Document L30KLjdO1Ddeg2gVj3qKywD5

1 1 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 3 .............................................................................................-.....................X IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY Civil Action 4 LITIGATION (NO. VI) No. MDL 87? .....................................................................................................................x 5 This Document Relates To: 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 7 FIFTH DIVISION 8 CONWED CORPORATION, 9 Plaintiff, 10 - against - 11 UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Civil Action No. 5-92-88 12 Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, 13 - against - 14 OWENS - CORNING FIBERGLAS 15 CORPORATION, et al., 16 Third-Party Defendant. .........................................................................................-........................x 17 December 9, 1996 9:25 a.m. 18 19 Deposition of ALLEN ROBERT GIBBS, taken 20 by Plaintiff, at the offices of Kelley Drye & 2 1 Warren LLP, 101 Park Avenue, New York, New York 22 10178, before Evelyne Joseph - Pauline, a Shorthand 23 Reporter and Notary Public within and for the 2 4. ew York. DUPLICATE FILE COPY IANHATTAN SPORTING CORE--13a nasoau-gtrcct- new vork.n.v. tooaa (212) rti-rtxt UCAREF00007193 2 1 2 APPEARANCES: 3 STICH, ANGELL, KREIDLER & MUTH, ESQS. Attorneys for Plaintiff 4 The Crossings, Suite 120 250 Second Avenue South 5 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 6 BY: ROBERT D. BROWNSON, ESQ., of Counsel. 7 - and- 8 RUDNICK & WOLFE, ESQS. 9 203 N. LaSalle Street Chicago, Illinois 60601 10 BY: MICHAEL R. GOLDMAN, ESQ., 11 of Counsel. 12 13 FOLEY & LARDNER, ESQS. Attorneys for Defendant 14 and Third-Party Plaintiff Firstar Center 15 777 East Wisconsin Avenue Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202-5367 16 BY: TREVOR J. WILL, ESQ., 17 of Counsel. 18 - and - 19 KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 101 Park Avenue 20 New York, New York 10178 21 BY: ALAN J. GERSON, ESQ., of Counsel. 22 23 ALSO PRESENT: 24 JULIE STUART 25 MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007194 3 1 2 ALLEN ROBERT GIBBS, 3 business address being Department of Pathology, 4 Llandough Hospital, Penarth, South Glamorgan, 5 United Kingdom, having been first duly sworn by 6 the Notary Public (Evelyne Joseph-Pauline), was 7 examined and testified as follows: 8 EXAMINATION BY MR. BROWNSON: 9 Q. Dr. Gibbs, as I told you, my name is 10 Bob Brownson and I represent the Conwed 11 Corporation to take your deposition and I assume 12 you've had your deposition taken before? 13 A. Yes . 14 Q. You know the ground rules and are 15 familiar with the deposition procedure? 16 A. Yes. 1 7 Q. Two things; first ofall, when you 18 are answering questions, although we have two 19 court reporters today, it's important that you 20 answer audibly and clearly as opposed to a shrug 21 of the shoulder or mumbles because they have 22 difficulty with those sorts of things. 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And don't speak when I'm speaking and 25 I'll do the same so there's only one person MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007195 4 1 Gibbs 2 speaking at a time and we'll try to remain 3 cognizant of that so we don't cause problems with 4 the record. 5 A. Okay. 6 Q. Dr. Gibbs, Alan Gerson has just 7 handed me a copy of your curriculum vitae dated 8 -- I'm not sure it has a date at all, but it 9 appears to be your most recent curriculum vitae, 10 correct ? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Is this current and up to date and 13 correct as far as you know? 14 A. I think there's one paper missing, 15 the last one that came out just a week or two 16 back. 17 Q. What paper is that ? 18 A . It's about SV- 4 0 and mesothelioma. 19 Q. Where was that paper published? 20 A. Thorax. 21 MR. BROWNSON: Why don't we mark t 22 then as Exhibit 1, the copy of the curriculum 23 vitae. 24 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 25 for identification, copy of curriculum vitae.) MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007196 5 1 Gibbs 2 Q. I'll show you what we've now marked 3 as Exhibit No. 1 and ask if that's a copy of the 4 curriculum vitae that you provided to Mr. Gerson 5 this morning? 6 MR. GERSON: For the record, I 7 actually received this version on Friday. 3 MR. BROWNSON: The one we have in 9 front of us? 10 MR. GERSON: Yes. 11 Q. Let me begin by asking you a few 12 questions about items in the curriculum vitae. I 13 note that you are a member of the Royal College 14 of Pathologists? 15 A. Yes . 16 Q. Are you a fellow? 17 A. I am, yes. 18 Q. Can you describe for us the -- pardon 19 for the confusion here - - but describe for us 20 the designations or positions in the Royal 2 1 College of Pathologists; in other words, you can 22 be a fellow, the level of membership? 23 A. You start as a fellow and that is 24 obtained nearly always, but there are exceptions, 25 and an examination in pathology, which is the MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007197 6 1 Gibbs 2 equivalent of the American Board Exams and then 3 when you've been a member for, I think it's 4 either ten or twelve years, then you usually 5 become a fellow. 6 Q. As I understand it then you generally 7 become a member by way of examination? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. After being a member for ten to 10 twelve years you can become a fellow but is there 11 any additional requirement there that you 12 actually have to practice in pathology or do some 1 3 pathology during that time? 14 A. Yes, you would be expected to be in 15 practice doing pathology during that period. 16 Q. Okay. Then you, of course, have 17 been? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. When did you first become a member of 20 the Royal College of Pathologists? 2 1 A. 1978. 22 Q. You became a fellow when? 2 3 A. That would have been either '88 or 24 1990, I can't remember which. 25 Q. Somewhere in thatarea. Have you MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007198 7 1 Gibbs 2 held any positions as an officer in the Royal 3 College? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Are there such positions? 6 A. Yes, there are various positions in 7 the Royal College. a Q. Is that something that you might do 9 someday or are you the type of person that 10 doesn't have the time or what's your feeling on 11 that? 12 A. It's something that I might possibly 13 do but at a later age. It really requires often 14 a scaledown of regular diagnostic commitments and 15 sometimes reduction in research activity. It's 16 something I wouldn't contemplate at the minute. 17 Q. You also indicate you are a member of 18 the NIOSH, N-I-O-S-H, Silicosis Committee in the 19 United States, right? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. When did you become a member of that 22 committee? 23 A. I think that was around 1985 and that 24 lasted about three to four years. We prepared a 25 monograph and silica and silicate lung disease MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007199 8 1 Gibbs 2 and that committee then finished. 3 Q. That was my question. That no longer 4 is an active committee? 5 A. No. 6 Q. You published a paper? 7 A. Yes. Published in the Alcoves of 8 Pathology. 9 Q. So I don't have to waste a lot of 10 time here, you've listed that in your 11 publications? 12 A. Yes, the author was Craighead. 13 Q. That would be about '88 or so? 14 A. Yes, somewhere about '88 or '89. 15 Q. "Craighead, et al.. Diseases 16 Associated with Exposure to Silica and Nonfibrous 17 Silicate Minerals." 18 A. Yes . 19 Q. Do you recall the membership of that 20 committee? 21 A. I remember most people I think, yes. 22 Q. Can you recite as best you recall who 23 the members were? 24 A. John Craighead, Gerald Abraham, 25 Francis Gre en, Jack Ruttner and Rus sell Harley MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007200 9 1 Gibbs 2 and Jerome Klineman. 3 Q. Were all of these members who you've 4 mentioned listed as contributing authors on the 5 papers that were produced for the report? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. You also indicate that you're a 8 member of U.SCanadian Mesothelioma Reference 9 Panel in 1995? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Describe for us what you'vedone in 12 connection with that membership? 13 A. Cases arecirculated amongst the 14 membership of that panel and then gives opinion 15 on those cases and sends - - we send them back to 16 Dr. Churg in Vancouver who then correlates the 17 opinions and I think communicates with the 18 referring pathologist, so basically I receive 19 slides on different cases and send my opinion 20 back on what I think the lesion is not knowing 21 what the others think and then those opinions are 22 then correlated together and the cases reviewed 23 later. 24 Q. How long have you been a member of 25 the panel? It's now late '96, has it been for MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007201 10 1 Gibbs 2 approximately two years? Do you remember when 3 you began this? 4 A. I think it was early '95. 5 Q. So it's been nearly two years? 6 A. Yes . 7 Q. Are you required to review a certain 8 number of cases or do you just review them as 9 they come or how does that work? 10 A. I review them when it comes and 11 Dr. Churg coordinates it. 12 Q. Do you know what the current 13 membership of the panel -- first of all, is the 14 current membership of panel all pathologists? 15 A. I think so. 16 Q. Are there others in Great Britain 17 other than yourself? 18 A. NO . 19 Q. Do you know what the current 20 membership is? 21 A. It's about eight or nine people. 22 Q. 23 those? Is Dr. McCayo (phonetic) one of 24 A. No, he retired from the panel and few 25 years back, I think. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007202 11 1 Gibbs 2 Q. Do you know, is Dr. Klineman a part 3 of the panel? 4 A. No. 5 MR. GERSON: "No," you don't know or 6 "no," he is not? 7 THE WITNBSS: I don't think he is. 8 Q. About how many cases have you 9 reviewed as a member of this panel over the past 10 two years? 11 A. I guess -- I suppose probably about 12 50, 60. I couldn't remember precisely, but 13 somewhere around 50 or 60, I think. 14 Q. Do you know what -- first of all, is 15 it Dr. Churg who determines what cases will be 16 reviewed? 17 A. I think anything that is sent into 18 the panel for an opinion is reviewed. 19 Q. Dr. Churg doesn't do some screening 20 when it comes around then does a review, does he, 21 maybe for an initial determination or screening 22 to determine whether this is a case to be 23 reviewed? 24 A. I can't say for certain. 25 Q. But the cases come from him? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UGAREF00007203 12 1 Gibbs 2 A. Yes . 3 Q. Of the 50 or 60 cases that you have 4 seen, in those instances is it a situation where 5 all of the members of the panel review the cases 6 or are they just sent to certain members ? 7 A. I think all the members of the panel 8 participate in the examination of the slides. 9 Now whether every member examines every case I'm 10 not sure because I know there are certain -- I 11 don't always receive sequential numbers, so there 12 may be gaps between some numbers, so whether they 13 are sent out to two-thirds of the panel and 14 two-thirds of another, I don't know. 15 Q. As far as you know, is there any 16 differentiation in this panel in terms of area of 17 expertise or interests; in other words, certain 18 people see certain kinds of cases? 19 A. No, it's predominantly -- it's 20 mesothelial diagnosing problems so the panel has 2 1 interest and experience in doing mesothelial 22 diagnosis. 23 Q. As part of your duties on this panel 24 do you ever -- well, when you review slides do 25 you issue a report or simply fill out a report or MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007204 13 1 Gibbs 2 call in or what do you do? 3 A. I basically write a short report on 4 what I think it is. 5 Q. Then these are sent to Dr.Churg? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. In yourexperience onthese 50 or 60 8 cases you've seen have your reports dealt with 9 the diagnostic issues? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. In any of those cases have you sent 12 tissue on to Dr. Pooley to do a fiber burden 13 analysis? 14 A. No, the panel is concerned with 15 diagnostic issues. 16 Q. So no ideological determination made? 17 A. Not as far as I'm aware. 18 Q. Do you get actual tissue or slides 19 sent to you? How does that come to you? 20 A. Are you talking about the panel? 2 1 Q. Yes, the panel. 22 A. Slides. 23 Q. Who prepares the slide, a pathologist 24 or Dr. Churg? 25 A. Prepared in Dr. Churg'slaboratory. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007205 14 1 Gibbs 2 (A recess was taken.) 3 Q. Just so I'm clear how this works. 4 Dr. Churg gets tissue, cuts slides and circulates 5 these slides? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Unstained slides, I take it? 8 A. Couple of stained slides and a couple 9 of unstained slides. 10 Q. And in terms of the tissue that 11 slides are cut from, is that then maintained by 12 Dr. Churg or back to a referring pathologist or 13 what happens to that? 14 A. I don't know. 15 Q. Let me ask you this: As a member of 16 the panel on which you currently are, if you 17 wanted to do some studies or research would you 18 have access to the tissue repository or tissue 19 bank? 20 A. I think so. If I spoke to Dr. Churg 21 I would think there was some arrangement that if 22 I wanted extra slides. 2 3 Q. I take it you haven't done that for 24 research purposes? 25 A. No, because there are three or 4,000 MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007206 15 1 Gibb9 2 mesothelials in my file, a lot of material to 3 look at and only utilize it in some unusual 4 variant that I would be particularly interested 5 in. 6 Q. You also list a membership in the 7 Committee on the Medical Effects of Air 8 Pollutants. I'm not familiar with that, what's 9 that? 10 A. That's a Department of Health 11 committee and it's multi-disciplinary and 12 multi-professional in terms of that. There are 13 epitheliologists, physicians, toxicologists on 14 the committee and it is really to look at various 15 issues in terms of outdoor pollution; 16 predominantly has been concerned with that or air 17 pollution, such things as ozone and fine 18 particles and so forth, and I'm the pathology 19 member of that panel, so they really want advice 20 from a number of different medical disciplines. 2 1 Q. Let me just back up: How was it that 22 you came to be a member of the Canadian-American 23 mesothelial panel, review panel? Is that 24 something you apply for or did someone invite 25 you? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007207 16 1 Gibbs 2 A. Dr. Churg came Co me and asked if I 3 would like to become a member of the panel. I 4 presume that he probably discussed it with some 5 of the sitting members of the panel at the time 6 and there was an agreement that they should 7 invite me. a Q. Are you on for a certain amount of 9 time or indefinite? 10 A. I don't know, Ithink it probably 11 goes on for quite a period of time unless there 12 is a request on either side to terminate it, but 13 I don't think it's a fixed term. 14 Q. Do you get compensated for that or 15 you do it as a service? 16 A. That's a service, no compensation. 17 Q. How about in terms of just laboratory 18 costs and that sort of thing, you just bear that 19 all yourself? 20 A. Yes. 2 1 Q. Withrespect to thismedical 22 committee on the medical effects of air 23 pollutants, since -- you've been a member of that 24 for two years? 25 A. Yes. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007208 17 1 Gibbs 2 Q. Has it ever concerned itself with 3 asbestos? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Going back to the -- I'm jumping 6 ahead a little bit -- but going back to the 7 mesothelial reference board, that's arising out 8 of Minnesota? 9 A. I wouldn't know where they came from. 10 Q. When a case is presented to you do 11 you get any background information as to where it 12 came from? 13 A. No, we're just given a brief clinical 14 history, not told where a case comes from or what 15 issue it concerns, it's purely a diagnostic 16 problem. 17 Q. Let me ask you some questions in 18 terms of your deposition here today. What 19 materials have you reviewed in preparation for 20 the deposition today? 2 1 A. I've read various papers and 22 documents. 23 Q. Can you describe for me what those 24 are? 2 5 A. There's a number of papers concerning MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007209 18 1 Gibbs 2 the mineralogy of the Coalinga asbestos deposit. 3 There's some experimental papers, some leaching 4 studies, there's a paper commenting on two 5 previous papers concerning the Conwed plant. And 6 there are some studies of the -- of mine and 1 factory samples that were done mineralogically. 8 Q. You've been looking through a pile of 9 materials which you brought with you here today. 10 Does that constitute the material you've reviewed 11 for the deposition? 12 A. No, not the total. There's about 13 another, same thickness, of other papers which 14 includes some of the mineralogical things I 15 referred to. 16 Q. Do you have reference to them in your 17 notes or did you bring them with you? 18 A. It's sort of listed in a brief way of 19 headings. 20 Q. Are those your handwritten notes? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Do those notes concern the lists 23 reviewed in this case? 24 A. Two or three papers that it doesn't 25 actually have on these notes. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007210 19 1 Gibbs 2 Q. What I'd like to do is preserve on 3 the reco rd the list of materials you've 4 reviewed . Do you want me to go through and read 5 them or do you want to do that? 6 A. I can go heading by heading if you 7 like. 8 Q. Why don't we do that? 9 A. It's a paper by Bright in 1959. 10 MR. GERSON: Excuse me, do you want 11 the doct or to read from his notes or just the 12 document s initially that he has with him? 13 MR. BROWNSON: I want to be able to 14 identi f y the materials you've reviewed and 15 probably the easiest way is just to have 16 Dr. Gibb s read the names of the papers or 17 material s and we can talk later about what 18 comments you might have in your notes, but at 19 this poi nt I'm just interested in listing the 20 material s. 21 MR. GERSON: Both what's here and 22 what's 1 isted in his notes? 23 MR. BROWNSON: Yes. 24 MR. GERSON: Do you want to 25 distingu ish here what's in his notes? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007211 20 1 Gibbs 2 MR. BROWNSON: I just want to get a - 3 listing. - 4 MR. WILL: Some are just too 5 voluminous. 6 MR. BROWNSON: Just a listing or 7 catalog. 8 A. There's a paper 1959 by Bright and 9 others and the 1959 Exploration Program on the 10 Condor Asbestos Properties. Then in 1965 Mumpton 11 and Thompson Mineralogy of the Coalinga, 12 C-o-a -1 -i-n-g-a, Asbestos Deposit, and in 1967 13 Properties of Union Carbide Chrysotile. 1968 - 14 this is a hard name to pronounce -- Chwastiak, 15 C-h-w-a-s-1-i-a-k, Properties of Colloidal 16 Chrysotile Asbestos from Coalinga. And then 17 there's an undated one by Woolery, W-o-o-1 -e-r-y, 18 and Cohen, I think, I can't quite read my 19 writing. 2 0 Q. Is that the asbestos paper-making 2 1 process paper? 22 A. No, it's just listed New Age 2 3 Chrysotile. 24 Then there's Wales Journal, Condor 25 Asbestos Lab, 1958; 1967, Coleman Serpentine MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007212 21 1 Gibbs 2 Mineral Analyses and Physical Properties; l97lr 3 Bank, et al, U.S. Department of the Interior 4 Bureau of Mines, Health and Safety Technical 5 Report Health Study; Calidria Health Report, King 6 City operation; 1987, Muhler, M-u-h-l-e-r, et al, 7 Injection and Experiment in the Test of 8 Carcinogenicity of MMH; 1996, Miller, et al. 9 Fiber Size Determination of Distribution of 10 Calidria, c-a-l-i-d-r-i-a, Chrysotile; 1992, 11 Rittenghausen, R-i-1-1-e-n-g-h-a-u-s-e-n, et al, 12 A Typical Mesothelial Experimental Toxicology, 13 Volume 44; 1994, Weiss Review of Conwed, 14 C-o-n-w-e-d, Worker Survey and Survey of Worker 15 Spouses; 1995, Wicks, A Review of Powder 16 Extraction Methods Used in Environmental and 1 7 Health Studies; 1995, Wicks X-ray Defraction 18 Studies of Chrysotile Asbestos Samples; undated, 19 Pooley Report of the Examination of Chrysotile 20 Asbestos Samples from the Asbestos Mine and 21 Processing Plant of KCAC, Inc.; 1995, VanBallan, 22 V-a-n-B-a-1 -1-a-n, II, The New Serpentine Thesis, 23 s-e-r-p-e-n-t-i-n-e; Morgan, 1995, Acid Theses of 24 Chrysotile Asbestos in the mines in the Coalinga 25 region of California and from Quebec and British MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP . UCAREF00007213 22 1 Gibbs 2 Columbia. 3 And those are the papers that I've 4 reviewed. I think there's one or two others that 5 are not listed there. 6 Q. Do you recall what those are? 7 A. There was another one on Morgan 8 leaching theories. 9 Q. What Morgan is that? 10 A. Arthur Morgan. It's Morgan and 11 Talbert acid studies of neutron-radiated 12 asbestos. And I think there was one by Yager and 13 others, which was a cytotoxicity study. 14 Q. Tell me a little bit more about 15 that. Was that a published paper? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Where was that published? 18 A. I can't remember. 19 Q. Do you know when it was published? 20 A. Early 1980s, I think. 21 Q. When you say it was a "cytotoxicity 22 study," it was a study of what? 23 A. I think it was taking basically human 24 macrophages and then subjecting them to 25 chrysotile dusts and seeing if the there was MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007214 23 1 Gibbs 2 toxicity to the cells. 3 Q. Was this the paper by Yager and 4 Russo? 5 A. Yes, it's an environmental research, 6 1983 . 7 Q. Have you reviewed any other materials 8 in connection with this case or the deposition 9 today? 10 A. I don't think so specifically. 11 MR. WILL: He did look at two Mellon 12 papers as well. 13 THE WITNESS: Yes, I have those. 14 Q. You have those with you? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Two reports of the Mellon Institute, 17 one in 1966 and one in 1971? 18 A. Yes. 19 And there's also a sort of -- brief 20 sort of report from Chadfield. 21 Q. The report from Chadfield is dated 22 when? 23 MR. WILL: Well, I'll just tell you 24 what it is. He wanted to know the formulas, the 25 ingredients of Conwed sealing test so we got that MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007215 24 1 Gibbs 2 from Eric Chadfield which he got apparently from 3 the lawyers in the case. 4 Q. So what you got from Chadfield is a 5 report to you saying the formulas of the Conwed 6 tiles? 7 MR. WILL: It's not the cover letter 8 saying here are the ingredients. 9 THE WITNESS: Do you want to look at 10 it? 11 MR. BROWNSON: Not this minute. 12 Would it be possible to get a copy of this stuff 13 or would that have to come later? 14 MR. GERSON: If you don't need to 15 reference it during the deposition I could 16 have -- or we don't need to look at it I can have 17 copies made by the time we conclude, so it's your 18 call. 19 MR. BROWNSON: Let's not start that 20 now but I don't think we're going to spend too 21 much time looking at this. 22 MR. GERSON: Okay, you let me know 23 wnen. 24 Q. Anything other than the documents you 25 just listed. Dr. Gibbs? You also mentioned the MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007216 25 1 Gibbs 2 notes you prepared and do those notes contain any 3 other information or conclusions or impressions 4 or what do we have there? 5 A. The notes basically put various 6 summary statements about the papers as I reviewed 7 them and there's just one other sheet of paper on 8 what I've sort of been told by the Conwed plant. 9 Q. In addition to the -- well, before we 10 get to that, have you seen any of the reports or 11 records or materials from a study that 12 Dr. Lewinsohn has done of the workers of the mine 13 and mill in King City? 14 A. There was -- I've just seen the 15 papers described, the dust samples from the 16 plant. 17 Q. These would be the airsamples? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. When you say "papers," are they the 20 actual little sample reports or are they some 2 1 summary or compilation of those or what? 22 (Witness handing document.) 23 A. It's that. 24 Q. Is this one of the papers you had 25 previously described in your list? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007217 26 1 Gibbs 2 A. Yes, I think so. 3 MR. BROWNSON: Just for the record, 4 this is an October 4th through 6th, 1971 paper 5 entitled Calidria Asbestos Plant, King City 6 Plant, King City, Monterey City, California, 7 United States Bureau of Mines, Health and Safety 8 Technical Support Center (originating office), 9 U.S. Bureau of Mines, Health and Safety Technical 10 Support Center, Denver, Colorado. 11 Q. And this paper contains some data . 12 concerning air levels at the mine and mills as I 13 understand it; is that correct? 14 A. Yes . 15 Q. Do you know if any of these air dust 16 samples were analyzed using transmission 17 electrons ? 18 A. I think it phased electron copy. 19 Whether any were later looked at, I don't know. 20 Q. Do you know if any fibers of five 2 1 microns in length were in these samples? 22 A. I think they were concentrating on 23 ones above five. 24 Q. Have you seen any air data with 25 respect to dust, calidria chrysotile dust, other MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007218 27 1 Gibbs 2 than the air data contained in that paper? 3 A. No. 4 Q. Have you reviewed any d e positions of 5 any peopl e either taken in this cas e or other 6 cases wit h respect to calidria asbe s tos and 7 health ef fects? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Have you had any discus s ions with 10 Professor Pooley about asbestos? 