Document KK5Q5pKbz8qVxN8VzomVG7kx

PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT OWENS CORNING FlBERGLAS CORPORATION X INTRA-COMPANY CORRESPONDENCE Gnfo( Offfc**--Torf#do, Ohio February 9, 1956 Attention of ftem Swbjoct wJohn D. Black - Toledo cc: W. F. Aikman Toledo Saranac Laboratory Dr. Schepera* Letter of Feb* 6, 1956 M. D. Burch - _ C. S. Bishop Newark t FES 101953 OWi.-V i FILBEGEALRL.:;'. ' . This appears to be unsatisfactory. Dr. Schepers* statement "You may have difficulty with published statements, too" does not indicate that he would be of any assistance in avoiding statements which could be misinterpreted. I cannot understand his reasoning when he states that the large proportion of rabbits which died may have been due to intercurrent epizootic but that it will be necessary to repeat the studies to avoid unfavorable conclusion. The entire next to the last paragraph indicates that Dr. Schepers1 reasoning is not logical, If this is indicative of his work, perhaps he should be avoided. X was surprised on his studies No. 30 through 35. He was sent samples of Flakeglas for his opinion and recommendations on necee<#xy studies but we never authorized any studies by him. Since he has made these of his own volition with material furnished by us, we should at least have an informal report when he completes the histological studies. RETAIN This would allow us to compare his findings and his conclusions from "n --1 these findings with the work which we expect to have done by Industrial 1 Ym* Hygiene Foundation. 77TM., WHY FILE THIST^501 1572.3