 letter should be revised ) to substitute the name of Lawrence A. right for Lawrence A. Billman and b to add the names of Alton Shannon and Charles Vinning Dr. Mitchell reports for these two additional batch house employees no radiographic evidence of pulmonary disease These reports of Dr. Mitchell cover the fifteen men listed in the tabulation of names and date of employment of batch house employees furnished to the author by Dr. 11. A. Campbell as supplemented by his letter to the author dated June 28 1941 This tabulation and Dr. Campbell's supplementary letter attached as EXHIBIT NO 48 include all of the men who are now working or who have worked in the batch house at the Newark plant of Corning Fiberglas Corporation Fiberglas Health Hazard Investigation 54 c Employees with records de silicosis Attached as EXHIBIT NO 49 is a tabulation furnished to the author by Dr. H. A. Campbell setting forth names and employment histories of three workers having silicosis The author regards as significant Dr. Campbell's statement These are the three cases of silicosis that we have found llone of these men have been employed in the batch house but they do handle glass wool It is the policy of the company not to refuse employment to any man for whom safe job can be found The author notes the following concerning the occupational history of these workers 1. George Lovell worked at a company other than Illinois or Corning as a molder from 1924 to 1929 and was rayed in 1929 because of the presence of tuberculosis in his family He was rayed in 1936 because of suspicion of silicosiHse began his employment at Corning Fiberglas Corporation or June 6 1940 2. Harry Pfeil was employed as a bottle blower and machine operator from 1901 to 1930. He began his employment at Corning Fiberglas Corporation on March 26 1941. Silicosis was diagnosed follow- ing an ray taken Kay 12 1941 3. Robert Watson worked for twelve years as a molder before begiming employment with Corning Fiberglas Corporation on October 25 1939. Cilicosis was diagnosed following ray on November 1 1940 The author finds that in each of these silicosis cases there is a sufficient causative factor in the employment history or other circumstanc set in the Exhibit and that the evidence is insufficient to indicat forth that the condition of any of them should be attributed to any silicosis hazard encountered in handling glass wool even assuming such a hazari 7 55 Fiberglas Health Hazard Investigation Dr. Campbell called to the counts that have been made in author's attention records of dust various parts of the Newark plant and that further counts were deemed unnecessary the author was informed of significant concentrations that because the surveys showed absence might On be considered harmful the basis of evidence to health set forth in this section the author finds are subjected to no special that workers handling glass wool products occupational hazards that manifest themselves in eye or diseases of throat disorders pulmonary disorders ear nose or the upper or lower respiratory system 12. The author has made fact that he observed no reference earlier in this investigation to the collecting equipment in the Newark special other than the Pangborn factory of Corning Fiberglas Corporation He considers it signifi- in the batch house central collecting system because it is his finding that glass wool is remark- cant that this is so ably free of dusting characteristics of the fibers and the pack strength He finds that because of the of glass wool products there length is negligible dusting of the than fibers break rather material shatter during handling and along clean edges at that the glass points where they sawing chopping or cutting during production line or are abraded by . fabricating operations worl that dusting during handling of glass In support of this finding NO the author attaches as EXHIBIT 50 photostatic products is negligible by the Corporation made to Corning Fiberglas report copies of two reports first in Station of Purdue University The Engineering Experiment Fiberglas established the fact that this Exhibit dated October 4 1937 down The second report blanket insulation does not settle sig or pack the following statement under Test.No.1 contains 1-1-1 1-1-1 Novomh^,r15. 1937  56 Fiberglas Health Hazard Investigation dust which Also there was no or small particles of the material had sifted through the muslin A similar statement is given under Test No. 2. Both tests are accompan- description ied by pictures of the testing equipment and a of the test pro- cedures The author attaches as EXHIBIT NO 51 a copy of Performance Vol II No. 1 published by the National Mineral Wool Association as part of it Centennial Celebration for mineral wool On the back page of this four- page publication is a facsimile reproduction of p 73 of the April 1887 issue of The Scientific American Architects and Builders Edition In this facsimile there is the following statement defining mineral wool This substance is in fact nothing more nor less than a species of glass drawn out by a peculiar process in the form of fine threads which are curled up into innumerable convolutions and hence the name Mineral Nool The author regards this as early evidence of recognition of the fact that rock wool slag wool and glass wool are substantially identical products ginning at He finds this the bottom of statement further the second column confirmed in the and extending to paragraph be- the top of the third column as follows Mineral wool is made by converting vitreous or scoriaceous