11 A. Not recently, but in th e past we've 12 discussed it a few times. You know it's come up 13 in a gene ral issues and we've been t alking about 14 chrysotil e . 15 Q. You mentioned earlier that one of the 16 things you looked at was the report by Professor 17 Pooley of samples taken of the mine in 18 California; is that correct? 19 A. I think it's the mine at the 20 processing plant. 21 Q. Do you know if Dr. Pooley had gone 22 out there to collect those samples? 23 A. I believe he had. 24 Q. Those are samples he collected and 25 did a mineralogical test of? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007219 28 1 Gibbs 2 A. Y e s . 3 Q. Have you seen any other data or 4 papers or materials concerning those samples? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Do you know if Professor Pooley 7 retains the samples? 8 A. I don't know. 9 Q. Have you ever seen the samples? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Are you familiar with any work that 12 Professor Pooley has done with lung tissue or 13 other tissue of calidria-exposed individuals? 14 A. I don't know if he did any samples of 15 calidria-exposed individuals but I can't be 16 certain. 17 Q. I take it from that answer that you 18 have not collaborated with him in looking at such 19 cases? 20 A. That's correct. 21 Q. As far as you know, and, again, I 22 know you've seen a lot of cases where you don't 23 know exactly where they come from, but as far as 24 you know have you ever analyzed any cases of 25 calidria-exposed people? MANHATTAN RBPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007220 29 1 Gibbs 2 A. Not to my knowledge. , 3 Q. Do you recall ever working on a case 4 of a person named Clayborne Korry, K-o-r-r-y, 5 which arose out of Texas? 6 A. No, the name is not familiar to me. 7 Q. That was an esophagal cancer? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Have you ever done any work or any 10 analysis on a case of malignant mesothelioma in a 11 James Mant, M-a-n-t? 12 A. No. 13 Q. He was a Conwed worker by the way. 14 A. No, I don't recall him. 15 Q. Other than the samples that 16 Dr. Pooley took on his trip to the mine and mill 17 in California and analyzed, are you aware of any 18 other analysis Dr. Pooley has done with respect 19 to the calidria air samples, calidria or samples 20 of calidria or tissue containing calidria fibers? 2 1 A. No. 22 Q. You mentioned in addition to 23 reviewing the documents you made some notes 24 concerning information you had received 25 concerning the Conwed plant and let me ask you MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007221 30 1 Gibbs 2 from whom you received that information? 3 A. From Mr. Will. 4 Q. Was this based upon some discussions 5 with Mr. Will or did he show you anything? 6 A. Based on discussions. 7 Q. Other than speaking to Trevor Will 8 have you obtained information concerning the 9 Conwed case or the Conwed plant or Conwed workers 10 from anyone else? 11 A. No, the only thing I had was that 12 report by Weiss on the two studies. 13 Q. We'll take a look at that in just a 14 minute but have you spoken to Dr. Weiss? 15 A. No. 16 Q. About this issue, those studies? 17 A. NO. 18 Q. Have you ever collaborated or worked 19 with Dr. Weiss in any other matters? 20 A. No, I've read a lot of Dr. Weiss' 21 papers but I don't recall ever meeting him and 22 I've not collaborated with him. 23 Q. So you're familiar with him by 24 reputation but not a personal acquaintance? 25 MR. WILL: Well, by reading his MANHATTAN RBPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007222 31 1 Gibbs 2 papers. 3 Q. Obviously you wouldn't read his 4 papers if you didn't think he was reputable? 5 A. No, by reading his papers. 6 Q. Have you ever had any discussions 7 with Ed Ilgren? 8 A. I have discussed with Ed Ilgren in 9 the past on this. 10 Q. Has he conveyed to you any 11 informat ion other t han what you've described to 12 us with respect to the case? 13 A. No. 14 Q. When did you first begin your work in 15 connection with this case? 16 A. Really just -- I think I was 17 contacted six or eight weeks ago. 18 Q- Who contacted you at that time? 19 A. Mr . Gerson. 20 Q. Was it at that point that Mr. Gerson 21 sent you some of this material? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Did all of the material you have 24 described to us come from Mr. Gerson or did some 25 of it come from other sources? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007223 32 1 Gibbs 2 A. I would say 90 or -- about 90 to 95 3 percent came from Mr. Gerson and there's one or 4 two papers from the files. 5 Q. Excuse me, I didn't - 6 A. From files. 7 Q. Which files were those? 8 A. Sort of things I keep in my -9 Q. Okay, from your own files? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Can you tell us without wasting a lot 12 of time on the question which of the papers came 13 from your own file3? 14 A. I can't honestlyremember which. 15 Q. I assume the Weiss file camefrom 16 Mr. Gerson; is that correct? 17 A. Yes, because quite a lot of this 18 was -- a fair chunk of it was unpublished. 19 Q. I wouldimagine that most of the 20 calidria-type material came from Mr. Gerson? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And would the material from your own 23 files be some of the files such as the Muhler 24 papers or some of the animal data? 25 A. Yes. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007224 33 1 Gibbs 2 Q. So if I can follow the chronology, 3 about six or eight weeks ago you were contacted 4 by Alan Gerson and I assumed he asked if you 5 would be willing to consult and do work on this 6 case? 7 A. Yes . 8 Q. Did you get some description of the 9 case at that time or did that come from Trevor 10 Will? 11 A. Initially what I was told was that 12 this concerned the issue of calidria asbestos. 13 Q. Did this contact come to you in the 14 form of a letter or telephone call or - 15 A. It was a telephone call. 16 Q. I suppose Mr. Gerson has not been 17 over to Great Britain as much as he's liked to or 18 has he? 19 A. No. 20 Q. So a phone call came f rom Mr. Gerson 21 and you agreed to consult on the case and then he 22 sent you some material; would that be kind of a 23 start of the chronology 7 24 A. Yes . 25 Q. Were there followup discu;ssions with MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007225 34 1 Gibbs 2 Mr. Gerson or anyone else? 3 A. I think I spoke to Mr. Gerson's legal 4 assistant. 5 Q. Virginia? 6 A. Yes, because I had some more material 7 after the first. a Q. Have you been asked by anyone in 9 connection with this case or otherwise to review 10 tissues or x-ray films or medical records of ii workers at the mine and mill in King City, 12 California? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Have you seen any tissues for 15 examination either from Conwed workers or workers 16 at King City? 17 A. No. 18 Q. As far as you know is that something 19 that you may do in connection with this case; in 20 other words, have you been told or asked to do 2 1 such a review? 22 A. I haven't been asked at this point to 23 do such a review, but if tissues became available 24 then I would be interested in looking at them. 25 Q. Other than Mr. Gerson's office and MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007226 35 1 Gibbs 2 Trevor Will, have you had discussions with others 3 concerning this case? 4 A. I don't think so. 5 Q. Prior to being contacted by 6 Mr. Gerson six to eight weeks ago had you ever 7 done any other consultation in Union Carbide 8 cases involving calidria asbestos? 9 A. No, but I think I was originally 10 asked by Dr. Ilgren about two years ago whether I 11 would be interested in looking at any calidria 12 cases and I said yes and I think that's where it 13 was left and nothing happened until six to eight 14 weeks ago. 15 Q. So Dr. Ilgren asked you two years ago 16 if you wanted to do this and you didn't actually 17 do anything until this material six to eight 18 weeks ago? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. So the doctor told you he was putting 21 together an epidemiological study? 22 A. Yes . 23 Q. As you understand it are you to play 24 any role in it? 25 A. It's possible if he may retain MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007227 36 1 Gibbs 2 samples we may look at it. 3 Q. Do you mean tissues samples? 4 A. Yes . 5 Q. You're not an epidemiological 6 analyst. Would your role be to examine the 7 tissue? 8 A. My role would be to examine the 9 tissue. 10 Q. Would that be for purposes of 11 diagnosis or what? 12 A. That may be partly to do with 13 diagnosis and it would be that we would if we 14 were allowed to also look at what's in the lung 15 tissue in terms of mineral particles. 16 Q. In terms of an examination of mineral 1 7 particles, if you were asked to do that would 1 8 that be something you would ask Dr. Pooley to do? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. As I understand it -- correct me if 2 1 I'm wrong -- in your own work in recent years 22 when the issue comes up of examination of tissues 23 for mineral particles or mineral content is that 24 work that you then sent to Dr. Pooley for his 2 5 analysis? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP UCAREF00007228 37 1 Gibbs 2 A. Yes, all our research work is done as 3 a team basically because we're interested in how 4 pathological changes occur in the lung and how to 5 relate to mineral particle burdens and so we have 6 quite an active research program into that. 7 Q. But I'm trying to get the delegation a of duties, so to speak. 9 A. Normally what happens is I receive 10 the tissue, I take whatever samples that I think n are necessary for assesing the pathology part of 12 it and then I would then give to Professor Pooley 13 samples from the lung tissue which I think are 14 representative of the lung which are suitable for 15 analysis and then Professor Pooley does the 16 analysis. 17 Q. And he does a mineralogical assay? 18 A. It could be fibers or non-fibers as 19 well, we are interested in a number of different 20 particles, basically inorganics. 21 Q. In terms of analyzing tissues for 22 asbestos mineral content in the course of your 23 practice over the, say the past five years, have 24 you referred such analysis to anyone other than 25 Professor Pooley or does he do all of that? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007229 38 1 Gibbs 2 A. He does all of that. 3 Q. Have you asked him for in connection 4 with tissues you've looked at, analyzed any other 5 tissue other than lung tissue or asbestos mineral 6 content or fiber burden? 7 A. I think we've done a few laryngeal 8 biopsies on occasion and we've done pleural, 9 p-1-e-u-r-a-1, samples and we've done the odd 10 lymph node, but it's something that we are 11 interested in pursuing. 12 Q. That's where I was leading to. Has 13 Dr. Pooley looked at any lymph nodes and you have 14 done so, correct? 15 A. Very small number but not enough to 16 draw any firm conclusions. 1 7 Q. Is that an area that you and 1 8 Professor Pooley are pursuing at the present 19 t ime? 20 A. Not at the present time but it's 21 something on the back burner, it's something that 22 I have thought that we should actually look at. 23 Q. I'm jumping ahead a little bit but as 24 long as we're on the topic, as I understand it 25 Professor Pooley is of the opinion that MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007230 39 1 Gibbs ' 2 chrysotile fiber once in the lung tends to be 3 cleared from the lung, but it tends to go to 4 other parts of the body as opposed to clearing 5 out of the lung. Is that a fair summary? 6 A. Well, it's cleared out of the lung 7 but it goes to other parts of body. 8 Q. In connection with this analysis of 9 lymph nodes, is that one of the things that you 10 are interested in, in where this fiber goes? 11 A. We would be interested in looking at 12 not only chrysotile, but amphiboles as well as - 13 and I've got another pathologist who is working 14 under me who has done his thesis on perithelial. 15 One of the things we thought we'd look at 16 peritoneal tissues and see what fibers are in 17 there and controls and various asbestos - related 18 diseases, but that's not on the way. 19 Q. When you say "controls," are you 20 talking about peritoneal epithelials that are 21 asbestos - related or - 22 A. I'm talking about ordinary autopsies 23 without any asbestos - related disease. 24 Q. In terms of this project that Ed 25 Ilgren has suggested about an epidemiological MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007231 40 1 Gibbs 2 study, have you done any work in connection, seen 3 anything? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Have you been told in terms of timing 6 when such tissues will be coming? 7 A. No. 8 Q. You mentioned thatTrevor Will has 9 given you the facts, Conwed facts. Can you 10 describe for us what facts you've learned about 11 that? 12 A. Yes, there'shealth recordsavailable 13 in about 300 workers that some of the issues 14 include mesothelioma lung cancer, asbestosis, 15 Clark and diffuse pleural fibrosis, that tiles in 16 the plant that they made contained starch, clays, 17 cellulose, that between 1958 and 1964 amosite was 18 used exclusively, but between 1964 and '66 it 19 became about half amosite and half calidria 20 chrysotile, then from 1966 to 1970 or '71 that 2 1 the amosite usage reduced and the calidria 22 chrysotile usage increased and then from 1971 to 23 '74 it was all calidria chrysotile. 24 Q. Any other information? 25 A. No, that's what I've got listed here. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007232 41 1 Gibbs 2 Q. Were you shown anyrecords concerning 3 Conwed's purchases of amosite and calidria? 4 A. No. 5 Q. In terms of when it waspurchased and 6 how much and that sort of thing? 7 A. No. 8 Q. In addition to the information you 9 were given about the tile being made of clay, 10 starch and cellulose were you given any 11 information about the use of the mineral or rock 12 wool in the tile? 13 A. Yes, there's rock wool at least in 14 some of these formulas. 15 Q. You've received from Eric Chadfield a 16 list of the formulas of Conwed tiles; is that 17 correct ? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. From that - 20 MR. WILL: Just so it's clear, they 2 1 are actually letters from lawyers in the school 22 board case and actually some of them go back to 23 tne State of Maryland case, I think, that list 24 some of the ingredients of rough percentages. 2 5 MR. BROWNSON: I know what they are MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007233 42 1 Gibbs 2 and where they came from so no need Co quibble 3 about that. 4 Q. What I'm leading to is some 5 information on the types of materials used in the 6 Conwed plant; is that correct? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. You mentioned a minute ago diffuse 9 pleural fibrosis and I know you've written on 10 that. Do you have any thoughts as to whether 11 mineral wool or rock wool used in connection with 12 either amosite chrysotile, clay, starch or 13 cellulose can be a factor in contributing to 14 diffuse pleural fibrosis? 15 A. I think it unlikely. 16 Q. Have you ever seen anystudies or 17 data on that? 18 A. There were some European and U.S. 19 cohort studies of rock wool, slag wool and other 20 man-made mineral fiber wools. 21 Q. So you're familiar with that 22 material? 2 3 A. Yes. 24 Q. Would it be fair to say as far as 25 you're concerned that the rock wool or mineral MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007234 43 1 Gibbs 2 wool used at the Coawed plant in Cloquet was not 3 a factor in causing mesothelioma among workers? 4 A. Providing it was rock wool. I think 5 as long as the description is accurate and we are 6 sure that it was rock wool. 7 Q. Let me ask you this because that's an 8 interesting point. When you say "rock wool," for 9 instance, Conwed has also used mineral wool and 10 what I consider to be slag wool made from slag. 11 Is that what you're referring to as rock wool? 12 A. There's rock wool and slag wool and 13 they are different although they have very 14 similar properties. There is some data both from 15 Europe and from the U.S. that the rate of lung 16 cancer has increased in slag wool workers but the 17 problem is that there are confounders in some of 18 those plants and that that needs to be further 19 looked at, I think, but from the point of view of 20 rock wool I think the evidence indicates that it 21 is not -- it doesn't cause mesothelioma and lung 22 cancer. 23 Q. If we're talking about rock wool, 24 which is actually what some of Conwed used, you 25 would not cause that to be a factor in causing MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007235 44 1 Gibbs 2 mesothelioma or lung cancer? 3 A. No. 4 Q. By "no"? 5 A. I don't consider that to be. 6 Q. Interstitialfibrosis, do you 7 consider that to be something that would 8 contribute to that? 9 A. I don't think -- there is no evidence 10 that rock wool does not cause interstitial 11 fibrosis, but I think it's possible that if you 12 had nonfibrous particles very -- as with a number 13 of other nonfibrous materials it is possible that 14 you have a gross overload situation that it 15 might. 16 Q. Would you agree with the notion that 17 if you are exposed to enough dusts, fibrous dusts 18 of different kinds, such as rock wool, mineral 19 wool and even, I suppose, fibrous glass, that it 2 0 can cause pulmonary fibrosis? 2 1 A. I think it comes down to what you 22 call pulmonary fibrosis. I think you could get 23 possibly a slight degree of lung fibrosis but 24 it's unlikely that you would get the severe 25 degrees of pulmonary fibrosis that lead to a MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007236 45 1 Gibbs 2 shortness of breath, finger crackles and actually 3 cause the death of the person. 4 Q. Short of death and short of clubbing. 5 would you agree that there's some milder forms of 6 pulmonary fibrosis that are possible just by 7 heavy burdens of fibrous dust? I'm talking about 8 non-asbestos fibrous dust. 9 A. I think that's possible as you can 10 with nonfibrous dust. 11 Q. Put in simple layman's terms, too 12 much occupational exposure to fibrous dust would 13 be dangerous; is that fair? 14 A. You would want to avoid heavy 15 exposures to dust as you would want to avoid 16 exposures to cigarette smoke. 17 Q. You've described for us the 18 documentation you have reviewed in connection 19 with this case and you've described to us the 20 oral descriptions you've been given. Is there 21 anything else that you know about this case that 22 we have not yet discussed? 2 3 A. I don't think so. 24 Q. In terms of data that you've 25 reviewed, whether conveyed orally, in meetings. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007237 46 1 Gibbs 2 or in writing? 3 A. No. 4 MR. WILL: You mean that he can 5 recall? 6 MR. BROWNSON: Right. 7 Q. Are you aware of the fact that this 8 case involves a claim by Conwed Corporation to 9 recoup from Union Carbide the money from Union 10 Carbide Workers' Compensation claims in 11 Minnesota? 12 A. I just became aware of that in the 13 last few days. 14 Q. So that's something you just recently 15 learned? 16 A. Yes . 17 Q. Have you ever been involved in a case 18 like that before whe re you've got an employer 19 which has paid Worke rs' Compensation benefits to 20 workers for asbestos -related disease attempting 2 1 to recoup the cost o f those from a supplier of 22 asbestos? 2 3 A. No. 24 Q. Have you in your work in Great 25 Britain been involved in employee compensation MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007238 47 1 Gibbs 2 cases? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. With respect toasbestosexposure? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. In thatcapacity have you served on 7 any government panels or been a - - you have to 8 help me here because I'm not familiar with the 9 current system - - been a reviewer of cases? 10 A. Well -- 11 Q. Why don't you describe for me what 12 your experience has been? 13 A. Okay. There are basically two 14 situations. There's one which is a governmental 15 Workers' Compensation scheme and I do postmortems 16 on subjects where there is a question that they 17 might have been exposed to a dust which might 18 have been a factor in their respiratory problems 19 during life and was a factor in the cause of 20 death, and I do those postmortems for the coroner 2 1 and based usually on my findings there will be a 22 decision by the coroner whether that person 23 contracted a disease which was related to 24 exposure; it could be asbestos, it could be 25 silica, it could be coal, a variety of different MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007239 48 1 Gibbs 2 things, and then the coroner will make a verdict 3 of what they call an industrial cause of death or 4 it may be natural causes if he's actually died of 5 something that's unrelated to the dust. There is 6 also a civil litigation system whereby 7 solicitors, as you call lawyers here -8 Q. Actually solicitors is a good term. 9 A. We won't discuss that too much, but 10 they may send me cases for a second opinion or 11 these would be of other cases which had an 12 autopsy done somewhere else and there's a 13 question of the lung findings and I will issue a 14 report on what I find and how that relates to 15 symptoms and problems during life and cause of 16 death. 17 Q. Are these in compensation cases or in 18 what we would consider here a civil lawsuit? 19 A. That's a civil lawsuit. 20 Q. Okay, now here we have -- and I know 21 Britain has a similar system - - we have this 22 distinct ion where a workman claims two types of 23 claims, one a compensation claim against employer 24 related to employment - related injury or disease 25 and the second thing he can do has actually been MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007240 49 1 Gibbs 2 a lawsuit against people like Union Carbide or 3 others who are not his employer. Do you 4 understand that distinction? 5 A . Yes . 6 Q. In this particular case, although 7 this is a lawsuit by Conwed against Union 8 Carbide, the underlying issue is compensation 9 cases presented by Conwed workers against 10 Conwed. Are you familiar with that fact? 11 A. I understand that, yes. 12 Q. In connection with your practice have 13 you done any work in connection with American 14 compensation cases against employers? 15 A. I don't think I've beeninvolved with 16 employers. 17 Q. Have you been given any information 18 about the obligations Conwed is put to by the 19 Minnesota compensation law in asbestos - related 20 health claims? 2 1 A. No. 22 Q. As far as you know is that something 23 that will be provided to you for your review in 24 this case? 25 A. I don't know. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007241 50 1 Gibbs 2 Q. Have you been shown any American 3 Medical Association guidelines of pulmonary 4 impairment which apply under the Minnesota 5 Workers' Compensation scheme? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Have you been given any information 8 about the fact that the Minnesota Workers' 9 Compensation law obligates Conwed to pay workers 10 when cases are presented for pulmonary function 11 impairment ? 12 A. No. 13 Q. You're familiar, of course, it goes 14 without saying, that there are various types of 15 diseases which either are or alleged to be 16 related to asbestos exposure? 17 MR. GERSON: In general? 18 MR. BROWNSON: Yes. 19 Q. Mesothelioma cancer and some would 20 say other cancers, correct? 21 A. Are you asking? 22 Q. Well, as a generalproposition. 23 MR. GERSON: Are you asking what some 24 would say or what he would? 25 MR. BROWNSON: Right. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007242 51 1 Gibbs 2 A. My understanding is the 3 asbestos - related disorders are basically 4 pulmonary and that includes plaques, diffuse 5 pleural fibrosis mesothelioma lung cancer and 6 lung cancer. 7 Q. Are you familiar with the fact that 8 in terms of the employee cases presented against 9 Conwed we have all those conditions represented 10 to one degree or another? 11 A. I believe those are the conditions 12 that are alleged, I don't know of the validity of 13 the diagnosis. 14 Q. You have not at this point looked at 15 any of the diagnostic materials, I take it, 16 whether there be records or tissues or films? 17 A. No, I have not. 18 Q. You are aware, however, that those 19 conditions have been alleged against Conwed, 20 correct? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Have you ever been called in as a 23 consultant in cases where people have alleged 24 asbestos - related pulmonary impairment and they 25 have been asbestos - exposed but they are also MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007243 52 1 Gibbs 2 smokers, obese, getting up in age and sedentary 3 in their habits? 4 A. Do you mean clinically? 5 Q. Right. 6 A. No, my consultancy has been based 7 basically on pathological issues. 8 Q. That was a poor question, I 9 understand that. What I'm saying is the work you 10 do is you do pathology on people who have many 11 sorts of diseases and in some cases have been 12 exposed to various dusts, correct? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And I take it that in the course of 15 your practice you have seen any number of people 16 who have alleged they have some sort of 17 asbestos-related disease and have tissue 18 available for your -- lung tissue available for 19 your examination? 20 A. Yes. 2 1 Q. And you simply don't have any 22 evidence of asbestos ideology to their disease? 23 A. That is correct. 24 Q. And would you agree with me that in 25 many of these cases you see individuals that are, MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007244 53 1 Gibbs 2 for example, long-time smokers, obese, had 3 various pulmonary impairments like bronchitis, 4 pneumonia, all sorts of things? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And in addition to these sorts of 7 problems they have also had some history of 8 asbestos exposure? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And those individuals despite that 11 myriad of other problems that they have will 12 present asbestos - related health claims against 13 someone, correct? 14 A. Yes. IS Q. And those cases, I take it, have come 16 to you quite often and you examine them to try to 17 determine - 18 MR. WILL: I object to "quite 19 often." 20 Q. Some cases come to you and you 21 determine to determine if in fact the asbestos 22 played a part in the ideology of whatever this 23 pulmonary problem is; is that correct? 24 A. That's correct. 25 Q. And sometimes it does andsometimes MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007245 54 1 Gibbs 2 it doesn't; would that be fair to say? 3 A. Yes . 4 Q. And in the cases of the British 5 compensation matters you've looked at, have you 6 ever had occasion where despite your opinion that 7 asbestos was not a cause and whatever pulmonary 8 problem was presented that either the government 9 or the employer has gone ahead and awarded 10 compensation anyway? 11 A. That's happened onoccasion. 12 Q. So sometimes they'll agree with you 13 and sometimes they will not? 14 A. Well, the - 15 Q. In terms of awarding compensation? 16 A. I think in the majority of cases they 17 agreed but there's an occasional case where a 18 different verdict would come in. 19 Q. Have you seen a study prepared by the 20 Minnesota Department of Health and dated March of 21 1988 as a result of a screening of Conwed 22 employees and their spouses? 23 A. No, I've only seen Weiss' comments on 24 that paper. 25 Q. Have you seen any of the published MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007246 55 1 Gibbs 2 papers which arose out of either the surveillance 3 of those workers or the health effects found in 4 the survey? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Have you seen any data or studies or 7 reports in connection with a screening of the 8 Conwed workers for asbestos - related disease of 9 the International Paper Workers' Union done in 10 1986? 11 A. No, I think that was the Robert and 12 Green study. 13 Q. So Weiss' comments include critique 14 or commentary on both of those as far as the 15 Department of Health and the Paper Workers' 16 Union? 1 7 A. Yes. 18 Q. Have you seen any of the medical 19 reports by Dr. Thomas Arnold with respect to 20 Conwed workers? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Have you seen any reports or 23 materials from pathology by Mark Wick, W-i-c-k - 24 A. No. 25 Q. -- who has examined cancer cases MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007247 56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 i 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Gibbs among Conwed workers? A. No. Q. Have you ever seen materials by a pulmonologist in St. Paul Minnesota by David B. Oham, 0-h-a-m? A. No . Q. Are you aware of any physician primarily responsible for supporting the Workers' Compensat ion claims by the Conwed workers? A. No . Q. And the same question with respect to a doctor named Terry Clark in Duluth, Minnesota, have you ever seen any of his reports or records A. No. Q. --in connection with the Conwed workers? A. No. Q. I understand that you are not a radiologist of course; is that right? A. Correct. Q. But in the courseof your clinical pathology practice do you ever look at x-rays on cases that you're doing pathology on? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007248 57 1 Gibbs 2 A. Yes, usually with the radiologist to 3 talk about them. 4 Q. I understand you haven't seen any 5 films on the Conwed workers, correct? 6 A. Correct. 7 Q. Are you familiar with a pathologist 8 by the name of James Flink, F-l-i-n-k? 9 A. No, I don't recall the name. 10 Q. I know that you have been involved in 11 a number of American lawsui ts arising out of 12 asbestos exposure; is that correct ? 13 A. Yes . 14 Q. In any of those suits as far as you 15 know has this firm from Cha rleston, South 16 Carolina, Ness Motley Loadholt & Poole, been 17 involved? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Have you ever seen any of their cases 20 arising out of the State of Minnesota as far as 21 you know? 22 A. I don't think so. 2 3 Q. Have you ever been to Minnesota? 24 A. No. 25 Q. Do you have any plans in connection MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007249 58 1 Gibbs 2 with this case to travel there? 3 A. No. 4 Q. In connection with your work in this 5 case have you been given any indication as to 6 whether you may be called as a witness if the 7 case goes to trial? ' 8 A. Well, I assume that I was asked to do 9 this deposition because if it does go to trial 10 that they may request me to do that. 11 Q. I know we're jumping ahead, but as 12 you understand it if the case goes to trial what 13 issues or opinions do you expect to give in the 14 case? 15 A. Basically? 1 6 Q. What issues do you expect to discuss 17 and opinions do you expect to give would be a 18 better question. 19 A. The issues would be the various types 20 of asbestos - related disease and how they relate 21 to exposure to calidria chrysotile asbestos. 22 Q. In rendering those opinions do you 23 expect to rely on animal inhalation or data? 24 MR. GSRSON: You mean whatsoever? 25 MR. BROWNSON: Right. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007250 59 1 Gibbs 2 MR. WILL: Relating to calidria or 3 relating to anything? 4 MR. BROWNSON: No, no, calidria. 5 A. Well, as far as I have read some of 6 the animal work it will have a bearing on my 7 opinion, but with most of the asbestos - related 8 issues I think the most important evidence is 9 what one has from human studies. 10 Q. You have mentioned a paper by Muhler, 11 which is M-u-h-l-e-r, with respect to calidria. 12 Have you seen any other animal data with respect 13 to calidria? 14 A. It was both, it was the same group, 15 in fact, but the Rittenghausen paper. 16 Q. Are you aware of any other animal 17 data that exists other than the calidria data 1 8 with respect to those studies? 19 MR. WILL: Well, I mentioned he was 20 given the two Mellon papers. I'm not trying to 2 1 play guessing games. 22 MR. BROWNSON: Again, I wasn't 23 thinking the Mellon studies but I guess that is 24 animal data now that you mention it. 25 A. No. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007251 60 1 Gibbs 2 Q. So let me see if I can rephrase it so 3 we have a clear question and answer without . 4 Trevor and I talking about the Mellon studies. 5 Q. Other than the Mellon studies of the 6 animal data with respect to calidria, the Muhle 7 and Rittenghausen studies? 8 A. I believe so. 9 Q. As I understand itit's yourbelief 10 that although animal studies are of some value 11 the valuable data comes from human data or 12 analysis? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. As long as we're on the topic of 15 animal studies, at one point you were affiliated 1 6 with the animal research center that's run by 17 Dr. Wagner? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Is that now closed down? 20 A. Yes . 21 Q. At the time that that was in 22 operation did they have an inhalation chamber 23 tnere that they did animal studies? 24 A. They had several. 25 Q. Were you involved in some of the MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007252 61 1 Gibbs 2 actual research? 3 A. I saw some of the pathology from some 4 of the animal studies but only on an ad hoc 5 basis. I wasn't involved in any of the design of 6 the studies and so forth. My main collaboration 7 was looking at human cases with Dr. Wagner but I 8 did see some of the animal tissues. 9 Q. During the time that Dr. Wagner had 10 the medical center in operation do you know how 11 many animal inhalation studies he did with 12 respect to data? 13 A. I can't give a precise number but 14 there were quite a lot. 15 Q. But all of that was not published, I 16 take it? 17 A. No, some were not. 18 Q. Some were published and some were 19 not ? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And some of it dealt with rats or 22 mice; do you know if other animals were used in 23 those experiments? 24 A. I'm not aware that any other animals 25 were used. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007253 62 1 Gibbs 2 Q. You mentioned that the most important 3 thing for you in terms of asbestos health is 4 human data and what human data have you seen with 5 respect to calidria asbestos? 6 A. I haven't seen any based on calidria. 7 Q. You have not seen any actual tissues, 8 correct? 9 A. Yes . 10 Q. Have you seen any epidemiological 11 work with respect to the calidria-exposed . 12 populations ? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Have you seen any epidemiological 15 work with respect to mixed exposures of calidria 16 and other asbestos types? 17 A. Apart from these, the Weiss comments 18 on the Conwed plant, I haven' t seen any data from 19 any other situation where exposure has been to 20 calidria chrysotile plus any other asbestos 2 1 fibers. 22 (A recess was taken.} 23 Q. Dr. Gibbs, is it your opinion that 24 calidria chrysotile can contribute to peritoneal 25 mesothelioma? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007254 63 1 Gibbs 2 A. No, it's not my opinion that it can 3 contribute. 4 Q. So it is not your opinion that that 5 contributes to peritoneal mesothelioma? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. With respect to the following 8 questions I am using the term not caused but 9 contribute and I don't know if you see a 10 distinction there. 11 A. Yes. 12 MR. WILL: Well, I'd like you to 13 define what you mean by "contribute." 14 MR. BROWNSON: What I mean by 15 contribute is a contributing cause, not sole 16 cause, but contributor to these condition that 17 we're going to run through here. 18 Q. Do you understand? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. With respect to peritoneal 21 mesothelioma, are you of the belief that 22 chrysotile fiber in general does not contribute 23 to peritoneal mesothelioma? 24 A. That's correct. 25 Q. So you're not making any specific MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCARE F00007255 64 1 Gibbs 2 distinction between calidria or other types of 3 chrysotile; is that correct? 4 A. No. 5 Q. With respect to pleural mesothelioma 6 do you have an opinion as to whether calidria 7 chrysotile would contribute to mesothelioma? 8 A. It doesn't contribute. 9 Q. Do you make that distinction with 10 calidria chrysotile and any other type of 11 chrysotile? 12 A. No. , 13 Q. So to put it another way it's your 14 opinion that no type of chrysotile contributes to 15 pleural mesothelioma? 16 A. No, mainly chrysotile in the absence 17 of tremolite, t-r-e-m-o-1-i-t-e. 18 Q. So you're of the view that to the 19 extent chrysotile asbestos contributes to 20 mesothelioma it comes from tremolite 21 contamination? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. What type of tremolite? 24 A. Asbestos foam tremolite. 25 Q. Fibrous tremolite? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007256 65 1 Gibbs 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Of any particular size or morphology? 4 A. The longer and thinner the more 5 likely it is to cause mesothelioma. 6 Q. Are you of the view then that 7 tremolite, fibrous tremolite, can cause pleural 8 mesothelioma? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Pleural peritoneal mesothelioma? 11 A. I think it possibly can. 12 Q. Let's just stop here for a moment. 13 With respect to pleural mesothelioma, upon what 14 data do you base your view that fibrous tremolite 15 can cause pleural mesothelioma? 16 A. There are areas in some parts of the 17 world, such as in Turkey and Corsica, where 18 exposure to fibrous tremolite has occurred 19 environmentally in which there are high rates of 20 mesothelioma. 21 Q. And you have seen the published data 22 on that, I take it. Have you visited those 23 areas? 24 A No, I haven't been to them 25 personally. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007257 66 1 Gibbs 2 Q. Have you examined lungs of 3 individuals exposed to the fibrous tremolite in 4 those villages? 5 A. I've seen some from Turkey but I 6 haven't seen the Corsica. 7 Q. Are these the people that have 8 whitewashed their houses with the tremolite or 9 some other exposure? 10 A. As I understand it there are two main 11 areas in Turkey, one of which is set among three 12 villages, one is Carain, C-a-r-a-i-n, which is an 13 area exposure -- which is not an asbestos 14 exposure -- and then there's another area which 15 is further west in Turkey where high rates of 16 mesothelioma have occurred. I have seen cases 17 from that area. 18 Q. That's what I was trying to 19 understand. In terms of your opinions on 20 tremolite in Turkey with the erionite exposures 21 we are talking about actual tremolite? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. You have seen some of the lung 24 tissues of people; is that correct? 25 A. Seen pleural biopsies. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007258 67 1 Gibbs 2 Q Do you know how many? 3 A Somewhere about 40 or 50. 4 Q Where did those come from? 5 A They were referred from the pathology 6 department in Eskaezir 7 THE WITNESS: I think it's 8 E - s - k - a e-z-i-r, I don't guarantee the accuracy 9 of that spelling. 10 Q. When was this generally? 11 A. Two years back or sometime. 12 Q. Have you published anything 13 concerning that? 14 A. No, we're hoping to have a site visit 15 that we have been trying to tee up a visit for 16 about two years and it's a problem of timing and 17 so forth because professor Pooley is involved in 18 this as well. 19 Q So you're working with professor 20 Pooley, correct ? 2 1 A Yes . 22 Q Who else? 23 A Lady pathologist. Professor Ozdemere 24 (phonetic), and she has some associates that have 25 also been involved, I can't recall the names. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007259 68 1 Gibbs 2 Q. In terms of your colleagues who you 3 normally work with this is a project of yours and 4 professor Pooley? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. It sounds like what's happened is 7 samples of pleural - - are these biopsies, or 8 autopsies? 9 A. Biopsies . 10 Q. Samples of oral biopsieshave been 11 sent for your examination? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Were they tissue or cytology fluid? 14 A. No, these were tissues. 15 Q. Have you confirmed any of the 16 mesothelioma diagnoses based on biopsy samples? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. How many were you able to confirm? 19 A. I can't remember, but a substantial 20 portion of them. 2 1 Q. So out of the 40 or 50 tissues would 22 we say what, 30 maybe? 23 A. Over half. 24 Q. Have you sent any of that pleural 25 tissue over to professor Pooley to do mineral MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007260 69 1 Gibbs 2 analysis? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Has he completed that? 5 A. I don't think he's completed that but 6 a substantial number of them. 7 Q. What has he found in terms of his 8 analysis in those tissues? 9 A. Substantial amount of fibrous 10 t remolite. 11 Q. Do you have any information at this 12 point as to the size distribution of that fibrous 13 tremolite that he's found in the tissues? 14 A. I can't give you an accurate figure 15 but high ratio of the tremolite in that. 16 Q. In addition to the fibrous tremolite 17 he's found has he found any other inorganic 18 particulis fibrous tissues? 19 A. There may be some other particles but 20 the dominant finding was tremolite. 21 Q. In terms of the dominant it was 22 tremolite? 23 A. Yes . 24 Q. Do you have any understanding of the 25 amount of tremolite professor Pooley has found in MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007261 70 1 Gibbs 2 those tissues? 3 A. I can't give you any so rt of numbers 4 per gram of dry tissue but quite hi gh quantities. 5 Q. Well, I'll try anyway. 6 A. Can I put it a differen t way? 7 Q. Sure . 8 A. If you were to take the lung tissue 9 because we' re talking about pleural -- this is 10 pleural? 11 Q. Right. 12 A. The levels would be higher than we 13 would see in background controls for amphibole 14 and they would certainly be in the range that we 15 have seen associated with mesothelioma. 16 Q. Do you have any or does professor 17 Pooley have any sort of reference you use in 18 terms of if you find so many fibers in a gram of 19 pleural tissue as to how that translates to lung 20 tissue or do you have to look at lung tissue to 21 make it count? 22 A. You would have to look at lung 23 t issue. 24 Q. Do you know if any available lung 25 tissue was ongoing in these cases? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007262 71 1 Gibbs 2 A. I don't know if there was. One of 3 the purposes of the visits was to ascertain if 4 there was lung tissue at that point. 5 Q. So the tissue assays by professor 6 Pooley was looking at lung tissue and finding 7 fairly high amounts of tremolite fiber? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Although you said you weren't able to 10 quantify it was a range of one million fibers of 11 dry gram of tissue? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Would be it be over 100 million? 14 A. I don't think it would be over. 15 Q. I'm trying to get some sense of what 16 we're talking about. Would it be perhaps in the 17 50 to 100 million range, something like that? 1 8 A. Well, in excess of one but no precise 19 figure because general terms -- because we 20 haven't put any publication or report on it. 21 Q. In yourexperience when Professor 22 Pooley has done lung tissue fiber burden analysis 23 I take it that he has found and you have adopted 24 a certain level of background amphibole fiber 25 tissues; would that be fair to say? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007263 72 1 Gibbs 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. With respect to fibrous tremolite, 4 what in your experience do you consider to be 5 background levels? 6 A. With Professor Pooley's analysis 7 these are our own laboratory figures they're not 8 from other places because they do differ between 9 laboratories, but I would accept up to one 10 million per dry gram of tremolite as being 11 consistent with background. 12 Q. That would be one million fibers per 13 dried gram of lung tissue? 14 A. That's all fiber sizes. 15 Q. That's not only greater than five 16 microns ? 17 A. All numbers I have given you have 18 been all sizes. 19 Q. Is this generally true also of the 20 tissues you've examined or Professor Pooley has 21 examined from the United States? 22 A. When I say that background figure 23 that would be for the U.S. because we generally 24 find lower levels of tremolite in U.K. lung 25 tissues than we do in U.S. lung tissues. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007264 73 1 Gibbs 2 Q. So in any event we started this 3 discussion by analyzing what data you had 4 available and your conclusion that fibrous 5 tremolite can cause mesothelioma and you've 6 described to us this Turkish experience. 7 Is there other data that you have 8 that leads you to believe that fibrous tremolite 9 causes pleural mesothelioma? 10 A. There's not data that I have, there 11 is other, data that tremolite have occurred, that 12 includes Corsica and some parts of Greece. 13 Q. When you conclude that there are some 14 pleural mesotheliomas which result from 15 chrysotile exposures but that it's cause by 16 tremolite in the chrysotile, do you base that 17 upon the fact that you know that chrysotile 18 causes mesothelioma already? 19 A. Well, you can certainly find 20 situations whereby you can die without chrysotile 21 and mesothelioma provided there is the tremolite 22 exposure. Where there's flaky material and no 23 mesothelioma but in the asbestos form shape there 24 are areas where there have been as far as we know 25 and with all the best evidence there's just MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007265 74 1 Gibbs 2 tremolite exposure mesotheli^ma has occurred. 3 If we then take the situation with 4 the basis, if you like, for people's opinions 5 that chrysotile causes mesothelioma has basically 6 come from Quebec chrysotile miners and millers 7 and, in fact, in these they've been a relatively 8 small number of mesothelioma that occurred in 9 those workers, but it is now known that 10 chrysotile is contaminated by tremolite and if 11 you do the lung burden analyses it's the 12 tremolite that dominates the mesothelioma 13 findings in the lot. 14 Q. Are you referring to corporate 15 McDonald series? 16 A. And also the Canadian miners and 17 millers. 18 Q. With respect to the mesothelioma that 19 McDonald has reported among Canadian miners and 20 millers, are you familiar with what the lung 21 content of the tremolite are in those cases? 22 A. Not in each of those cases but some 2 3 bat done by Churg. 24 Q. Are you familiar with the cases of 25 mesothelioma where there are tremolite lung MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007266 75 1 Gibbs 2 burdens of a million fibers per dry gram of lung 3 tissue or less and chrysotile lung burdens in 4 excess of one million fibers? 5 A. I've seen one or two cases by Art 6 Langer, I think, that's been in that ballpark. 7 Q. And in that case is it your view that 8 the tremolite did not cause the pleural 9 mesothelioma in a case like that? 10 A. I don't know because they are 11 extremely rare cases. I think I've only seen one 12 or two of that sort of case or report but the 13 what you can't find is a group of workers in a 14 particular location where you can do a group 15 study and I don't think you can tell a lot from 16 one individual case. 17 Q. What about the series Langer 18 published with the six cases of lung cancer in 19 mesothelioma? 20 A. I think there were mixtures of lung 21 cancer as well. 22 Q. Right. 23 A. I would not draw any conclusions of 24 that study, I think they're too preliminary. 25 Q. When you say you cannot find this MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007267 1 .4 situation where low levels of chrysotile and low 3 levels of tremolite were actually analyzed for 4 fiber burden? 5 A. Yes, I think what you have to do is 6 you have to take the epidemiology at the same 7 time that if you've got it to look at lung 8 burden, but it wasn't until the lung burden was 9 examined in those cases that it dropped that it 10 wasn't chrysotile so you then want to look at 11 other situations where you can find an exposure 12 to chrysotile per se without tremolite and there 13 have been some factories in the U.K. that have 14 been studied in that way in which no mesothelioma 15 have occurred. 16 Q. Were those published data? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Which ones, Rochdale? 19 A. No, Rochdale was a mixture of 20 crocidolite and tremolite, but there is a mixture 2 1 in the U.K. studied by Molly Newhouse in a series 22 of papers, which one of the problems with all 23 studies is that some had an intermittent or 24 low -- some amphibole has been used in the 25 plant. In that friction products plant in excess MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007268 77 1 Gibbs 2 of 90 percent of usage was chrysotile. There 3 were, I understand, some periods whereby 4 crocidolite was used and when they looked at the 5 precise number of mesothelioma it was 9, 10, 11, 6 that sort of number. 7 Those occurred in the group that had 8 been exposed to crocidolite and it didn't occur 9 in those only being exposed to chrysotile and 10 similarly there's a plant actually near my 11 hospital which was an asbestos cement plant 12 closed some years back but had been operating 13 since the 1930s and maybe even earlier than 14 that. That was studied epidemiologically by a 15 chap called - - Thomas and Elwood were two of the 16 authors. They only used chrysotile apart from a 17 few years in the early 1930s and I know to the 18 present time that there were four mesotheliomas 19 in the plant. All of those four mesotheliomas 20 occurred in the gentleman who had worked there in 21 the early '30s and we have lung burden that shows 22 crocidolite in the lung. 23 Q. Do you draw some conclusion from the 24 fact that -- do you-find significance in that 25 study because there are four crocidolite-related MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP . UCAREF00007269 78 1 Gibbs 2 mesothe1iomas? 3 A. The thing is all the workers after 4 that period of time we don't have any 5 mesotheliomas in them. There's a sufficiently 6 long latency period in chrysotile-causing 7 mesothelioma for it to come through by then and 8 because my hospital would drain, if you like, 9 drain that catchment area. Those workers, if 10 they had a mesothelioma would have come through 11 my laboratory. It would be extremely unlikely 12 that they wouldn't have. 13 Q. Do you know what the exposures were 14 to chrysotile? 15 A. We don't know what the exact fiber 16 levels were but we do know that people in the 17 plant in the 50s and 60s they talked about a 18 snowfall and they used to have snowball fights 19 and snowballs were cohorts for lung cancer and no 20 asbestos cases. 21 Q. How many workers are we talking 22 about ? 23 A. I think it's about a thousand, 1200. 24 Q. So you draw some significance to the 25 fact that approximately something less than a MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007270 79 1 Gibbs 2 dozen mesotheliomas in Molly Newhouse's study are 3 crocidolite in your view? 4 MR. GERSON: I object to the form of 5 the question. 6 Q. But you draw some significance from 7 the fact that Dr. Langer was seeing somewhere in 8 the order of dozen mesotheliomas with high levels 9 of chrysotile in the lung but not amphiboles? 10 A. Dr. Newhouse's cases are from the 11 same plant so they have good ideas of what 12 exposures take place. I think those are more 13 powerful studies than cases referred on random 14 cases. 15 Q. With regards to the Conwed plant, 16 were the '89 cases epidemiologically of interest? 