sub- state stances into a fibrous The slag of blast furnaces affords a large supply of material suitable for this purpose The product thus obtained is known as slag wool For the reason that slags are which seldom free from compounds of sulphur are objectionable in the fiber and in order to be independent of the action of furnaces products dt aen Suan which we make rock wool These two 57 Fiberglas Health Hazard Investigation | comprise the two kinds of mineral wool They are not to be distinguished from it but from each other the foregoing paragraph is not completely Under present conditions accurate inasmuch as rock wool may be made from quarried suitable for conversion into mineral natural composition rocks wool having and it a does of a true glass wool It does however , not recognize the introduction content the presence of which in many recognize the objection to sulphur wool tends to make them corrosive to metals grades of rock and slag aluminum The author is convinced from his study of formulas particularly of which Fiberglas products are made that used in compounding the batch out free of sulphur and may properly be classiFiberglas insulating products are fied as a refined form of mineral wool next to the last paragraph of the article The author notes that in the between the weights and volumes of a cubic foot cited there is a comparison value of ordinary mineral wool of slag and the equivalent These same into terms of Fiberglas show that one cubic foot of translated will make 100 cubic feet of solid glass weighing approximately 150 pounds has an apparent natural density of one Fiberglas wool because the latter and half pounds per cubic foot For that reason Fiberglas insulating cent fibers and 99 per cent entrapped wool at its natural density has one per to what the article in The Scientific air which is considerably superior American calls the extra grade of mineral wool of the The author calls attention also to the early recognition in the handling of rock wohl and mechanical skin irritation experienced years ago In the first column under the subject As to more than fifty the following statement Rats Nice Insects and Disease Germs appears 58 the Fiberglas Health Hazard Investigation On the other hand fine fibers of glass are irritating to burrow in them to anything which attempts the closing paragraph of the article This thought is reiterateidn where it is classified as an important advantage the fact that this issue of The author regards as significant commemorated the one hundredth anniversary of the first Performance of mineral wool for it records a statement commercial production old indicating that the material is substantially fifty years identical nition of chemically with what is known as the mechanical irritation caused Fiberglas It is also by fiber particles of recog- mineral wools which category Fiberglas insulating Since mineral wool -- in products creating evidence classified -- has been used are properly known industrial disease the author any the statement that glass wool supporting for many years without regards this as further is unlikely to introduce serious occupational hazard any observations the author wishes to point In view of the foregoing out and what he without cause of regards as a psychological real foundation account for concern alram among that may occasionally workmen not familiar is surrounded by connotations with glass wool products The word class sometimes shatterable transparent material Sometimes that suggest a hard stereotyped Fiberglas is glass in new physical these connotations become in relation to length gives to glass new form and its fiber diameter Just as iron or steel may be elongated and transformed physical properties so glass drawn a hard unbendable solid into a flexible substance from in weight and unrecognizable as into fine fibers becomes resilient light familiar associations long for whom the word connotes only to class persons Glass wool productsproducts are still of such comparativelycompartivelycomparatively recent origoriginin Ly whlin hearing them described as 59 Fiberglas Health Hazard Investigatio-n fail to realize that fibrous glass or Fiberglas classified as a new refined form of mineral wool and the physical properties long associated with objects they lack like may be many of bottles lamp bulbs lenses and ground glass window panes see - *** Recapitulation and Conclusions In submitting pretation of the based on his professional inter- his best judgment assembled and set forth herein facts conscientiously the author finds as follows fabrication and application The conclusion that the manufacture or attended by no unusual of Fiberglas products is accompanied justified by the evidence being derived from tional hazard is occupathe which is supported by the Exhibits following chain of reasoning the text of this investigation enumerated throughout Duration of Exposure Exposure Warrants Generalizations covering an employed of nine years duration 1. Factory experience from twenty in 1932 to in Newark Uhib that has increased group sufficient to warrant generalizations 1,826 in 1941 gives exposure on the subject Claims Ever Validated ValidatVe alidd ated No Morlamen's Compensation based on an occupational 2. No claim for Ohio workmen's compensation has ever been validated or compensa- hazard attributable to Fiberglas tion awarded Research Indicates No Gardner's 3. Research investigations Silicosis Fibrosis or Dust Hazard U. Cardner Director of by Dr. Leroy the Saranes 60 Fiberglas Health Hazard Investigation Laboratory for the Study of