17 A. Yes, because we're talking about a 18 mixed exposure there we would be interest 19 obviously in what was in the lung tissues. 20 Q. And you don't know that? 21 A. No. 22 Q. With respectto the epidemiological 23 studies linking fibrous tremolite to mesothelioma 24 and we're talking about some Greek and Turkish 25 areas ? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007271 80 1 Gibbs 2 A. Corsic . 3 Q. And we're talking about the Rochdale 4 plant in England? 5 A. I'm not talking about the Rochdale 6 plant. 7 Q. Molly Newhouse, workers and miners 8 and millers in Quebec? 9 A. And gas mask workers. 10 Q. Do you draw some significance with 11 respect to fibrous tremolite from the gas mask 12 workers? 13 A. No, but I do. 14 Q. Crocidolite? 15 A. Chrysotile versus crocidolite. 16 Q. How many mesotheliomas arose out of 17 the crocidolite-exposed gas mask workers and 18 you've seen studies both in Britain and the 19 United States? 20 MR. WILL: Canada. 21 A. Canada and McDonald. If you're 22 talking about the U.K., gas mask workers. 23 Q. Start with that. 24 A. In Nottingham there were several gas 25 mask assembly plants but there were round about MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007272 81 1 Gibbs 2 60 in Nottingham. 3 Q. 60 mesotheliomas in Nottingham and do 4 you know what the average lung fiber burden is of 5 crocidolite in those workers? 6 A. Round about 20 million. 7 Q. How many crocidolite-exposed gas mask 8 workers in United States and Canada of 9 mesothelioma? 10 A. I can'tcount thenumbers that came 11 out of the Canadian plant. 12 Q. Do you know what the number of fiber 13 lung burden is? 14 A. No. 15 Q. In terms ofpeople who have been 16 exposed only to fibrous tremolite, how many lung 17 tissue fiber burdens are you aware of that you 18 have seen? 19 A. We're talking about the fibrous 20 tremolite in the absence of chrysotile? 21 Q. Right. 22 MR. GERSON: You're asking that he's 23 seen himself? 24 MR. BROWNSON: Right. 25 A. What I have seen personally or in the MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007273 82 1 Gibbs 2 literature? 3 Q. Well, let's start with personally. 4 A. I think we've just got a couple of 5 lung burden studies on fibrous tremolite. 6 Q. What are the range of levels we see 7 in those couples? 8 A. I can't remember. Well in excess of 9 a million. 10 Q. In terms of literature how many 11 mesotheliomas in people exposed only to fibrous 12 tremolite have you seen? 13 A. Well, there's a bit of data in 14 Belgium from Turkish immigrants but I think some 15 of those were confounded because they had 16 asbestos exposures in Belgium but some cases of 17 mesothelioma which they regarded as tremolite 18 induced with high tremolite lung burdens being 19 equivalent to the excess of one million. 20 Q. Do you concur in that opinion? 21 A. I think there's quite likely their 22 reasoning for it that they're right. 23 Q. How many mesotheliomas are we talking 24 about there? 25 A. A few. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007274 83 1 Gibbs 2 Q. With respect to your conclusion that 3 chrysotile in the absence of tremolite cannot 4 cause or contribute to pleural mesothelioma you 5 cite the fact that you would have expected to see 6 some mesothelioma out of the cement products 7 plant near your hospital but you have not, 8 correct? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. You cite the series of the Canadian 11 miners and millers which have been well followed 12 and published by McDonald and others, correct? 13 A. Yes . 14 Q. Are there any other groups exposed 15 only to chrysotile upon which you base that 16 opinion? 17 A. We have the friction products plant 18 that we've already - - 19 Q. Is that Molly Newhouse? 20 A. Yes, and the gas mask studies of 21 Nottingham where one group of workers were 22 assembling gas masks with chrysotile filters, the 23 other group was assembling gas masks in a similar 24 way but crocidolite and mesothelioma occurred in 25 the crocidolite, not in the chrysotile. Other MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007275 84 1 Gibbs 2 studies in South Africa of mines where comparing 3 crocidolite, amosite and chrysotile. As far as I 4 am aware no mesotheliomas have occurred in the 5 chrysotile. 6 Q. You are aware, are you not, in terms 7 of mining and milling generally we tend to see 8 less lung cancer in mesothelioma then you do in 9 manufacturing operations? 10 A. I think you need to be a bit more 11 specific there. Which sort of -12 Q. Well, let's talkabout 13 chrysotile-exposed workers. 14 A. Are you - 15 MR. GERSON: Can you repeat your 16 question? 17 MR. BROWNSON: Well, I'm jumping 18 ahead because I'm talking about lung cancer. 19 Q. Let's back up and talk about the 20 mesothelioma. 21 A. Right, okay. 22 MR. GERSON: Are you withdrawing your 23 question? 24 MR. BROWNSON: Yes, I'm withdrawing 25 that question. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007276 85 1 Gibbs 2 Q. It has been reported by many, and you 3 are aware of that that, mixed exposures of 4 chrysotile and amphiboles can cause mesothelioma 5 and you're familiar with, for instance, the 6 Selikoff Group and that sort of thing, right? 7 A. Mixed exposures, right. 8 Q. Conwed could be an example of that, 9 right ? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Is it your view that such mixed 12 exposures of chrysotile and amphibole asbestos 13 that chrysotile plays no role whatsoever in the 14 ideology of pleural mesothelioma? 15 A. That is my view. 16 Q. Have you ever recommended that the 17 British standards for exposure to the asbestos 18 apply only to crocidolite and not to chrysotile? 19 A. I was never involved in setting the 20 standards. 21 Q. You're aware that in Britain 22 chrysotile is regulated as to crocidolite but 23 regulated at different levels? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Is that occupational exposures? I MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007277 86 1 Gibbs 2 think that or a four-hour time average; is that 3 correct ? 4 A. I think that's correct. 5 Q. Based on what you've described to us 6 by mesothelioma you've made no recommendations 7 that this be changed in any way? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Do you know if the Medical Research 10 Center with which you were affiliated when it was 11 in operation has made any recommendations in that 12 regard? 13 A. I'm not aware that they did. 14 Q. Let's turn our attention to lung 15 cancer. Do you have an opinion as to whether 16 calidria chrysotile can contribute to lung 17 cancer? 18 A. I think it's highly unlikely that it 19 does . 20 Q. Again, does that opinion differ with 2 1 respect to chrysotile generally or is it the same 22 with respect to chrysotile generally? 23 A. It's the same with chrysotile 24 generally. 25 Q. In that regard are you of the view MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007278 87 1 Gibbs 2 that it is possible that chrysotile exposure can 3 contribute to the lung cancer if you have, for 4 example, pulmonary fibrosis in a very high 5 exposure of chrysotile? 6 A. If you get sufficient chrysotile 7 exposure to produce lung fibrosis but it means a 8 very high prolonged exposure then. 9 Q. How about in your view, does the 10 cigarette smoke factor in that opinion; in other 11 words, would you say that this would be limited . 12 to smokers or heavy smokers or does that not 13 matter? 14 A. Well, it doesn't matter a lot but if 15 they don't smoke the risk of getting lung cancer 16 is increased, is slightly increased, and, in 17 fact, all the epidemiological studies found it 18 very difficult to find any number of lung cancers 19 in non-smoking asbestos workers. 20 Q. Would you agree, as it sounds like 21 you would, as a general proposition that smoking 22 is the principal problem with respect to 23 development of lung cancer among 24 occupationally-exposed asbestos workers? 25 A. Yes. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007279 88 1 Gibbs 2 Q. A num^ur of studies have actually 3 tried to show that or tried to factor in smoking? 4 A. Yes. , 5 Q. Would you agree with me that among 6 occupationally-exposed asbestos workers by and 7 large you have a large proportion of smokers 8 among those cohorts? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Have you seen data among the Conwed 11 workers that were smokers? 12 A. I think about 18 percent. 13 Q. So at least based upon the evidence 14 that you've seen the Conwed population was a 15 pretty heavy smoking population? 16 A. Yes . 17 Q. As far as you'reconcerned that would 18 be a very heavy factor in any excess lung cancer 19 we see in that group? 2 0 A. Yes. 2 1 Q. Are you aware of the fact that Conwed 22 sold the Cloquet Sealing Plant to the United 23 States Gypsum Company in 1955? 24 A. No. 25 Q. SGEFpurchased the plant,attempted MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007280 216 1 Gibbs 2 injection, published where animals were given 3 chrysotile and researchers had broken out the 4 levels of tremolite in those animals? 5 A. I don't remember seeing anything 6 specifically. 7 Q. Do you recall if any of Wagner's a studies would show that? 9 A. There may be one or two. 10 Q. Of the published studies or 11 unpublished? 12 A. I think one or two published studies 13 that may have some data in that. 14 Q. Do you know in that 1974 paper that 15 we were looking at that Dr. Wagner did -- I 1 6 realize that's 22 years ago and you were a young 1 7 researcher at the time -- and do you know if any 18 tremolite was found or looked for in the 19 chrysoti1e-exposed rats? 20 A. I don't think they look at it at that 2 1 point in time. 22 Q. You have said that in your experience 2 3 the background level of tremolite in human lungs 24 is about up to one million dry fibers gram of 25 lung tissue? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007408 90 1 Gibbs 2 populations are generally seen in manufacturing 3 operations as opposed to mining and milling? 4 MR. WILL: Attributed by whom? What 5 are we talking about? 6 MR. BROWNSON: In published 7 literature. 8 Let me put it another way because 9 it's a hard -- let me withdraw that question. 10 Q. Would you agree with me that in the 11 published literature the elevative levels of lung 12 cancer among chrysotile-exposed workers have 13 generally been seen, for example, in textile and 14 manufacturing operations as opposed to mining and 15 milling? 16 A. The rate of lung cancer has been 17 higher in textile operations than in mining and 18 milling, yes. 19 Q. For example, we see higher examples 20 of lung cancer in mining than in South Carolina 2 1 and the miners and millers in Canada? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. In your view does the physical 24 manipulation of fiber -- we're talking about 25 chrysotile fiber here -- play any role in these MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007282 91 1 Gibbs 2 increased levels of lung cancer? 3 A. Are you talking about Quebec and 4 South Carolina? 5 Q. Right . 6 A. I think the evidence is against that. 7 Q. Do you believe that the increased a levels of lung cancer in South Carolina arise 9 because they use some crocidolite in yarn? 10 A. I think there are a number of 11 unanswered questions in the South Carolina plant 12 in terms of risk and there is a possibility that 13 it may not be related to asbestos. 14 Q. You believe it's related to the use 15 of mineral oil? 16 A. I think that's a possibility. 17 Q. Do you know what the median length of 18 the chrysotile found in the lungs of South 19 Carolina textile workers is? 20 MR. WILL: You're talking about 2 1 Dement's particular study? 22 MR. BROWNSON: Right. 23 A. I can't remember the precise figure 24 but I remember when there was a study done by 25 Sebastian McDonald comparing lung contents from MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007283 92 1 Gibbs 2 millers from the South Carolina textile plant 3 workers and there was very little difference 4 between the two groups. 5 Q. In terms of size distribution of 6 fiber? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. So whatever the median length was it 9 was variable to that seen in the miners and 10 millers? 11 A. The physical size distribution, as 12 far as I understood that paper, didn't indicate 13 that they could explain the difference in rate of 14 lung cancer. 15 Q. Put another way, the difference of 16 the rate in lung cancer could not be explained by 17 the size distribution? . 18 A. That's correct. 19 Q. How about by morphology? 20 A. What do you mean by "morphology"? 2 1 Q. How about by physical characteristics 22 other than size? 23 A. Well, the -- I mean -- the length and 24 width are -- I mean, apart from -- I'm not 25 quite -- I don't think I follow you. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007284 93 1 Gibbs 2 Q. Let me ask you this: When chrysotile 3 is used in a textile operation and it's spun or 4 woven or whatever they're doing, would you agree 5 with me that it has the effect of what they call 6 opening up the fiber? 7 A. Yes . 8 Q. That's all I was driving at with my 9 prior question. The physical manipulation of the 10 fiber in that sort of operation changes it in the 11 sense that it breaks it down to fibrals, it opens 12 it up, that sort of thing. Would you agree with 13 me on that? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Let's move on to pulmonary 16 asbestosis. Do you have an opinion as to whether 17 calidria asbestos can cause pulmonary or can 18 contribute to pulmonary asbestosis? 19 A. I think it's conceivable that it can 20 but I think that it would be accepted in the 2 1 situations where there was very prolonged high 22 level exposure. It is unlikely to have any 23 effect. 24 Q. in that view do you differentiate 25 between other types of chrysotile? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007285 94 1 Gibbs 2 A. I think generally you would. Looking 3 at fibrosis in the lung and amphibole is it much 4 more potent than chrysotile and going back to 5 miners and millers in Canada there was a 6 relatively smaller number of asbestosis and they 7 were exposed to very high amounts over a long 8 period of time and in those, of course, you've 9 the tremolite in the lung that's dominating the 10 mineralogical finding as well. 11 Q. Are you saying that's true in all the 12 Canadian miners and millers or some of them? 13 A. I'm saying what we don't have is a 14 precise match of the lung burden studies with the 15 McDonald group of high exposures, but certainly 16 based on the occupational hygiene data the ones 17 who got asbestosis were in the very high exposed 18 group. 19 Q. Whether they had higher lung burdens 20 of tremolite was something that has not been 21 correlated; would you agree with me on that? 22 A. Based on what we know on the other 23 lung burden studies of other cases it is probably 24 that they would have long-term. 25 Q. By "other cases" you mean the MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007286 95 1 Gibbs 2 mesothelioma cases? 3 A. The other cases written up. He has 4 done some mesothelioma cases and others which 5 were not mesothe 1ioma. 6 Q. From Canadian miners? 7 A. Yes . 8 Q. You're aware of the fact that there 9 were differing levels of fibrous tremolite in 10 different Canadian mines? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Do you know which is the largest 13 historical - - which Canadian mine has produced 14 the most fiber? 15 A. You're talking about tremolite now? 16 Q. No, I'm talking about chrysotile 17 production. 18 A. No, I can't recall the production 19 rates. 20 Q. Are you familiar with the Jeffrey 21 Mine? 22 A. Yes . 23 Q. Do you know what level of tremolite 24 there is in asbestos from the Jeffrey Mine? 2 5 A. I can't remember. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007287 96 1 Gibbs 2 Q. Are y i aware of the fact that 3 there's very little tremolite in the Jeffrey 4 Mine? 5 A. I can't rememberwhetherJeffreywas 6 near the Township of Asbestos or the Township of 7 Thetford but I know the township of Thetford had 8 more tremolite than the mines in Asbestos. 9 Q. As a general proposition the Thetford 10 mines had more tremolite? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. But these Kansas miners and millers 13 studied by McDonald and others caused all the 14 other East Brownford and Jeffrey and all these 15 places? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. I asked thequestion which started 18 this question, I'm not sure of the answer; 19 whether your view contributes asbestosis to 20 calidria or the same with respect to all 21 chrysotile? 22 A. I think if when chrysotile is related 23 to asbestos it's only when it's in very high 24 exposures. With that there is a lot of tremolite 25 exposure. The other aspects, if one looks at MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007288 97 1 Gibbs 2 asbestos in general, experimentally lung fibers 3 will produce more fibrous than short fibrous. In 4 general terms comparing one amosite with another 5 and not asbestos numbers with erionite, if you 6 take long and subject it and make it short you 7 change the amount of fibrosis that occurs. 8 Q. Are we talking about animal 9 experiments here? 10 A. Yes. I think the calidria asbestos 11 has short fibers compared with conventional 12 Canadian chrysotile it would be less likely to 13 require even higher exposures. 14 Q. Do you know how the size distribution 15 of chrysotile compared with Canadian chrysotile? 16 A. My understanding is it's shorter 17 compared with Canadian chrysotile. 18 Q. Do you know that for a fact? 19 A. Well - 20 MR. GERSON: Object to the form. 21 MR. WILL: He hasn't done fiber 22 measurements in his lab, if that's what you're 23 asking him. 24 Q. Do you knowspecifically how to 25 compare ? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007289 98 1 Gibbs 2 A. My impression from reading the 3 literature is that the Canadian chrysotile is 4 about twice as long on average with the calidria. 5 Q. Do you know what the percentage of 6 calidria fibers greater than five microns in 7 length is? a A. That seems to have varied with 9 particular products so it's varied from nought to 10 near 20 percent. li Q. Or have you ever seen it? 12 A. I think there was one by Miller. 13 Q. Is that in your notes somewhere? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Okay. 16 A. Miller1996, MG-130 as nought percent 17 greater than five. And then -18 Q. What is - 19 A. Then RG-144 is one percent greater 20 than five. 21 Q. Do you know what SG-10 is? 22 A. I think particular calidria 23 chrysotile products that come out of the factory. 24 Q. Incidentally, you're familiar with 25 what is known as UICC standard samples that are MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007290 99 1 Gibbs` 2 used in animal research? . 3 A. In general terms, yes. 4 Q. Are you familiar with the Canadian 5 chrysotile samples which are known as UICC A and 6 UICC B? 7 A. I think they used different lines and 8 reflected. 9 Q. Do you know what the size 10 distribution of the samples are? 11 A. I think it varied from one study to 12 another but I can't remember precisely what they 13 were . 14 Q. Do you know what if any tremolite is 15 in UICC A? 16 A. I can't remember percentage. 17 Q. How about UICC B? 18 A. I can't remember. 19 Q. But there is no tremolite in calidria 20 asbestos? 21 A. All data I've seen so far there is no 22 indication of any tremolite there. 23 Q. That data would consist of samples 24 analyzed by Pooley? 25 A. There was samples analyzed by Pooley MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007291 100 1 Gibbs 2 and other people as well. 3 Q. Mumpton? 4 A. Yes, and somebody else, I think, 5 MR. GERSON: Just for the record, 6 Dr. Gibbs was not produced as a mineralology 7 expert. 8 MR. BROWNSON: I know that, I'm 9 trying to steer away from mineralology but... 10 A. There is a study by Wicks who didn't 11 detect any tremolite. 12 Q. Would you agreewith me that when 13 Dr. Pooley had done one analysis of chrysotile 14 infected workers it was higher than that of the 15 chrysotile fiber itself? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. I don't want to get into a long 18 analysis, but is it fair to say that that occurs 19 as a general matter because tremolite fiber tends 20 to accumulate and be retained in the lung 2 1 tissues? 22 A. That's correct. 23 Q. So that the fact thatProfessor - 24 let's take a hypothetical example. In a 25 hypothetical example Professor Pooley found a MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007292 101 1 Gibbs 2 million tremolite fibers per dry gram of lung 3 tissue and half a million chrysotile fibers. We 4 cannot infer from that that the particular 5 exposure was twice as much as chrysotile. What 6 that means is chrysotile tremolite has 7 accumulated, right? 8 A. Yes . 9 Q. This is a marked effect of small 10 amounts of chrysotile, small amounts of 11 tremolite, that tends to accumulate in the lung 12 tissue? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. If we wanted to determine whether 15 calidria contained any tremolite would one way to 16 go about it be to look at the lung tissue in the 17 calidria-exposed workers to see if any tremolite 18 was there? 19 A. That would be the best way. 20 Q. Because that way if there's a very 21 small amount of tremolite in calidria and 22 tremolite here and there in calidria it would 23 tend to accumulate and effect cumulatively? 24 A. Provided it showed the amount of 25 tremolite in the lung was above background and MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007293 102 1 Gibbs 2 was from someplace else; in other words, those 3 workers hadn't been working somewhere else in 4 addition but if those workers were confined to 5 the work experience to the calidria chrysotile 6 and found raised levels of chrysotile that would 7 be familiar. 8 Q- Do you know if that's ever been seen? 9 A. To my knowledge, no. 10 Q. Do you think that would be a good 11 to look for? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Let me ask you this: Earlier on you 14 had mentioned lymph nodes. Does the same effect 15 occur in lymph nodes the way you described 16 tremolite accumulates? 17 A. I don't have enough data to know 18 that. 19 Q. Does the same effect occur in other 20 tumors; in other words, esophagal tumors? 21 MR. GERSON: What do you mean "the 22 same effect"? 23 Q. Where the tremolite tends to 24 accumulate over time? 25 A. I'm sorry, I don't believe an MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007294 103 1 Gibbs 2 esophageal was proven to be asbestos - related at 3 that point in time. 4 Q. That wasn't the question. I was 5 asking whether they are or not. My question is 6 do you see this effect that tremolite tends to 7 accumulate over time? 8 A. We have no data on that. 9 Q. Let me ask you this question: With 10 respect to pulmonary fibrosis or -- I'm sorry. 11 with respect to pleural fibrosis, do you believe 12 that calidria can contribute to this condition? 13 A. I think it's extremely unlikely. 14 Q. In that opinion do you make any 15 distinction between chrysotile generally and 16 calidria? 17 A. NO . 18 Q- With respect to pleural thickening, 19 do you believe that calidria asbestos can 20 contribute to this condition? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Do you make a distinction between 23 calidria and other types of chrysotile? 24 A. No . 25 Q. Upon what data do you base that " MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007295 104 1 Gibbs 2 opinion? 3 A. I think the pleural disorders, 4 Clark's fibrosis or mesothelioma are 5 amphibole-related. 6 Q. with respect to pleural plaques, do 7 you believe calidria contributes to the 8 accumulation of pleural plaques? 9 A. No. 10 Q. That's the same as pleural 11 thickening? 12 A. All the Clark mesotheliomas I think 13 are amphibole-related. . 14 Q. Is your view with respect to 15 pulmonary disorders being only caused by 16 amphibole asbestos? 17 MR. GERSON: Is that pulmonary or 18 pleural? 19 MR. BROWNSON: Did I misspeak there? 20 MR. WILL: You said pulmonary. 21 Q. Pleural. It is your opinion that 22 pleural plaques mesotheliomas are amphibole 23 asbestos, correct? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Is that view a consensus borne of any MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007296 105 1 Gibbs 2 scientific regulatory bodies of which you are 3 aware of? 4 A. No, but I think of the groups of 5 scientists that have studied the relationships I 6 think there may be varying degrees of certainty 7 but I think more would say that it's more 8 amphibole-related than chrysotile. 9 Q. That's a different thing. Would you 10 agree that among scientists or many scientists 11 people tend to view the amphibole types of 12 asbestos as more potent, if you will, in causing 13 Pi eural disorders than chrysotile? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. There are some people who take the 16 contrary view, that they're in the minority; 17 would that be fair to say? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. So themajority view that amphibole 20 asbestos types are more potent in causing pleural 21 abnormalities than chrysotile? 22 A. Right. 23 Q. I thought Iheard you say that 24 chrysotile plays no role in pleural 25 abnormalities? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007297 106 1 Gibbs 2 A. Well, rarely if. any. . 3 Q. Would you agree with me that at least 4 with respect to that view the consensus at least 5 as embodied in regulation is to the contrary? 6 MR. WILL: I object to the form of 7 the question in that it assumes that scientific 8 consensus in fact especially embodied in 9 political regulation. If you want to break the 10 question down and ask him his view. 11 Q. Do you know what the position of the 12 IRA is, the IRA, this is embodied? , 13 A. No. 14 Q. United States Environmental 15 Protection Agency? 16 A. They regard it as carcinogenic. 17 Q. Are you familiar with the 18 International Program for Clinical Safety at the 19 WHO? 2 0 A. I've heard a little bit about it but 21 I wouldn't say I was familiar with it. 22 Q. Are you familiar with their position 23 with respect to the carcinogenicity of 24 chrysotile? 25 A. I think there's been a major debate MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007298 107 1 Gibbs 2 in that area which a number of people were 3 unhappy with the result of it. 4 Q. The result of chrysotile and 5 carcinogens and they were unhappy with that? 6 MR. WILL: Objection to whether they 7 regard it as a carcinogen. That group doesn't 8 have a right to say that it's a fact whether it 9 is or isn't. 10 MR. BROWNSON: Let me rephrase the 11 question. 12 Q. Would you agree with me that the 13 International Program for Clinical Safety at the 14 WHO will be adopting a position that chrysotile 15 is carcinogenic, a carcinogen, and that there are 16 some people that you think are unhappy with that 17 position? 18 A. That is what I understand but I 19 couldn't say that this is definitely what will 20 come out, I haven't been party to the discussion. 21 Q. Are you aware that there is a 22 position paper coming out soon in that regard? 23 (Mr. Goldman left the deposition 24 proceedings.) 25 A. Yes. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007299 108 1 Gibbs 2 Q. Dr. Gibbs, in preparation for your 3 deposition today I was looking through some 4 literature and I'd like your comments on a number 5 of things that I reviewed. I was looking, for 6 example, at this chapter that Doll and Peto 7 published in 1985 in a book published by Her 8 Majesty's stationery office entitled "Asbestos: 9 Effects on health of exposure to asbestos." 10 First of all, have you read that 11 before? 12 A. I think it was a blue book 13 originally, yes, I think I have. 14 Q. Let me hand you a copy of that 15 because I wanted to ask you some things about 16 it . 17 A. Thanks. 18 Q. I've handed to you a copy -- first of 19 all, my question is have you ever read this? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. You, of course, arefamiliar with Sir 22 Richard Doll? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Have you done any work with Sir 25 Richard Doll? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007300 109 1 Gibbs 2 A. No, but I've spoken to him on several 3 occasions and met him at different meetings. 4 Q. I'm just curious, is he alive today? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Is heactive inresearch? 7 A. Yes. Not much with asbestos though, 8 I think other things. 9 Q. Have you ever done work with Julian 10 Peto? 11 A. No, but it's possible that we might 12 be collaborating on some research in the future. 13 Q. Is that inconnection with the 14 research on the rise of mesothelioma in Great 15 Britain? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. I got to thinking about when I got to 18 reading this paper is when Sir Richard Doll 19 published his series of, I guess you called it a 20 series of papers and studies in 1955, about lung 2 1 cancer and cigarette smoking and lung cancer in 22 asbestos -- you're familiar with that literature, 23 I take it? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Do you know whether the workers that MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007301 110 1 Gibbs 2 Sir Richard Doll reported on were 3 chrysoti1e-exposed workers or amphibole-exposed 4 workers ? 5 A. Both because the dominant data that 6 he used was from the Rochdale textile plant. 7 Q. Are you familiar with the history of 8 asbestos usage at Rochdale over the years? 9 A. I have seen some figures and I know 10 they use some more chrysotile than crocidolite 11 but they did use crocidolite at times. 12 Q. Have you seen the data showing the 13 years in which the different fiber types were 14 used at Rochdale? 15 A. Probably have but I don't remember 16 the specifics of it. 17 Q. Would you agree with me that at least 18 as reported by Doll and Peto in this chapter in 19 1985 they describe chrysotile as a carcinogen 20 both with respect to lung cancer and pleural 2 1 mesothelioma? 22 A. Yes, but that was predominantly based 23 on the shares which they had thought and assumed 24 was a chrysotile exposure. It wasn't realized 25 that there was a substantial amount of MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007302 111 1 Gibbs 2 crocidolice exposure as well. 3 Q. First of all, just for the record, 4 Sir Richard Doll is an epidemiologist, is he not? 5 A Yes . 6 Q Would it be fair to say that he is if 7 not the father of modern epidemiology he's at 8 least a leading figure in that field? 9 A Yes . 10 Q. And the, I guess among his most 11 notable achievements, was the publication of data 12 showing an epidemiological link to cigarette 13 smoking and lung cancer in the mid 1950s? 14 A Yes . 15 Q For some reason these pages are not 16 numbered well but I'm at page 15 of this paper. 17 And I'd like you to turn there, if you would. 18 These are double-sided pages. 15 is not marked 19 very well but 16 is. 20 A I've got it. 21 Q For some reason the even numbers come 22 out better than the odds on this thing. Have you 23 found the reference page? 24 A Yes . 25 Q In his report here under the heading MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007303 112 1 Gibbs 2 "Fibre type," they talk about the four types of 3 asbestos and the four types they talk about 4 serpentine, the chrysotile and three amphiboles; 5 crocidolite, amosite and anthophyl1ite. 6 Do you see that? 7 A. Yes, I've got it. 8 Q. They report here that all four types 9 produced pulmonary fibrosis, cancer of the lung 10 and peritoneal in animal experiments but apart 11 from showing such experiments have not been very 12 helpful. 13 Would you agree with these statements 14 that animal experiments have shown but not too 15 helpful? 16 A. That's perhaps too sweeping a 17 statement. I think perhaps animal experiments 18 are useful information but in context with human 19 epidemiological and pathological and human 20 studies of lungs, etc., so I wouldn't think it 21 reasonable to sort of play down and not use 22 animal experiments as the sole basis assessment, 23 but it's perhaps a little bit too dismissive. 24 Q. Then they talk about a study by 25 Walton in 1982. Do you see that reference? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007304 113 1 Gibbs 2 A. Yes . 3 Q. Are you familiar with that paper? 4 A . I don't recall it. 5 Q. I don't either but the report states, 6 "animal studies point to chrysotile being at 7 least as damaging and possibly more so, than 8 crocidolite (or amosite) at equal respirable mass 9 exposure concentrations and much more damaging 10 for equal amounts retained in the lungs." 11 Have you ever read that statement 12 from Walton before? 13 A. Only when I read this monograph 14 before. 15 Q. I take it that you disagree with 16 that? 17 A. Yes -- I mean, I don't agree with 18 that position. 19 Q. One thing that interests me about 20 that is it says chrysotile is much more damaging 21 for equal amounts retained in the lung, and you 22 would agree as a general proposition you'd see 23 less chrysotile retained in the lung than 24 amphiboles ? 25 A. Yes, the experiments were done in MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007305 114 1 Gibbs 2 equal masses which means a number of fibers that 3 the animals were exposed to were one fold greater 4 than the amphibole. 5 Q. Exactly, because chrysotile fibers 6 are smaller than amphibole fibers? 7 A. Yes . 8 Q. If you give quality masses of fibers 9 you're given a lot of amphibole? 10 MR. WILL: Objection. If you find 11 equal amounts in the lung you're given a lot for 12 amphibole to find quality amounts in the lung. 13 Q. Chrysotile is more massive than 14 amphibole? 15 A. Yes, basically the animal experiments 16 were conducted on growth overload conditions, the 17 ones they were doing at that time. 18 Q. If you get a lot of chrysotile than 19 amphibole then you see the greater effects in 20 animals ? 21 A. Yes . 22 Q. Is that what he's saying? 23 A. Yes, I think so. 24 Q. Then at the very end of this section 25 on fiber type Doll and Peto say this, it says MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007306 115 1 Gibbs 2 that "it may also be that pulmonary burdens have 3 little relevance to the production of tumours in 4 the bronchi." And I assume that what they're 5 speaking of, pulmonary burdens, is asbestos fiber 6 burdens in the lung tissue; is that correct? 7 A. I assume so but it's very vague. 8 Q. It is vague. Assuming they mean 9 pulmonary asbestos fiber burdens is that a 10 statement that you would agree with? 11 A. No -- well, I think the pulmonary 12 fiber asbestos burden is extremely important. It 13 is an asbestos - related lung cancer because I 14 think you need the fibrosis to occur to get the 15 lung cancer so I think high pulmonary lung burden 16 to produce the fibrosis. 17 Q. Their next section is entitled 18 epidemiological evidence. It's a fairly short 19 section but at the bottom of page 15 and 20 continuing on to page 16 they make this 2 1 statement, "This provides no grounds for 22 expecting a greater hazard from amphibole 23 asbestos than from chrysotile." And if you go 24 back ahead of that what they're talking about is 25 this notion of the proportion of fibers of MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007307 116 1 Gibbs 2 different sizes varying with the operation, 3 whether it's mining, milling or manufacturing, 4 that sort of thing. 5 Do you see that? 6 A. Yeah, I think, again, it's a very 7 vague, ambiguous sort of description. What 8 they're basically saying is I think from 9 occupational studies they don't have any good 10 information on what exposures were on numbers, 11 types and fiber sizes. 12 Q. Exactly. Would it be fair to say 13 this is one of the problems we have in asbestos 14 epidemiology is that the occupational exposures, 15 by and large, heavy occupational exposure 16 occurred years ago and got the data to make good 17 comparisons between epidemiological cohorts? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Without getting into a long 20 discussion on this, you see from time to time 21 people make efforts to try and standardize this 22 industrial hygiene exposure data; would that be 23 fair to say? 24 A. They make efforts, yes. 25 Q. Is what Doll and Peto essentially are MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007308 117 1 Gibbs 2 saying here, is that it's really hard to do and 3 this whole industrial hygiene data it's hard to 4 standardize to the extent that you can actually 5 examine these cohorts side by side? 6 A. Based on occupational hygiene data, 7 yes . 8 Q. Have you seen industrial or 9 occupational hygiene data from Conwed plant, such 10 as it may be? 11 A. I have just seen one reference to it, 12 I think some samples taken early 1970s, 1971, 13 which were not very high. 14 Q. Well, you then have seen some of the 15 data that I'm aware of? 16 MR. WILL: He didn't see the '84 test 17 of the boiler room. 1 8 MR. BROWNSON: Okay, then he's seen 19 some of it. 20 Q. The next section is entitled Fibre 2 1 type, the second Fibre type, it's under the 22 heading Epidemiological evidence. It reads, "In 23 contrast to the evidence on fibre size, human 24 evidence has been extremely important in 25 generating the idea that the amphiboles are more MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007309 118 1 Gibbs 2 carcinogenic than chrysotile, particularly with 3 respect to the production of mesotheliomas. The 4 evidence is not, however, as clear as one would 5 like. " 6 Do you see that? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Would you agree with that statement? 9 A. I think in 1985 that was probably a 10 reasonable statement but I think since then there 11 has been more information has come to light and 12 that one can firm up on that statement. 13 Q. When you say "more information," are 14 you talking about epidemiological information? 15 A. For fiber burdens studies and so 16 forth. 17 Q. With respect to the epidemiological 18 information, do we again have this problem of 19 trying to fully understand the industrial hygiene 20 data of these early exposures? 21 A. Yes, but I think at least in some 22 situations it has been clarified to some extent 23 by fiber burden data of the lung where you can 24 then get a better idea of exposures. 25 Q. Do you know when Conwed's MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007310 119 1 Gibbs 2 compensation claims first began to be presented? 3 A. No. 4 Q. If I represented to you that the 5 first claims -- actually the first was presented 6 in '85 but began to be presented in about '86, 7 would you agree with me that there remained a 8 difference of opinion in the field of in the 9 scientific community as to the carcinogenicity of 10 chrysotile? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. In other words, put another way, at 13 that time if you wanted to a person could find a 14 scientist saying that chrysotile causes lung 15 cancer, pleural mesothelioma and I suppose also 16 peritoneal mesothelioma and you could find 17 scientists saying no, none of those things are 18 true? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. What you're telling us now is over 2 1 time since - - over the last ten years the 22 consensus has been swinging at least with 2 3 peritoneal mesothelioma that chrysotile is not a 24 cause of that, correct? 25 A. Yes. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007311 120 1 Gibbs 2 Q. It's -Iso been swinging with respect 3 to pleural mesothelioma? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And lung cancer? 6 A. I think there's no controversy over 7 lung cancer but I think people haven'tgenerally 9 paid enough attention to the difference in fiber 9 types in lung cancer. 10 Q. Would you agree with me that one of 11 the problems that exists today in the scientific 12 arena is that whether he hasn't paid enough 13 attention to it or looking clearly - - or looking 14 at the data clearly there remains a problem with 15 a proper analysis of the role of chrysotile in 16 causing lung cancer? 17 A. Yes, I think what is consistent with 18 one or two exceptions, what comes consistently 19 through is if you compare as best you can one 20 factory situation with another factory situation 21 where the processes were thought to be similar 22 and the likely exposures were thought to be 23 similar, that amphiboles show a much greater 24 risk, increased risk, of causing lung cancer than 25 the groups exposed to chrysotile and the example MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007312 121 1 Gibbs 2 is the South Carolina textile plant. 3 Q. Even today there are groups of 4 scientists who work in this field who will tell 5 you that chrysotile causes, not contributes, but 6 causes lung cancer? 7 A. Yes, there are. 8 Q. For example, you're familiar with 9 Dr. Nicholson, who is not a physician but a 10 physicist, are you not? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. You're familiar with his view on 13 that, that chrysotile as a carcinogen causes 14 pleural lung cancer and peritoneal mesothelioma; 15 am I right on that? 16 A. I don't know what his precise 17 opinions are at this point in time because I 18 haven't spoken to Dr. Nicholson, but I believe 19 that Dr. Nicholson was one of the major reasons 2 0 why the U.S. has elected to regulate the fibers 21 in a similar way as opposed to every other 22 country. 23 (Requested portion of record read.) 24 Q. For, I imagine, historical and other 25 reasons, the views of Dr. Nicholson and his group MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007313 122 1 Gibbs 2 seem to have carried some weight with American 3 regulators in the field of asbestos; would you 4 agree with me on that? 5 A. I believe so. 6 Q. For example, are you aware of the 7 fact that Dr. Nicholson was the primary author of 8 the Environmental Health Agency's update with 9 respect to asbestos in 1986? 10 A. I believe so. 11 Q. That is a document which forms the 12 basis of current, actually current today, EPA 13 regulations with respect to asbestos health 14 effects, is it not? 15 A. As far as I know. 16 Q. In that document the authors, 17 principally Nicholson, make the statement that 18 there is no threshold of exposure to chrysotile 19 which you cannot contract mesothelioma? 20 A. Well, I haven't seen the statement 21 recently but I have no reason to disbelieve that 22 statement. 23 Q. You're familiar with that position? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. That position, for better or worse, MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007314 123 1 Gibbs 2 has been adopted by the American EPA, has it not? 3 A . Yes . 4 Q. And it still remains in force today? 5 A. Right. 6 Q. So the Minnesota - - 7 MR. WILL: What do you mean by 8 "remain"? There is a level of exposure which is 9 permitted today. 10 MR. BROWNSON: I understand, though 11 nevertheless it remains the position of the EPA 12 that no level of no associated risk, that's what 13 I was trying to say. 14 MR. GERSON: I object. 15 A. That's the EPA's position. 16 Q. Were you aware of the fact that when 17 the Minnesota Department of Health did its survey 18 of the Conwed workers and the Asbestos Health 19 Effects in 1987 which they published in 1988 that 20 they consulted with Mount Sinai in connection 2 1 with that survey, Mount Sinai researchers? 22 A. I didn't know that. 23 Q. Let me ask you a hypothetical 24 situation: Assuming that they did donsult with 25 Mount Sinai researchers when they did their MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007315 124 1 Gibbs 2 survey, would you agree that the views you have 3 expressed here today about chrysotile are 4 probably not the views that they got when they 5 asked, for example, chrysotile, mesothelioma and 6 fibrosis? 7 A. I don't know, I wasn't party to any 8 of the situations. I don't know if they asked 9 them to do the study or asked them about fiber 10 type issued, that's between them. 11 Q. Let me ask you a different question, 12 hypothetically, based upon what you know, if the 13 Minnesota Department of Health epidemiologists 14 would have consulted with Dr. Nicholson in 1987 15 and said. Dr. Nicholson, is chrysotile implicated 16 in the production of mesothelioma, would you 17 agree with me that the answer they would have 18 gotten would be yes? 19 A. That's been his position. 20 Q. Would you agree with me that he would 2 1 have answered yes, that chrysotile is implicated 22 in the production of lung cancer? 23 A. That would be his position. 24 Q. The same with pulmonary fibrosis, if 25 he has a position on that? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007316 125 1 Gibbs 2 A. Yes. I assume so. 3 Q. As I understand your prior testimony, 4 these people from the Minnesota Department of 5 Health never consulted with your group, 6 Dr. Pooley, you, Dr. Wagner, in the association 7 with the - - 8 A. They never consulted with me, whether 9 they consulted with Dr. Pooley or Wagner, I don't 10 know. 11 Q. As far as you know they didn't? 12 A. As far as I know they didn't. 13 Q. If you go to page 17, which was the 14 next page of Doll and Peto's paper that we've 15 been looking at, down on the first column, down 16 toward the bottom, last paragraph, they write, 17 "That chrysotile can cause pleural mesothelioma 18 would seem to be settled by the observation of at 19 least 14 cases in Quebec miners and millers." 20 Do you see that? 21 A. Sorry, where is that? 22 Q. It's the last paragraph on the bottom 23 of the first column. 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. You do not draw the same conclusion MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007317 126 1 Gibbs 2 from the cases of Quebec miners and millers; is 3 that fair to say? . 4 A. They were not aware of the tremolite 5 problem and I think they would have -- would 6 probably change that statement, yeah. 7 Q. Let me clarify this because you might 8 have misspoke there. They were aware of the 9 tremolite problem because they refer to it, but 10 are you saying they didn't know what is known 11 today about the tremolite? . 12 A. I don't think they realize what the 13 difference of retention is and how the rate of 14 mesothelioma compares with different chrysotile 15 mines and how the level contamination varies 16 between chrysotile mines. 17 Q. Though they did report that some 18 mines the level of the tremolite was zero. Do 19 you see that? 2 0 A. Sorry, I can't - 21 MR. GERSON: Where are you reading? 22 MR. BROWNSON: Footnote on the bottom 23 of page 17. 24 A. Well, I think that was looking at 25 other samples. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007318 127 1 Gibbs 2 Q. Right. . 3 A. And sometimes a level of 4 contamination at one percent is not detectable by 5 the methods they have used so they're basing this 6 on inadequate technology. 7 Q. Nevertheless it remains the fact that a in the Quebec mines that varying ranges of mines 9 have levels of zero to relatively high levels? 10 A. Yes. li Q. With respect to theBritish asbestos 12 regulations, just, you know, as we've been 13 talking about Dr. Nicholson's role in EPA, do you 14 know essentially what has been behind the Great 15 Britain input? 16 MR. GERSON: Before you answer I feel 17 compelled to put on the record that Dr. Gibbs has 18 not been produced in the regulatory experiment on 19 American or British law or regulations, but to 20 the extent you can answer these questions. 21 A. I don't know precisely but my 22 estimate would be that the medical research 23 council would have been involved with health and 24 safety executive, would have been involved but 25 drafted other bodies as well. I think that MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007319 12 8 1 Gibbs 2 probably Julian Peto and Martin Gardner as 3 epidemiologists at South Hampton would have been 4 involved in the regulatory part. 5 Q. When you say "the medical research 6 council," was that the medical research council 7 with which you were affiliated? 8 A. There were a number of locations of 9 the medical research council and they have an 10 epidemiology unit in South Hampton. 1 would 11 think that a regulatory point of view they would 12 have mainly gone to the epidemiologists in South 13 Hampton. Gardner and whether people like Chris 14 Wagner were asked to meetings to discuss it, I 15 don't know. 16 Q. It's true, is it not, that there has 17 been and remains a good deal of controversy and 18 inprecision in the medical literature on the 19 question of the carcinogenicity of chrysotile? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Would you agree with me that to a 22 layperson reviewing the question, relying upon 23 scientific opinion and medical literature, even 24 to this day remains a little bit of a muddled 25 picture? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007320 129 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Gibbs MR. WILL: Objection to what a layperson knows, but go ahead. A. I think there is still debate and this paper you have drawn attention to verbalizes what a simplistic view of the situation at the time in 1985, saying that it was really the finding of mesothelioma in Quebec miners and millers definitively showed that chrysotile shows mesothelioma where in fact it didn't definitively show and I think the legislation on both sides of the Atlantic was heavily swayed by the mesothelioma in the Quebec miners and millers. Q. Would you also agree with me that one of the reasons it probably was swayed was that the authors of the paper, Doll and Peto, who people would assume are leading epidemiologists and their views carry some weight? A. Yes, but they didn't have the full information at that time. Q. Are you aware of anything written by Doll and Peto about the carcinogenicity of chrysotile since 1985 that would contradict or modify those views? A. I think both would agree with the MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007321 130 1 Gibbs 2 premise that chrysotile is much less potent than 3 amphibole. 4 Q. Whether they would agree, do you 5 think that they were published since 1985? 6 A. I think there were published 7 statements, yes. 8 Q. So if I was to collect their 9 published work since that time would I be likely 10 to se e such statements? 11 A. I think you would 12 Q. Well, I guess the only way we '11 know 13 is to actually look. I'm not trying to p ut you 14 on th e spot, but would it be fair to say that we 15 ought to look at those papers and see? 16 A. I think that' s a decision you would 17 have to make. 18 Q. Let me ask this question: Would you 19 agree with me that as of today, late 1996, Sir 20 Richard Doll has not published anything saying 2 1 that, no, chrysotile is not implicated in the 22 production of cancer? 23 A. I think that's correct. 24 Q. Would the same hold true of Julian 25 Peto? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007322 131 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Gibbs A. Yes. Q. Would it be fair to say that if I was a pulmonary physician in Minnesota and I was attempting to gain some understanding from the medical literature as to whether chrysotile can contribute to mesothelioma or lung cancer and I read the work of Doll and Peto I would be left with the impression that, yes, it at least can contribute to the two cancers? MR. GERSON: Which, work he has in front of him? MR. BROWNSON: Any work to-date. A. I think to read this paper you would be left with that impression. I'm not sure if you looked at any of the later papers you would get that impression. (Discussion off the record.) MR. BROWNSON: Exhibit 2 is the Doll and Peto paper we've been discussing. (Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 for identification, document entitled Asbestos: Effects on health of exposure to asbestos.) (Luncheon recess taken at 12:35 p.m.) MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007323 132 1 2 3. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Gibbs AFTERNOON SESSION 1:30p.m. ALLEN ROBERT GIBBS, resumed, having been previously duly sworn, was examined and testified further as follows: CONTINUED EXAMINATION BY MR. BROWNSON: Q. Dr. Gibbs, when we broke for lunch we were talking about the Doll and Peto article and we were on the topic of the fact that the medical literature historically has contained different statements concerning the carcinogenicity of chrysotile, and although you have given your own view, would you agree with me that if one searches hard enough in the medical literature you can find almost any view expressed on this topic ? A. Yes. Q. And as an example I would like to show you this next article which would -- we'd better mark it as Exhibit 3, and just for the record, it's a chapter entitled Mesothelioma by Dr. Jack Harington in a book entitled The Prevention of Cancer by Butterworth in London in MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007324 133 1 Gibbs 2 1967 and we'll mark that and I'll show it to 3 you . 4 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 5 for identification, document entitled 6 Mesothelioma.) 7 Q. On the top of this Exhibit 3 I have 3 handwritten the title of the book that this came 9 out of and I guess the writing isn't easy to read 10 but it's called The Prevention of Cancer, R.W. 11 Raven and FJC Roe, editors. Chapter 31, 12 Butterworth, London (1967) and I'm not sure 13 you've ever read this book, but have you read 14 this or seen this before? 15 A. I don't think so. 16 Q. Are you familiar with Jack Harington, 17 do you know who he is? 18 A. I've heard of Jack Haringtonbut I've 19 never met him. 20 Q. You're familiar with his background 21 and his South African background and association 22 with Mount Sinai and that sort of thing? 23 A. Yes, yes. 24 Q. This was published in 1967 butif you 25 look, for example, at page 209 of the book which MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007325 134 1 Gibbs 2 is the third page of the exhibit he has a section 3 entitled "The Possible Replacement Of 4 Carcinogenic Asbestos With Non-careinogenic 5 Types," and if you go down to the bottom he 6 writes the "Results of animal experimentation so 7 far available suggest that crocidolite and 8 chrysotile may be more active in inducing 9 mesotheliomas than amosite," citing Harington and 10 Roe, 1965. "If the present trend is confirmed, 11 substitution in mining and industry of amosite 12 (for example) for the more dangerous types of 13 asbestos where these cannot be safely used may 14 become a practical and important preventive 15 measure." 16 Do you see that? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. I take it as you sit here today you 19 would probably say that that statement is 20 nonsense; would that be fair to say? 21 A. Yes, it's interesting that in the 22 previous paragraph he starts off by saying, 23 "Spidemiological studies have shown that people 24 in the crocidolite mining districts in the 25 North-western Cape have a distinct risk of MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007326 135 1 Gibbs 2 developing cancer; this is not evident in areas 3 in the Transvaal where chrysotile and amosite are 4 mined." 5 Q. Then he goes on -- first, you're 6 correct, he cites the fact that in South Africa 7 crocidolite and amosite or chrysotile are mined. 8 He goes on to talk about chrysotile is implicated 9 in the production of mesothelioma and he starts 10 talking about his animal experiments, but the 11 reason I bring this up, would you agree with me. 12 Dr. Gibbs, that this is the sort of thing that 13 one sees in the medical literature, if you 14 actually study the stuff over time you see all 15 sorts of statements made, some of which, at least 16 in your view, are completely incorrect but 17 nevertheless these sorts of things appear by 18 reputable authors and published? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. On ahistorical note you're familiar 21 with the fact that Conwed switched its asbestos 22 type from amosite to calidria chrysotile in about 23 1965, the complete switch was completed but 24 that's when the change wasmade, correct? 25 A. Yes. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007327 136 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Gibba MR. GERSON: You're asking if that's what he knows? show. MR. WILL: The records show what they You're just asking him in general, you're not asking him to testify? MR. BROWNSON: No. Q. You've just been told that by Mr. Will? A. Yes. Q. So I guess it would be fair to say . that had someone at Conwed read, for example, this chapter from a book in 1967 they might be under the belief, mistaken in your view, that the amosite they had previously used was safer than the chrysotile they were switching to? A. They might have got that impression from this. Q. The next thing I brought along, which we'll mark as Exhibit 4, is a document from the World Health Organization in 1989 entitled Occupational Exposure Limit For Asbestos. ' (Plaintiff's Exhibit 4 for identification, document entitled Occupational Exposure Limit For Asbestos.) MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007328 137 1 Gibbs 2 Q. I wanted to actually draw your 3 attention to the appendix towards the end of this 4 document. That doesn't really seem to have page 5 numbers on it but it's entitled Asbestos 6 Standards In Selected Countries and then they 7 actually chart all these different asbestos 8 regulations beginning in Belgium. 9 A. So this is right at the end? 10 Q. Yes. Actually if you count seven 11 pages back from the end it starts. 12 A. So that's Annex 2? 13 Q. It says Annex 2, page 6,Appendix, 14 Asbestos Standards In Selected Countries. 15 Do you see that? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. What this appears to be is a listing 18 in this d ocument by the World Health Organization 19 in 1986 o f its asbestos standards in selected 20 countries ; would you agree with that 9 2 1 A. Yes . 22 Q. The list starts Western Europe, the 23 EEC membe rs, which is Europe Economi c Committee, 24 then West ern Europe, non-EEC members , then we've 25 got Easte rn Europe, Middle East and North Africa, MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007329 138 1 Gibbs 2 Africa, Asian and Pacific countries, U.S.A. and 3 Canada and Latin America. 4 MR. GERSON: No Australia? 5 MR. BROWNSON: That's under Asian and 6 Pacific countries. 7 Q. I'm sure you're not familiar 8 intimately with all these standards but I take it 9 you've seen these published as various regulatory 10 bodies described in this appendix? 11 A. From time to time. 12 Q. And I've studied these and other than 13 some of these Eastern European countries that 14 have standards based upon what appears to be mass 15 measurements. They all generally appear to be 16 fiber per cubic millimeter, centimeter of air as 17 air measurement standards; would you agree with 18 me on that? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Again, all of them I see regulate all 21 of the asbestos types including chrysotile, 22 although most regulate different fiber types 23 differently; is that fair to say? 24 A. I think they have different rules for 25 different fibers. Put it this way. Crocidolite MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007330 139 1 Gibbs 2 is generally -- has a different limit to the 3 other asbestos fiber types. 4 Q. This appendix describes the limits as 5 Occupational Exposure Limit, which they call 6 OEL. Do you see that? 7 A. Yes . 8 Q. Again, you're an expertin the field, 9 but would you agree with me that if you were an 10 employer it would be fair to infer from this that 11 that is the limit which one would expect that you 12 would not exceed in the occupational workplace? 13 MR. WILL: Object to the form of the 14 question. 15 A. Yes, that's right. 16 Q. We can get into something maybe a 17 little more interesting. I want to show you 1 8 Exhibit 5. 19 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 20 for identification, one-page memoranda.) 21 MR. BROWNSON: One moment, before we 22 get into that, which you probably recognize. 23 Q. Going back to the World Health 24 document, Exhibit 4 we just looked at? 25 A. Yes. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007331 14 0 1 Gibbs 2 Q. You, of course, are familiar with the 3 World Health Organization, I take it? 4 A. I know of it, I have not had any 5 specific dealings with it myself although I have 6 attended the ILAC meetings, which are a branch of 7 the WHO. 8 Q. This particular document. Exhibit 4, 9 is a report by the World Health Organization 10 entitled Occupational Exposure Limit For 11 Asbestos, Oxford, United Kingdom, 10-11 April 12 1989 . 13 Are you familiar with that particular 14 meeting? 15 A. I wasn't there but I know Professor 16 Pooley went to it and I think Chris Wagner went 17 to it. 18 Q. It actually has a list of 19 participants on it, let's see if Professor Pooley 20 is here. 21 A. Pooley is, Wagner isn't. Perhaps he 22 wasn't there but just from memory I thought he 23 had been. 24 Q. Yes, here's Professor F.D. Pooley, 25 and, again, that's the Professor Pooley you have MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007332 141 1 Gibbs 2 collaborated with on the work that we've been 3 talking about this morning? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. I guess there's a lot of text to this 6 report, but at least with respect to the 7 regulatory appendix that we were looking at, do 8 you have any reason to believe that any of that 9 is incorrect? 10 A. No . 11 MR. BROWNSON: Why don't we then move 12 on to the next exhibit, No. 5, and just for the 13 record, this is a piece entitled "Fibrosis Of The 14 Lungs Due To The Inhalation Of Asbestos Dust" by 15 Dr. W.E. Cooke, C-o-o-k-e, Wigan Infirmary (with 16 special plate.) We don't have the plate. 17 You, of course, are familiar with 18 this, just as a matter of historical note? 19 A. I've seen thison a number of 20 occasions. 21 Q. This hasbeen described by numerous 22 people as one of the first reported cases of 23 asbestosis; would that be a fair description of 24 it? 25 A. Yes. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007333 142 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Gibbs Q. It describes this woman who apparently died at the age of 33 after working 20 years at some sort of asbestos facility or facilities and my question to you is are you aware of the asbestos fiber types to which she was exposed? A. I don't know absolutely but what I interpret, what I read in this paper is notable that the coroner was the coroner for Rochdale. I think it was likely she worked at Rochdale Textile Plant and she would be exposed to crocidolite and chrysotile. {Mr. Goldman entered the deposition proceedings.) Q. There actually are a series of publications related to this particular case. I believe this woman's name is Nellie Kershaw; is that correct? A. I den't know. Q. It's your belief that she was seen by the Rochdale coroner and that she worked at that plant that we described earlier in the deposition? A. I think that's the likelihood. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007334 143 1 Gibbs 2 Q. Next I'd like to show you a series of 3 three exhibits. 4 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 6 5 for identification, document.) 6 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 7 7 for identification, document.) a (Plaintiff's Exhibit 8 9 for identification, document.) 10 Q. What I have shown you. Dr. Gibbs, and 11 marked as Exhibits 6, 7, and 8, are a series of 12 three slightly different incarnations of the 13 British 1931 asbestos regulation. And just to 14 move this along, for some reason unknown to me 15 the 1931 asbestos regulation was published in 16 this three-part chronology. I'm not sure why, 17 maybe you do? 18 A. I don't know. 19 Q. You're familiar with the fact, of 20 course, that this is the first asbestos 21 regulation in Great Britain; is that correct? 22 A. Yes, this is based on the main report 23 for the factories. 24 Q. It's actually a government position 25 and that's the title in Britain? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007335 144 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Gibbs A. Well,it was then. Q. Based upon his reportthis regulation was passed in 1931 and if I could summarize would it be fair to say that what we have here is a regulation regulating occupational exposure to asbestos in Britain and setting forth all sorts of penalties and medical monitoring that have to take place? A. Yes. Q. As I read this this is the regulation that applies to, and correct me if I'm wrong on this, it applies to British employers regulating essentially their conduct in exposing their workmen to asbestos; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. If you actually take thetime to read all these things, and I don't think we have to do it at this moment, it actually sets out a monetary compensation scheme if an employee is found to have an asbestos - related occupational disease that meets certain regulatory criteria? A. Yes. Q. Would you agree that some form of this regulation, I'm sure it's changed over time, MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007336 145 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Gibbs it's remained in effect in Great Britain to today? A. Yes. Q. You've told ustoday thatyou've actually seen as a clinical pathologist cases arising under this act that this is employers' liability law in Britain, correct? A. Yes. Q. Would you agree with methat the '31 act which was the first British Workers' Compensation Act and the subsequent apply to all of the asbestos fiber types, including chrysotile? A. I don't think -- they didn't differentiate between the fiber types. Q. Were calidria to be used in a -- calidria asbestos to be used in a British manufacturing facility that calidria asbestos would be subject to the British asbestos Workers' Compensation regulations? A. Yes. Q. I'm not sure I asked this before, I don't think I did. Do you have any knowledge of whether calidria was or was not used in British MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007337 146 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Gibbs facilities? Have you ever looked into that at all? A. No, I've never seen any data to indicate that this was used to any significant extent. Q. Did you ever see any reference, whether from Mr. Gerson or Mr. Will, in your discussions, in your own reading, to the fact that the British dock workers were threatening to strike in 1965 and refusing to unload bags containing calidria asbestos? MR. WILL: I object. That misstates the facts. MR. BROWNSON: Not by much. MR. WILL: Yes. If you want to delete the calidria reference I'll withdraw the objection. MR. BROWNSON: I don't won't to, that was the fact. I'll ask have you ever run across that fact. MR. WILL: Object to the question. Q. Have you ever run across the historical reference that British dock workers refused to unload bags containing any types of MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007338 147 1 Gibbs 2 asbestos in 1965? 3 A. Not specifically, but I know during 4 the time in the middle '60s that a lot of dockers 5 were refusing to unload a lot of times. I'm not 6 sure it was just asbestos but they might have 7 done it with a lot of other things too. 8 Q. In your experience in Britain in 9 seeing cases arising out of the British Workers' 10 Compensation regulation, asbestos regulations, 11 has it been your experience that the unions have 12 been active in pursuing cases or pushing forward 13 the cases of employees under this asbestos 14 regulation? 15 A. The unions have been involved with 16 some of the cases but the coroner system is such 17 in the U.K. that it's a legal requirement for the 18 physician treating any person with a disease that 19 is suspected of being related to an occupational 20 exposure to report that case to the coroner at 21 death, which is why post-mortem is then carried 22 out. 23 Q. what about if you have a case that 24 has not resulted in a death but it's an 25 occupational exposure pulmonary impairment type MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007339 148 1 Gibbs 2 case? 3 A. There was a medical boarding system, 4 sort of tribune, that looks to which of the cases 5 it reported to and then assesses the case. They 6 do some lung function, chest x-rays and taken 7 exposure history, etc. and they would come to 8 conclusions about whether there's an 9 asbestos - related disease present or not. 10 Q. In your experience have the unions 11 been active in advancing or pushing those cases 12 on behalf of employees in Britain? 13 A. Some cases, but the system tends to 14 happen anyway. 15 Q. Let me ask you this: Currently in 16 1996 are there any operating asbestos 17 manufacturing facilities in Great Britain? 18 A. Not to my knowledge. 19 Q. As a man of yourclinical pathology 20 practice have you in the last five years seen a 21 case of pulmonary asbestosis? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. How many ofthose have you seen? 24 A. I can't give you a precise number but 25 no more than about 20 and my impression is that MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007340 149 1 Gibbs 2 over the last 15 y ears that the number of cases 3 of asbestosis have been reduced considerably, 4 Q. Those cases that you've seen in your 5 clinical practice, have those been referred to 6 you by local physi cians or have those been 7 referred to you by the American Asbestos. 8 Litigation? 9 A. These have been mainly cases that 10 have been referred from other pathologists in the 11 U.K. Some on occasion, I have had many cases 12 from the lawyers in the U.K. and they've usually 13 been with people exposed - - who were 14 occupationally-exposed in the '40s and '50s. 15 Q. These cases, as a pathologist, have 16 these been autopsy cases? 17 A. Yes. 1 8 Q. Has it been part of your practice as 19 a clinical pathologist to see cases of 20 asbestos - exposed individuals who have relatively 2 1 minor symptoms, such as very slight changes on CT 22 scan or x-ray, something less than interstitial 23 fibrosis or do you tend not to see those cases 24 because those cases don't come to review by 25 pathologists? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007341 150 1 Gibbs 2 A. There's two elements to that. If the 3 case is just sort of mild changes then it's 4 unlikely to come to post-mortem unless they die 5 for other reasons. But I do see cases on 6 occasion that where they have died and where 7 there is said to be a high exposure to asbestos 8 where they have died of something else, but 9 nevertheless I've seen mild degrees of fibrosis 10 in the lungs that are undetectable by chest 11 x-ray. 12 Q. Let me ask you this: Have you ever 13 seen a case where it is claimed by some physician 14 in Britain that an asbestos - exposed individual 15 who dies from some cardiac insufficiency died as 16 a result of asbestos - related pulmonary problems 17 that put stress on his heart? 18 MR. WILL: Rule out cor pulmonale? 19 MR. BROWNSON: I can rephrase it. 20 A. You can't rule it out. If it is 21 putting strain on the heart then it is cor 22 pulmonale. 23 Q. Workers' Compensation indications 24 have been presented to Conwed where we literally 25 have had people die of heart attacks; he was MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007342 15 1 1 Gibbs 2 exposed to asbestos, there was a pulmonary 3 condition there that attributed to strain on the 4 heart that caused the heart attack. Have you 5 ever seen that in Britain? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Have you ever been involved in any 8 cases like that? 9 A. Involved in the lung and whether it 10 was likely to have effects that it would affect 11 the heart. 12 Q. Have you seen cases where that was in 13 fact the case? 14 A. It only occurs in individuals with 15 severe asbestosis and regulatory change and you 16 can actually see the fibrosis by naked eye when 17 you look at the lung. When its less than that it 18 doesn't usually have any significant effect on 19 lung function. 20 Q. Have you seen any cases where you 21 have an individual where, for example, was a very 22 heavy smoker and has very poor pulmonary function 23 as a result of the smoking and some asbestos case 24 tries to advance a claim like that? 25 MR. WILL: Like what, he died of a MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007343 152 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Gibbs heart attack? MR. BROWNSON: Yes. Q. Caused by pulmonary deficiency attributed to asbestos exposure? A. Yes. Q. Do you see many of those claims? A. There's aheightened awareness of asbestos exposure so there's a lot of people even with a very short and low exposure to asbestos will attribute their pulmonary problems to their exposure and will tend to ignore the fact that they smoke 30 or 40 cigarettes per day, etc. Q. I guess my question is this: You have seen such cases and have you ever seen a case where you would substantiate that sort of cont ention in a heavy smoker like that ? . A. I have seen cases where people who have been exposed to asbestos, to light exposure to asbestos, in which the disease is what I would regard as solely due to cigarette smoking. There is confusion between exposure and causation because it's not the same thing. Q. That's a good point because would you agree that even physicians often confuse exposure MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007344 153 1 Gibbs 2 with causation or ideology? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Would you agree that this even occurs 5 sometimes with pulmonary physicians? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Have you ever seen Workers' 8 Compensation cases presented in Great Britain 9 where you've got, for instance, a heavy smoker 10 with no radiographic class of interstitial 11 fibrosis who is advancing this sort of claim that 12 his heart problems were caused in part by his 13 asbestos exposure and a physician on his behalf 14 will actually support that kind of claim? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Let me ask you this: Have you ever 17 issued a report in a case like that where you 18 have stated that no, this is not the case and 19 nevertheless that worker has gone on to win some 20 sort of monetary compensation? 2 1 A. Usually I'm not involved at that 22 stage. I tend to be involved at the post-mortem 23 stage. 24 Q. Have you heard of such cases in which 25 you are not involved where that has occurred in MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007345 154 1 Gibbs 2 Britain? 3 A. Yes . 4 MR. GERSON: If he was not involved 5 it wouldn't have been his recommendation. 6 MR. WILL: Just to be clear. 7 MR. BROWNSON: Let me rephrase the 8 quest ion. 9 Q. Cases you've not been personally 10 involved in have you heard of such cases in 11 Britain where you've got a heavy cigarette smoker 12 with little exposure and some physician advances 13 the notion that some heart attack or cardiac 14 problem was attributed to by asbestos exposure? 15 A. Yes . 16 Q. Have you heard of cases in Great 17 Britain on those facts, where people have 18 actually been awarded monetary compensation by 19 their employer? 20 A. I believe some. 21 MR. WILL: Due to asbestos as opposed 22 to something else? 23 Q. Yes, due to asbestos. 24 A. I believe that has happened. 25 (Discussion off the record.) MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007346 155 1 Gibbs 2 MR. BROWNSON: Exhibit 9 is an 3 article from the Volume 13 January to December 4 1930 issue of Minnesota Medicine. 5 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 9 6 for identification, article from the Volume 13 7 January to December 1930 issue of Minnesota 8 Medicine.) 9 Q. Dr. Gibbs, what I've shown you is 10 Exhibit No. 9 which I'll represent to you I 11 believe to be the first case report of an 12 asbestos - related disease arising out of the State 13 of Minnesota and I'll ask you have you ever seen 14 this before? 15 A. No. 16 Q. This is a case report dated 1930 in 17 the Journal of MinnesotaMedicine which describes 18 a 58 year-old man who was seen in the male clinic 19 in extremis, which in layman's terms means on his 20 deathbed, on May 26th, 1929, and all sorts of 21 findings are found here, but if you slide your 22 way through it there appears to be a diagnosis of 23 asbestosis or some sort of asbestos - related 24 ideology made here. 25 A. Yes . MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007347 156 1 Gibbs 2 Q. Is that fair to say? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Now look at the photocopy of plates 5 on the page where they show these fiber bundles. 6 Are you able to make any sort of interpretation 7 as to what those might show? 8 A. No. 9 Q. As to type or size or anything like 10 that? 11 A. No. 12 But in Figure 2, I can't tell from 13 the illustration what's there, but it says "The 14 scattered black dots are 'asbestosis bodies,' 15 indicating that a portion of the fibers, at 16 least, had undergone change in the tissues." If 17 those are asbestosis bodies, which I think they 18 mean asbestos bodies. 19 Q. Right. 20 A. Then the odds are highly stacked that 2 1 those are amphibole fibers. 22 Q. It is your view that asbestos bodies 23 are largely created by amphibole fibers? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Have you ever seen chrysotile MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP . UCAREF00007348 157 1 Gibbs 2 infected by amphibole bodies? 3 A. I have but very rare. 4 Q. There's a reference at page 497 - 5 actually there's a number of references, but I've 6 circled on page 497 below the illustrations where 7 they talk about "The majority of asbestos fibers 8 of small size lay in a confused mass of giant 9 cells, which seemed to represent a foreign body 10 react ion." 11 Do you see that sentence? 12 A. Yes . 