Tuberculosis and member of the Council on Industrial Health of the American Medical Association indicate dust hazard from working in absence of any silicosis fibrosis or | glass wool Binders 4. and Lubricants Cannot Be Incriminated Binders and lubricants used in processing glass wool products cannot be incriminated as the causative factor of any occupational hazard Compensation Rates Are Lower Than in Comparable Industries rates for employees of Corning Fiberglas 5. Ohio workers compensation Corporation are lower than for workers in comparable industries Actna Exmerience Indicates No Unusual llazard Life Insurance Company as insurance underwriter for 6. Experience of Aetna group coverage on life disability sickness and hospitalization on all of Corning Fiberglas Corporation and experience Newark employees underwriter on products liability coverage of Aetna Casualty Company as indicate no hazard different for Corning Fiberglas Corporation from any normal manufacturing operation Jedical 7. Provides No Evidence of Unusual Hazard Literature A search of world medical literature since 1927 fails unusual occupational hazard in the handling of to any to reveal references glass wool Market Activity Would Have Spotli Any Unusual Hazards market for glass wool products since 5. In view of the continually expanding 1932 and in view of promotion and advertising campaigns carried out to the paucity of references to the increase the sale of these products in the literature of medicine and subject in or interest the subject among troversy science persons and the usually lack of conalert to possible industrial aaa! hazards cannot be attributed to ignorance concerning | --- Bihorelas Cornoration in developing markets Fiberglas Health Hazard Investigation Corporation as compared with their private employed by the Corporation -- these facts that there is no unusual incidence of eye 62 patients who are not warrant the conclusion ear nose or throat disorders of pulmonary disorders or of diseases of the upper or workers handling glass wool products lower respiratory system among such workers are subjected to no special or unusual and that therefore hazards that manifest themselves in such disorders or occupational diseases Is a Refined Form of Mineral Wools Long in Use Glass Wool Resists Dusting 12. wool is resistant to dusting under vibration Because glass as revealed by tests made in 1937 at Purdue University it and may shaking be rogarded and because glass wool may be classified as a remarkably free material wool and therefore regarded as similar to older tyres as a refined mineral wools that have been used in the insila- of mineral wools like rock and slag ting trades for more than fifty years glass wool may not be regarded as having any special or unusual hazards not encountered in the handling of these older types of mineral wool Fathology Laboratory De Paul Hospital 2415 North Kingshighway St. Louis Missouri June 28 1941 Walter J. Siebert M. D. 63 Fiberglas Health Hazard Investigation ae Appendix Supplementary avenues of approach to the subject have suggested themselves to the author that may lead to evidence shedding further light on the conclusions drawn For example in spite of the efforts that the author has made to exhaust completely references in the literature and other sources of information he is making further attempts through the Missouri Department of Health and the United States Public Health Service to reveal additional information that may not have come to his attention He would welcome from any source any information that pertains to the subject Research is now in progress in the author's pathology laboratory at DePaul Hospital St. Louis as follows 1. To determine the exact effects of glass wool on the mucous membrances skin and other body tissues in controlled experiments on human beings The author is employing in these experiments samples of Fiberglas products selected by him at random d^,,ringhis visit to the Newark plant on June 3 1941 as listed on the Corning Fiberglas Corporation sample request which as attached as EXHIBIT HO 52. 2. To make comparative comparative studies of the dusting properties of Fiberglas and of other materials used in the insulating trades including rock wool slag wool asbestos products 85 magnesia roc cork and wood fiber products In evaluating the resultosf these studies he will consult such published bulletins on these other materials as are available including a A. J. Lanza William J. McConnell and J. William Fehnel Effects Lungs of the Inhalation of Asbestos Dust on the of Asbestos Workers United States Public Health Reports 50 No. 1 January 4 1935 Fiberglas Health Hazard Investigation | 7. To report on tissue reactions to Fiberglas products from the 65 stand- point of its use as surgical suture material in nose and ear operations In this connection the author attaches as EXHIBIT NO 55 a letter date~ May 19 1941 from Roy Philip Scholz M. D. in which Dr. Scholz descrites his use of Fiberglas thread as a suture material in nose and ear operations 2. To report on use of glass products in plastic operations The author's interest in carrting out these further studies arises because his investigation of the subject has suggested that these avenues of research may yield scientific data to throw additional light on the subject to defer the rendering of his report of this investigation nor But he is unwilling does he deem it to await the results of these further studies some of which may have necessary to be continued over a period of years before submitting his findings