13 Q. There's references throughout here to 14 what they describe as "giant cells." Now, I 15 guess as a matter more of historical interest 16 giant cells is a term we see today, but do you 17 know what they're talking about when they 18 describe giant cells here? 19 A. They're talking about giant-type 20 histocytic cells which are generally giant 21 macrophages. 22 Q. Earlier in the deposition you 23 mentioned that among the materials sent to you by 24 Mr. Gerson were these two Mellon Institute 25 parts. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007349 158 1 Gibbs 2 MR. BROWNSON: And what we will do is 3 we will mark as Exhibit 10 the first of those, 4 which is the 1966 report and, for the record, 5 this is the July 8, 1966 report by the Mellon 6 Institute. 7 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 10 8 for identification, the July 8, 1966 report by 9 the Mellon Institute.) 10 MR. BROWNSON: And then let's mark as 11 Exhibit 11 the September 3rd, 1971 Mellon 12 Institute report. 13 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 11 14 for identification, the September 3rd, 1971 15 report by the Mellon Institute.) 16 Q. And, first of all, I understand that 17 you have previously received these from 18 Mr. Gerson and have you read them? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Had you ever seen them before they 21 sent them to you a few weeks back? 22 A. No. 23 Q. And, again, they were sent to you in 24 connection with the material that was sent to you 25 for use in this case? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007350 159 1 Gibbs 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Have you ever seen any other reports 4 or data concerning animal inhalation or injection 5 experiments carried out by theMellonInstitute? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Do youknow what the Mellon Institute 8 is? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Are you familiar with the 11 Carnegie/Mellon Institute in Pittsburg? 12 A. Well, I've heard of them but I don't 13 know exactly what they do. 14 Q. In any event, based upon your reading 15 of these two reports would you agree with me that 16 what has happened here in both instances in 1966 17 and '71 that different animals have been injected 18 with different amounts and types of asbestos 19 fiber? 20 A. Yes, and there's also the tracheal 21 inhalation experiment as well. 22 Q. If you look at the 1966 report it 23 refers to three types of fiber. One is called 24 CMS-100 refined fiber, the second is JT-100 25 standard fiber, and the third is Johns Manville MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007351 160 1 Gibbs 2 screened fiber. 3 Do you see that? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Are you aware of the fact that the 6 first two are Union Carbide calidria fibers and 7 third is Johns Manville chrysotile? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. If you look at page 2 of this report 10 under the heading intraperitoneal Injections and 11 under the heading "Results" it indicates that 12 "CMS-100 produced the most severe reaction in 13 the form of granulomas with giant cells in six of 14 the seven guinea pigs examined 15 micropathologically." 16 Do you see that? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Are these the same giant cells of the 19 sort we saw in the 1930 Minnesota report? 20 A. Giant cells are a common response 2 1 to - - 22 (Telephonic interruption.) 23 A. Giant cells are a common response to 24 foreign body materials putting -- being placed in 25 the human tissue anywhere. For example, if a MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007352 16 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Gibbs surgeon does an operation and there's some sutures in the tissue a foreign body giant cell will occur to that. Q. Similarly if you inhale or inject fibers into the lung tissue you can get production of giant cells? A. Yes, although it's not a frequent finding. Q. I want to direct your attention to the paragraph immediately beneath that which says, "JT-100 asbestos fiber produced a granulomatous reaction in all of the eight guinea pigs as well as the one rat subjected to micropathological examination." And I'm curious about that because I note in the curriculum vitae you have written concerning granulomatous. Are you talking about the same sort of problem here. MR. WILL: Objection. Why don't you ask him to define it. MR. BROWNSON: I'll do that, although I'm not sure it's a proper objection? A. One of the problems of granuloma is it's used more specifically in some areas and MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007353 162 1 Gibbs 2 loosely in other areas. I think in the U.K. we- 3 are very -- we're much more narrow. We have a 4 narrower base on the use of the term granuloma 5 where it's usually applied to tuberculosis where 6 you get compact epithelial - type matter and giant 7 cells are formed. There are the looser tissue, 8 but in the U.S. it is called granuloma, but I 9 don't think we'll use that term. 10 Q. With respect this that's referred to 11 in the Mellon report we're looking at 12 granulomatous. Do we know how they are defining 13 the term there? 14 A. No, but I suspect what they mean is a 15 microphage reaction. 16 Q. For the benefit of all of us can you 17 describe what a microphage reaction is? 18 A. If you get an accumulation of the 19 cells in microphage type in any location and 20 these are cells that scavenge and pick up cells 2 1 and produce various materials to combat the 22 presence of foreign body materials. 23 Q. Based upon your reading of the two 24 Mellon Institute reports which are Exhibits 10 25 and 11, do you have any opinions or conclusions MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007354 163 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Gibbs as Co Che material presented in these reports? A. I'm sorry, conclusions about whac? Q. Well, I'm trying to ask you broadly at first to see if you have any opinions or conclusions which you've derived from these reports and if so we'll narrow it down and see what it is. A. I don't think these reports provide any evidence of calidria chrysotile being pathogenic in humans. Q. Would you agree that they provide evidence of calidria chrysotile being fibrogenic in guinea pigs, rabbits and rats? A. Insofar as that they have put large doses into either directly or by the litkia (phonetic) to produce a fibrotic response, yes. Q. Would the production of these what they describe as multi-nuclear giant cells be an indication to you of pathogenesis in these animals ? A. That it's a foreign body response. Q. By that, again, this is a macrophage cell they're speaking of? A. Yes. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007355 164 1 Gibbs 2 Q. Which are responding to the foreign 3 body injected into the tissues here? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And in your experience with animal 6 injection and inhalation experiments with 7 asbestos have you seen that it's the macrophage 8 cells that tend to get these sorts of reactions 9 because they're the scavenger cells among others? 10 A. Whatever material gets in the lungs 11 is typically the macrophage response, it responds 12 to it, it is a normal response. 13 MR. WILL: Would you please read back 14 the last question and answer. 15 (Requested portion of record read.) 16 MR. BROWNSON: The next thing we will 17 mark as Exhibit 12. For the record, these are 18 some notes from the Mellon Institute of 19 Industrial Research-Chemical Hygiene Fellowship. 20 Let me just take a moment to find the date here 21 because I know it's on there. 22 Dated sometime in 1968 but I can't 23 find where it is. Let's just take one minute. 24 Dated October 21st, 1968. I mean, 25 August 21, 1996 and subsequent dates. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007356 165 1 Gibbs 2 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 12 3 for identification, notes from the Mellon 4 Institute of Industrial Research - Chemical Hygiene 5 Fellowship.) 6 (Witness perusing documents.) 7 Q. My first question will be have you 8 ever seen this document before? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Although you've never seen it before 11 I take it given your work with Dr. Wagner at the 12 Medical Research Center do have any familiarity 13 with the animal injection and inhalation 14 experiments? 15 A. Yes, but I can't transcribe all these 16 figures. 17 Q. Yes, what I want to ask you is on the 18 front of the second page, because these are all 19 two-sided pages, but the front of the second 20 page. 21 MR. WILL: Bates stamped A03106 on 22 the side. 23 Q. Yes, if you look over to the Sample 24 31-232 Asbestos "T" open, then under that it says 25 how this was prepared and it says Solution in MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP UCAREF00007357 166 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 water. Gibbs Do you see that? A. Yes . Q. Then it says Route IP. Do you interpret that to be what they did was an intraplueral or intraperitoneal of asbestos solution in water? Is that what this seems to indicate? A. I think it's intraperitoneal. Q. other? Can we tell that one way or the A. No. Q. If it's intraplueral or intraperitoneal? MR. WILL: You're asking what his assumption is. He can't possibly tell you the way you're phrasing your question, tell you for a fact? A. People generally use IP for intraperitoneal but I can't be certain. Q. If you injected intraperitoneal solution into the animal, which in this case were rats; is that correct? A. Yes. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007358 167 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Gibbs Q. Then if you look at the two pages beyond that we see one that has this number stamp at the top 087645. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. This is also sample 31-232 Asbestos "T" open. This says Solution in H20, which is solution in water, correct? A. Yes. Q. Then it says "Route Oral, Species Rats." What are they doing here, are they simply administering asbestos solution into the mouth of the rat? A. Yes. Q. So they're not actually injecting, they are just squirting it into the mouth? A. Whether the rat is drinking it or they are squirting it, but it's not injected. Q. It's not injected or inhaled? A. It's not injected physically into tissue. Q. That's what I was trying to figure out. It's not injected into tissue or inhaled in air or water being drunk, it's squirted into the MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007359 168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Gibbs mouth of the rats.- A. Yes. Q. Then if you go one, two pages beyond that the next one we see, it's harder to read the number, but on the side of the page is A03112. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. Sample 31-232,Asbestos "T" open. Now it's called Suspension in H20. Do you know what the difference is between solution and suspension? A. I'm not quite sure howthey're defining it here. Q. As long as it's in water isn't solution and suspension the same thing? A. I would have thought so but I don't know. Q. Although you are not in a position to interpret what all these numbers mean on this report, would you agree with me that what we have here is some notes by the Mellon Institute of various rats experiments either injecting or giving oral doses of asbestos in a water solution to rats? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007360 169 1 Gibbs 2 MR. WILL: I object to this. Bob, 3 this witness can't possibly testify to the 4 foundation of this document. All he can do - - 5 MR. BROWNSON: I'm not asking him to 6 testify to foundation. 7 MR. WILL: Would you agree that what 8 we have is this, he can't do that, he can tell 9 what it seems to say on its face, he can't 10 authenticate the document. 11 MR. BROWNSON: I'm not asking him to 12 authenticate the document. 13 MR. WILL: The way you ask the 14 question. 15 Q. I'm not worried about authenticating 16 the document. Let me ask you would you agree 17 that this document seems to describe a 18 compilation of data obtained by injecting or 19 giving oral doses of asbestos in water to rats? 20 21 A. Yes. Q. Have you ever seen any published data 2 2 from the Mellon Institute with respect to the 23 rat, guinea pig and rabbit experiments we've seen 24 described in the last three exhibits, 10, 11 and 25 12? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007361 170 1 Gibbs 2 A. No. 3 Q. Until thismaterial was forwarded to 4 you by Mr. Gerson a few weeks back had you seen 5 any data concerning those experiments with rats? 6 A. No. 7 Q. The next thing Iwanted to show you 8 we've actually touched on a little earlier. 9 We'll mark this as Exhibit 13. 10 MR. BROWNSON: For the record, this 11 is a Nolan, Langer and Addison paper entitled 12 "Lung Content Analysis of Cases Occupationally 13 Exposed to Chrysotile Asbestos." 14 THE WITNESS: I'll wait until I see 15 it . 16 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 13 17 for identification, reprint of an article 18 published in Volume 102, Supplement 5, October 19 1994 issue of Environmental Health Perspective.) 20 Q. Take a moment. Dr. Gibbs, and let me 21 know when you're ready here to discuss this. 22 (Witness perusing document.) 23 A. Yes, okay. 24 MR. WILL: I need to make a phone 25 call. Do you mind if Alan takes over for a few MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UGAREF00007362 171 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Gibbs minutes? Is that fine with you? It may take five minutes for me to do it. Why don't you go ahead. (Mr. Will left the deposition proceedings.) MR. BROWNSON: For the record. Exhibit 13 is a reprint of an article published in Volume 102, Supplement 5, October 1994 issue of Environmental Health Perspectives by Drs. Nolan, Langer and Addison, which is spelled A-d-d-i-s-o-n. Q. I take it you're familiar with this particular article? A. Yes, I've read it for a couple of years. Q. You're familiar with Drs. Nolan, Langer and Addison, I take it? A. Yes. Q. Have you ever collaborated with any of those three in research? A. Not specifically although I've discussed issues with them on a number of occasions. Q. You know Dr. Langer, Dr. Nolan is his MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007363 172 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Gibbs associate and Dr. Addison is from the Institute of Occupational Medicine in Edinburgh, Scotland. A. He's not in Scotland, I think. Q. Where is he? A. He does free-lance in Edinburgh but does consultancy work now. Q. They're in asbestos mineralogy and occupational disease? A. Yes. Q. What I wanted to do was draw your attention to the Table 1, which is on the second page of the text here up at the top, and this is a size distribution table of four different chrysotile specimens; is that correct? ' A. Yes. Q. One is a UICC A, which is a chrysotile from Zimbabwe? A. Yes. Q. And UICC B is a chrysotile from Canada? A. Yes. Q. UICC A and B are standard specimens? A. We did discuss this a little earlier on and I think you led me to think the A was the MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007364 173 1 Gibbs 2 Canadian one, but in fact it is Zimbabwe. 3 Q. Yes, I stand corrected on that. We 4 discussed this earlier in connection with 5 tremolite but I want to look now at this table, 6 which is a size distribution table, and would you 7 agree with me that based upon this data what we 8 see is that the calidria chrysotile has a greater 9 number of fibers, between five and ten microns, 10 than does either the Canadian or African 11 chrysotile ? 12 A. Yes, according to the specimens they 13 tested here. 14 Q. Likewise it has a greater number of 15 fibers, over ten microns, than either of the 16 other two types of chrysotile shown here? 17 A. More than the UICC B. 18 Q. But over twice as much as the 19 Rhodesian? 20 A. Yes. 21 MR. GERSON: Zimbabwe. 22 MR. BROWNSON: I'm sorry. 23 Q. It is stated in the paper that the 24 tremolite fibers present in these six cases were 25 not comparable to tremolite known to induce MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007365 174 1 Gibbs 2 mesothelioma in animals. 3 Do you see that? 4 MR. GERSON: Where is that? 5 MR. BROWNSON: Well, it's succinctly 6 stated in the abstract but it appears again in 7 the conclusion. I'm trying to find it. Oh, yes, 8 right toward the end in the conclusion. 9 A. Sorry, where does the statement 10 begin? 11 Q. Well, I'm trying to see if I can find 12 it in the text. I had actually made a reference 13 to this conclusion in the note where they were 14 talking about -- this note in the conclusion 15 where they're talking about these 16 calcium-magnesium-silicate fibers, commonly known 17 as tremolite, particularly in Thetford. 18 Do you see that? 19 A. Which page are we on? 20 Q. Very last page toward theend. 2 1 A. Yes. 22 Q. What they seem to be saying here as I 23 read this is that what they're finding and 24 describing as tremolite is not the sort of 25 tremolite that's causing mesothelioma in animals MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007366 175 1 Gibbs 2 and I think that's describing cleavage fibers as 3 opposed to tremolite fibroid; is that correct? 4 A. I can't see where it mentions 5 cleavage fragments. 6 Q. Looking for reference 13 which is in 7 my notes and now I can't find it. 8 Now I don't see it either. 9 Let me ask a different question, 10 i'll start with an easy part. At least in the 11 abstract the statement is made that "the 12 characteristics of the calcium-magnesium-iron 1 3 silicate fibers present in all six cases were not 14 readily comparable to tremolite asbestos 15 specimens known to induce mesotheliomas in 16 animals . " 17 Do you see that? 18 MR. GERSON: Where is that, the first 19 page? 20 MR. BROWNSON: Up on the abstract in 21 the first page. 22 A. Yes, okay. 23 Q. You had earlier talked about this 24 cause you had seen from Dr. Langer that had this 25 high chrysotile asbestos burden but no MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007367 176 1 Gibbs 2 tremoloid. Is that the case described in this 3 here or is that a different case? 4 A. Well, I don't know because I think 5 there was another paper in which he described 6 such a case, but whether it's the same case 7 reported a second time I'm not sure. 8 Q. Okay. Would you agree with me at 9 least that in this paper what is called Case 6 is 10 a case that has a very high burden of chrysotile 11 and virtually no other fiber? 12 A. Well, I think the problem that I have 13 with this Case 6 that if we go back to the 14 discussion and conclusion it says, "The lung 15 content of Case 6, who developed a pleural 16 mesothelioma, is of particular interest because 17 of the extremely high content of chrysotile 18 found. Approximately 2.7 million fibers of 19 greater than .5 microns in length per gram of dry 20 lung tissue were found in each of the two 21 parenchymal tissue specimens and more than 99 22 percent of the fibers identified were 23 chrysotile. Using a protocol with an analytical 24 sensitivity of approximately 4.6 million fibers 25 per gram of dry lung, no commercial amphibole MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007368 177 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Gibbs asbestos minerals were detected in either specimen of Case 6." What it boils down to is it is a significant amount of balance here of two million that they might well not detect if a commercial amphibole in that case, but because they, didn't count more fibers or type more fibers that they might not have detected it. I think they typed about 350 fibers, it might have meant that they needed to count type a thousand to 1500. Q. In order toget down asensitivity of one million fibers? A. Yes. Q. Which you consider to be a background level? A. Yes. Q. In any event,using the sensitivity they did employ they found more commercial amphibole in this case? A. That's what they reported. Q. Wouid you agree with me that at least as reported in Table 1 in this paper, which is the size distribution table, calidria chrysotile is not in fact shorter than Canadian or Zimbabwe MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007369 17 8 1 Gibbs 2 chrysotile? 3 MR. GERSON: Obj ection. 4 Q. Let me put it this way: The table 5 shows it to be shorter than either types of 6 chrysotiles; is that correct? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. In fact, it'salso truethe table 9 shows it to be longer than those other types of 10 chrysotile in its size distribution? 11 MR. GERSON: You're asking the 12 witness what the table purports to show? 13 MR. BROWNSON: Right. 14 A. Slightly. 15 Q. The next exhibit I haveis numbered 16 Exhibit 14 . 17 MR. BROWNSON: For the record, it's 18 an article by or paper by Dr. J.C. Wagner, 19 W-a-g-n-e-r, and others from the Medical Research 20 Council's Pneumonconiosis Unit at Penarth 2 1 published in the British Journal of Cancer in 22 1974, page 252 of Volume 9. 23 Mark that as 14. 24 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 14 2 5 for identification, document entitled The Effects MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007370 179 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Gibbs Of The Inha lation Of Asbestos In Rats.) Q. Whenever you're ready to answer, Dr. Gibbs, I'll ask you have you read this paper before? A. Yes . Q Were you involved in either the preparation of the paper or inhalation experiments that are published here? A. No. Q.' This was done by Dr. Wagner who was. I don't wan t to say your chief. but your colleague at the Medical Research Center in 1974? A. Yes, he would have been, if you like, my chief at that time anyway. was . Q. I'm not ;sure A. Well, he was with the MRC unit at the still the equivalent of that time. Q. He was the -- I guess for the want of a better term - - chief pathologist or senior pathologist? A. At the MRC unit. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007371 180 1 Gibbs 2 Q. At the Medical Research Council Unit 3 in Wales? 4 A. Yes . 5 Q. Just a matter of interest, that that 6 unit arose because of the coal mining there? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. I guessI don't know why it was 9 discontinued in the '80s because the coal mining 10 basically died out in that part of Wales? 11 A. No, strategic decisions made in the 12 MRC that they were going to switch from fixed 13 units with long-term funding to more short-term 14 funding of studies, so they closed that one and 15 some other units as well. 16 Q. When was thatunitclosed, was 17 that - 18 A. Most of it was closed in '85, I 19 think, and then -- but the pathology bit was 20 closed until either '87 or '88. 21 Q. Following the closure of the 22 pneumoconiosis unit run by Dr. Wagner I take it 23 that your work has basically been that of 24 clinical pathology as opposed to previously being 25 involved in research projects? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UGAREF00007372 18 1 1 Gibbs 2 A. I was never employed by che MRC 3 unit. I worked with Dr. Wagner because there 4 was -- in the same hospital there was a clinical 5 laboratory of the pathology and, in fact, the 6 other hospital is the main university hospital 7 and college. My job as a resident pathologist 8 was to rotate between these two hospitals and in 9 the mid-1970s, round about that time, '73, '74, I 10 started because of the influence of Dr. Wagner 11 and other pathologists who worked on the clinical 12 side, not the MRC. 13 Dr. Seal and I worked and 14 collaborated in various research projects and 15 also on the diagnostic aspects. That I continued 16 to do and I then had a tenured position, what we 17 call senior lecturer, which is the equivalent of 18 the associate professor here, at the university 19 and I continued to work with Dr. Wagner on 20 various projects until 1985 when I moved from the 2 1 University Hospital to a permanent post at 22 Thandock Hospital, which is in the clinical 23 laboratory which Dr. Seal retired from, but 24 Dr. Seal and Dr. Wagner worked very closely for 25 many years before that because of a juxtaposition MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP . UCAREF00007373 182 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Gibbs of clinical and experimental pathology. Q. So in a rough sense Dr. Wagner was clinical and Dr. Seal was clinical and they worked together? A. Yes. Q. You were always on the clinical side but you worked on the research project? A. Yes. Q. When it closed in '85 to '87 you went back to the clinical pathology? A. I worked with Dr. Wagner until '87 or '88 until he retired and then he began with his retirement and then what happened I tended to get the human cases that have been referred to Dr. Wagner up to that point, came to me and he was from outside the area. (Mr. Will returned to the deposition proceedings.) Q. The cases continued to come in even though Dr. Wagner retired so you simply took those cases even though the hospital did clinical practices? A. I continued doing research and working with Dr. Pooley on various studies. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007374 183 1 Gibbs 2 Q. In any event, back in 1974 when this 3 paper was published in the British Journal of 4 Cancer from the pneumoconiosis unit at Penarth, 5 which was in Wales, was up and running and doing 6 inhalation experimentss on animals? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Would you agree with me that what is 9 reported in this particular paper is a series of 10 results from rats exposed by inhalation to 11 asbestos dust of a number of different samples, 12 three amphiboles and three chrysotiles? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. As reported by Dr. Wagner and the 15 others it says that these rats who inhaled the 16 dust each of the five samples of three amphiboles 17 and three chrysotiles produced asbestosis, 18 correct ? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. It'sreported that somemesotheliomas 21 were produced as well, correct? 22 A. Yes. 23 (A recess was taken.) 24 Q. I think thelastquestion I asked. 25 Dr. Gibbs, was that some mesothelioma was MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007375 184 1 Gibbs 2 reported among the rats that inhaled the 3 different samples as well, correct? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And Table 7, page 264, that lists the 6 different rats that obtained different tumors 7 including the mesothelioma, correct? 9 A. Yes. 9 Q. If we look at the columns on that 10 table we see that of the rats exposed to amosite 11 there were a total of 146 rats and 38 of those 12 rats obtained some sort of lung tumor; is that 13 fair to say? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Of which six was adenocarcinoma, 16 right? 17 A. Five were adenocarcinoma. 18 Q. Right. That's a form of lung cancer? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. But six developed carcinoma? 2 1 A. Yes. 22 Q. A form of lung cancer? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And 19developed adenoma? 25 A. Yes. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007376 18 5 1 Gibbs 2 Q. What does adenoma refer to? 3 A. Benign tumor of the lung. 4 Q. Was that the same as adenomatosis? 5 A. Yes, multifocal. 6 Q. That's a benign tumor as well? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Is that as malignant adenoma, 9 adenocarcinoma and mesothelioma? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. So to summarize the 38 had tumors 12 either benign or malignant, correct? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Of those 12 were malignant tumors. 15 correct ? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. If we look atthe Canadianchrysotile 18 we see that 137 rats of whom 45 got one tumor or 19 another, correct? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Of thosetumors -- you have to help 22 me here because I'm not sure what the 23 adenocarcinoma numbers mean -- but 17 of those 24 and four mesotheliomas? 25 A. Yes. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007377 186 1 Gibbs 2 Q. What are those numbers in parentheses 3 there, what does that mean, if you know? 4 A. Oh, it says "Numbers in brackets are 5 those with metastases"; in other words, that they 6 had spread of tumor beyond the lung. 7 Q. Where do you see that? I didn't see 8 that. 9 A. It's down underneath the table. 10 second line Got a little cross next to it. 11 Q. Oh, yes, there it is, I'm sorry. So 12 in terms of the rats exposed to Canadian 13 chrysotile there were lesser number of rats and 14 more tumors, correct? 15 A. Yes . 16 Q. And there were more adenocarcinomas. 17 right ? 18 A. Yes . 19 Q. More than twice as many? 20 A. Yes . 21 Q. And there were about the same amount 22 of squamous carcinomas and four times as many 23 mesotheliomas ? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. At greater than the number of rats MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007378 187 1 Gibbs 2 according to the crocidolite, correct? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. I understand your position that 5 animal data needs to be read in conjunction with 6 human data and you obviously don't take this in a 7 vacuum and you believe that this is an accurate 8 representation of the cancer crocidolite, 9 correct ? 10 A. I don'tknow. 11 Q. This paper was published in 1974. 12 Would you agree with me that at that time 13 Dr. Wagner was considered a leading researcher in 14 the field of asbestos health effects and 15 specifically asbestos mesothelioma? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. He had the first reported series of 18 mesothelioma, which is of the medical literature 19 in 1960, correct? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. The other authors, Drs. Berry, 22 Skidmore and Timbrell, all three are recognized 23 names in the field of asbestos health research? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Would you agree with me that if a MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007379 188 1 Gibbs 2 pulmonologist in Minnesota who was trying to 3 figure out if chrysotile could cause lung cancer 4 mesothelioma and asbestosis in 1974 read this 5 paper it would at least occur to him that 6 chrysotile could cause all three of the 7 conditions based on this paper? 8 MR. WILL: I object to the form of 9 the question. He's not speculating to the 10 deduced, particularly someone as well-grounded as 11 Dr. Gibbs to put this in context. 12 MR. BROWNSON: It's possible if he 13 read it that's what his impression would be. 14 (A recess was taken.) 15 Q. I'm interested in Figure 9 of this 16 paper, which is at 261, and what this seems to 17 indicate to me that similar doses and over 18 similar lengths of time there is much less 19 chrysotile remaining in the lungs of these rats 20 than there is the amphibole fibers. Is that what 21 this is showing? 22 A. Yes, it shows if in fact you keep 23 exposing a rat after a certain point in time that 24 you can't find buildup in any fibers in the lung 25 clearing as rapidly as they're going to to MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007380 189 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Gibbs increase plateaus and increase the exposure then it falls back, whereas if you do the same with the amphibole and keep exposing the rat to amphibole the level will keep building up until you stop the exposure then it will be a fall-off but won't fall off in the background level, whereas the amphibole goes to fall-off level. Q. So what this chart seems to show and rat inhalation experiments showed is that the amphibole continued to build up in the lung tissue over time whereas the chrysotile only seems to go in the certain level and does not continue to accumulate in the tissue? A. Yes. In other words, there's a much better clearance of the chrysotile. Q. So can we deduce then that the lung is somehow clearing the chrysotile out of the lung tissue? A. Yes. Q. Where that chrysotile is going is not determined by this paper, correct? A. Correct. Q. At leastaccording to these data despite the fact that the lung is clearing out MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007381 190 1 Gibbs 2 the chrysotile tissue and much less of it is 3 found in the lung, at least these cancer rates we 4 just looked at are comparable or higher for the 5 chrysotile, correct? 6 A. Well, you will see that there's a 7 difference between the Canadian chrysotile and 8 Rhodesian chrysotile and the Canadian chrysotile 9 is the one that is tremolite-contaminated, 10 containing tremolite, but in the face of it 11 because these are mass doses so these are 12 quantified in terms of a weight, not number. In 13 fact, the amount of chrysotile that the rat is 14 getting is much more in number terms than it is 15 getting crocidolite. 16 Q. Even though they're getting more 17 there's less retained in the lung? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. 20 out ? 21 A. 22 Q. More is going in andmore isgoing Yes. The difference betweenRhodesian and 23 Canadian chrysotiles is the Canadian caused four 24 and the Rhodesian caused nine, correct? 25 A. Yes. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007382 191 1 Gibbs 2 Q. The Rhodesian caused more than the 3 Canadian? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. With respect tothe lung cancers and 6 the other lung tumors both chrysotiles cause more 7 than the crocidolite and - 8 MR. WILL: More were found, caused is 9 a different issue. 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. By the way,were theadenomas and the 12 adenomatoses reported simply because they were 13 found or were they of interest because these were 14 premalignant tumors? 15 A. In animal toxicology experiments they 16 always report adenomas and so forth but the 17 question between premalignant is a difficult one 18 and I think there's no great certainty about 19 that, but certainly that if animals are -- if you 20 expose an animal it will get a tumor, it can be a 21 benign tumor. 22 Q. And benign tumors may or may not be 23 premalignant? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. With respect to the asbestosis found MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007383 192 1 Gibbs 2 in these rats, I'm looking at Table 5, and this 3 is reported as Mean Asbestosis Scores of 4 Sacrificed Rats and there's a rating system here 5 of 1 through 8, it actually is 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 6 8 being "severe," correct? 7 A . Yes . 8 Q. I don't want to go through all of 9 these scores but, for example, rats exposed at 10 six months the crocidolite score is reported as 11 3.7. How does that rate on the scale here? 12 In other words, those are odd numbers 13 and the scale is even numbers. 14 A . You said six months crocidolite is - - 15 Q. Crocidolite is 3.7. 16 A . That means some of the rats were two. 17 some three. some four, so they divided. 18 Q. So average score? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. So at six months the 2 1 crocidolite-exposed rats were 3.7 and the 22 Canadian chrysotile is 5.5, correct? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. I guess the table speaks for itself, 25 but at other lengths of exposure the scores are MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007384 19 3 1 Gibbs 2 between the crocidolite and the different types 3 of chrysotile are either about the same or the 4 chrysotile was higher, correct? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And I'm looking at amosite scores, in 7 all cases these are lower than the Rhodesian 8 chrysotile scores though the eight-week is even 9 with the Canadian chrysotile; is that correct? 10 A. Yes, though -- well, with some 11 they're very close. 12 Q. So, again, if I was a physician in 13 Minnesota at the time this paper was published in 14 1974 and was relying on these data for some 15 indication was to whether chrysotile could cause 16 asbestosis, would you agree that a reasonable 17 conclusion would be that, in fact, it can - 18 MR. WILL: Object to the form. In 19 humans, this paper only alone? 20 ' MR. BROWNSON: This one. 21 MR. WILL: Only forgetting about 22 everything else? 23 A. If you just take this paper in 24 isolation, yes. 25 Q. With respect to animal data MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007385 194 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Gibbs concerning calidria, I take it you've made no independent survey of the literature, but you . have received these articles by Muhle and I think it was Rittenghausen from Mr. Gerson, correct? A. Yes. Q. And I don't want to go through them all but I will show you some other papers concerning animal experiments with calidria. MR. BROWNSON: I just ask you to look at them. Mark this as 15. (Plaintiff's Exhibit 15 for identification, document entitled Malignant Mesothelioma Induced by Asbestos and Zeolite in the Mouse Peritoneal Cavity.) Q. Do you have Exhibit 15 in front of you? A. Yes. Q. Have you ever had a chance to review this paper before? A. I haven't seen this before. Q. It's entitled"Malignant Mesothelioma Induced by Asbestos and Zeolite in the Mouse Peritoneal Cavity" by Yasunosuke Suzuki and MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007386 195 1 Gibbs 2 co-author and published by Environmental Research 3 in 1984 . 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. First of all, are you familiar with 6 Yasunosuke Suzuki? 7 A. I think so. 8 Q. Do you know him to be a pathologist? 9 A. As I understand there's some question 10 about whether he is a pathologist. 11 Q. Well, in fact, he holds himself up to 12 be a pathologist. 13 A. I believe he does but some 14 qualifications are in question. 15 Q. Whatever his qualifications as a 16 pathologist may be, are you aware he practices at 17 Mount Sinai in New York City? 18 A. I assume he does. 19 Q. Do you know one way or the other? 20 A. No. 21 Q. What are the concerns you've heard 22 raised about his qualifications? 23 A. These are really things I've heard 24 from other pathologists. 25 Q. Which other pathologists? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007387 19 6 1 Gibbs 2 A. I believe Dr. Churg. 3 Q. So Dr. Churg is of the view that 4 there might be some trouble with Dr. Suzuki's 5 qualifications? 6 A. I believe so. 7 Q. In 1983 the chief of the 8 Environmental Sciences Laboratory Department of 9 Community Medicine of Mount Sinai Medical Center 10 in New York was Dr. Irvin Selikoff, was it not? 11 A. I believe so. 12 Q. You, of course, are familiar with 13 Dr. Selikoff? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Was Dr. Nicholson also on the staff 16 of this group at the time? 17 A. I don't know for certain, he might 18 well have been. 19 Q. Is it fair to say that at least in 20 America in 1983 the group at Mount Sinai Medical 21 Center was considered a leading research group in 22 the health effect? 23 MR. WILL: I object to this 24 question. How can he know that? 25 MR. BROWNSON: I don't know, see if MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007388 197 1 Gibbs 2 he does. 3 MR. WILL: He's not American, he 4 wasn't practicing medicine in the United States 5 at the time, he hasn't conducted a survey; how 6 does he know? 7 MR. BROWNSON: Let's ask. 8 MR. WILL: There's no foundation, 9 it's rank speculation, but go ahead. I object on 10 that basis. 11 Q. Can you answer the question? 12 A. They would have been regarded as a 13 well-known research institute. 14 Q. I realize you do not necessarily 15 agree with many of the conclusions they have come 16 to over the years, that they generally take a 17 more liberal attitude than you do? 18 MR. GERSON: I object. Not 19 "attitude." 20 A. I don't know what you quite mean by 21 "liberal," but we would differ. 22 Q. Was a general proposition that they 23 tend to find more of a relationship between 24 asbestos and health effects than you would? 25 A. Again, that's a very general MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007389 198 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Gibbs statement. Are you talking specifically about other non-lung related diseases or I'm not quite sure what you talking about, diseases or -- Q. I'm trying to stay generally but let me ask these questions. Would it be fair to say that over the years and certainly in the 1980s the Mount Sinai group took the position that chrysotile asbestos was associated with lung cancer and mesothelioma quite strongly? A. I believe that to be the case. Q. Whereas you in contrast were much more conservative on the points? MR. WILL: Object to the.form of the question. What is "conservative"? Q. I've already described it in detail. You just simply disagree with them on those points? A. Yes. Q. If you look at Table 2 of this paper, which is at page 283, it shows a number of things but what it shows is that the mice were injected with a number of different substances, two of which were amosite and chrysotile. One, two and three are amosite and calidria chrysotile is MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007390 199 1 Gibbs 2 number six; is that right? . 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Without goingthrough all the 5 numbers, the percentages of mice found to have 6 malignant peritoneal tumors was for amosite 26, 7 23 and 40 depending on the dose of amosite they 8 were injected with? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And the calidriachrysotile was 25 11 percent ? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. So, again, if you were a physician in 14 Minnesota at the time this paper came out in 1984 15 and you looked at this paper would you agree with 16 me that you would get some impression that 17 calidria asbestos could cause peritoneal tumors? 18 MR. WILL: In mice? 19 MR. BROWNSON: Generally. 20 MR. WILL: In humans? 21 MR. BROWNSON: Yes. 22 A. Well, if one takes the literature one 23 sees intraperitoneal but some, like authors in 24 Germany, say light can cause tumors. If one was 25 a sensible clinician one would read peritoneal MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007391 200 1 Gibbs 2 tumor experiments with great caution. 3 Q. This paper would lead you to the 4 conclusion in the study conducted here in these 5 mice the calidria asbestos caused 25 percent 6 peritoneal tumors? 7 MR. GERSON: You don't mean to lead 8 Dr. Gibbs to this conclusion? 9 A. Well, in the mice under these 10 conditions, yes. 11 Q. Have you seen papers by Dr. Maltoni 12 concerning studies he has done of the rats with 13 respect to intraplueral and intraperitoneal 14 asbestos and other asbestos types? 15 A. I've seen papers by Maltoni but I 16 can't remember exactly. 17 Q. Well, if I told you some are such 18 experiments with calidria you wouldn't find that 19 shocking or surprising? 20 A. No. 2 1 Q. That's the kind of thing you 22 recognize he's done? 23 MR. WILL: Objection. What's that? 24 MR. BROWNSON: I'm trying to finish 25 this up here. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007392 201 1 Gibbs 2 MR. WILL: Is he going to deny that 3 he did? He doesn't know whether he's done a 4 study on calidria or not, he has done animal 5 studies. Just be careful about the way you 6 phrase the question, that's all. 7 MR. BROWNSON: Let's mark this. 8 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 16 9 for identification, document entitled The 10 Relevance of the Experimental Approach in the 11 Assessment of the Oncogenic Risks From Fibrous 12 and Non-Fibrous Particles.) 13 MR. BROWNSON: What we've marked as 14 Exhibi t 16 for identification is a paper by 15 Dr. C. Maltoni and other doctors published in 16 1982 i n an Italian medical journal and 17 Dr. Ma ltoni is designated as being with the 18 Ins tit ute of Oncology in Bologna, Italy. 19 Q. First of all, Dr. Gibbs, have you 20 seen t his paper before? 21 A. I don't think so. 22 Q. Are you familiar with Dr. Maltoni? 23 A. I've heard of Dr. Maltoni. 24 Q. Do you know him to be an experimental 25 animal inhalation researcher? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007393 2 02 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Gibbs A. I believe him to be so. Q. This particular paper describes some experiments he has done and these appear to be long-term inhalation experiments; is that correct ? A. Did you say inhalation? Q. I'm sorry, injection. A. That's peritoneal. Q. If you look at the second page Table l is listed as "Long-term carcinogenicity bioassays of asbestos of different types and origins, by intraperitoneal, intrapleural and subcutaneous injection, on eight weeks old Sprague-Dawley rats." Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. Do you know what he means by "long-term"? Does that mean the rats weren't sacrificed for a long time and let live until they died? A. I think he means he started the experiments 77 weeks ago and 55 weeks ago, so rather than done over a period of weeks, done over a couple of months. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007394 203 1 Gibbs 2 Q. Is there any significance to that 3 stringing this out before you kill the animals? 4 A. If you want to look at production of 5 tumors you'd do long-term experiments rather than 6 short-term. 7 Q. The longer they live the more likely 8 you are to see tumors; is that fair to say? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. If you go to the table on page 399 11 what he has done is summarized in columns here 12 the percentage of these rats that got tumors and 13 he's got a number of different things, but among 14 the different fiber types that have been injected 15 in the rats are amosite and calidria California 16 chrysotile, correct? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. What heshows in this table is that 19 the percentage of rats getting tumors from 20 amosite, averages between the male and female is 21 52.5 percent, correct? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. With respect to thecalidria it's 24 17.5, right? 25 A. Yes. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007395 204 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Gibbs Q. So what we see is you get more tumors with amosite but less with calidria, correct? A. Yes . Q. Now this is different than the results we saw in Dr. Wagner's paper with rats where he got more tumors with the Canadian and Rhodesian chrysotile than with amosite? A. That was by inhalation and injection and they are by different dosages and I think different rats, too. Q. So what you've got are different papers by different research groups, one in Britain and one in Italy, by rats introducing different asbestos fiber types in different ways and different types, etc. and getting different results? A. Yes. Q. In both cases would you agree with me that chrysotile induced different types of tumors in the rats? A. Yes, the experimental conditions that they used. Q. So, again, if I am a physician in Minnesota and I read this paper after it came out MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007396 205 1 Gibbs 2 in 1982 would it be fair for me to have the 3 impression that, yes, California calidria 4 asbestos can induce tumors in rats? 5 A. If you solely based it on these 6 experimental papers. 7 Q. If that same physician read the 8 introduction to this paper by Dr. Maltoni 9 wouldn't he be left with the impression that 10 these rat experiments are relevant to determining 11 the carcinogenic risk of asbestos in people? 12 A. Are you saying that they would be of 13 use in trying to asses what happens in humans? 14 Q. Is that a question or an answer? 15 MR. WILL: That was an answer. 16 Q. That's what Dr. Maltoni writes here, 17 in other words? 18 A. Well, he says "Long-term experimental 19 bioassays, in the present situation, may provide 20 different types of important information." I 2 1 don't think it means that they definitely will. 22 Q. But he also writes, does he not, "In 23 our opinion, there is an urgent and growing need 24 for the oncogenic" -- by that he means cancer, 25 right? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007397 206 1 Gibbs 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. (continuing) "risk assessment of the 4 inorganic and organic, non-fibrous and fibrous, 5 natural and man-made particles, present in the 6 work-place and in the general human environment." 7 A. Yes . 8 Q. And it goes on. Is it that these 9 animal experiments he's doing here can have some 10 bearing on that? 11 A. Some bearing, not tinge the whole 12 assessment on it. 13 Q. I take you it you're familiar with 14 the various papers by Dr. John Dement? 15 A. Well, I've seen Dr. Dement's papers, 16 I don't know that I've seen all of them. 17 Q. You know that he's written about the 18 mortality of the workers in the chrysotile 19 textile plant in South Carolina? 20 A. Yes. 2 1 Q. Would you agree with me, Dr. Gibbs, a 22 physician in Minnesota who was trying to gain 23 some information pertaining to whether chrysotile 24 can cause lung cancer, reading Dr. Dement he 25 would be left with the impression that chrysotile MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007398 207 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 n 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Gibbs can cause elevated risk of lung cancer? A. Yes. MR. BROWNSON: Let's mark as the next exhibit a paper you've written and I guess this is 17. (Plaintiff's Exhibit 17 for identification, document entitled Thorax: The Journal of the British Thoracic Society.) Q. What I've shown you now is Exhibit 17,Dr. Gibbs, a paper published in August 1987, Volume 42, No. 8 of The Thorax: The Journal of the British Thoracic Society, entitled "Asbestos induced diffuse pleural fibrosis: pathology and mineralogy." And I take it you're familiar with this paper? A. I recall it. Q. The copy I have is not good because it's cut off, but you're one of the authors, it looks like your name got cut off. No, you're there. Okay, it's getting late in the day. So you're one of the authors and I see Professor Fred Pooley and Dr. Wagner, right? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007399 208 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Gibbs A. Correct. Q. We were talking earlier about diffuse pleural fibrosis and would it be fair to say that what this paper is doing is reporting concerning asbestos induced diffuse pleural fibrosis as found by your Medical Research Center? A. Yes. Q. Just so we're clear, diffusepleural fibrosis is an asbestos - related condition but it is not what we referred to as asbestosis; in other words, it's not an interstitial fibrosis in the lung? A. Well, it can be an asbestos is - related condition. It can occur with other things but in contrast to asbestosis. Q. It looks like what was done here is that you and your group, Dr. Wagner and Dr. Pooley, report on seven cases of diffuse pleural fibrosis with known asbestos exposure, correct ? A. Yes. Put it this way, this was a history of the asbestos exposure. Q. Dr. Pooley microscopically looked at tissue, would that be pleural tissue? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007400 209 1 Gibbs 2 A. No, this was on the lung. 3 Q. Lung tissue with aviewtoward 4 determining whether there were asbestos fibers 5 present in the lung tissue, correct? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. As reported inthis paper the amount 8 of fibers per gram of dry lung tissue under the 9 electron microscope are reported in the seven 10 cases, correct? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. I'm looking now at page 586, the 13 final paragraph on that page reads, "The cases 14 presented here are clearly related to 15 occupational exposure to asbestos. It is also 16 apparent that they are associated with both a 17 higher total asbestos count than 18 non-occupationally exposed individuals and a 19 different fibre distribution"; is that right? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. One of these cases, case number 6, 22 I'm interested in because that showed a total 23 fiber count of lung tissue of 28.9. I believe 24 that means a million, ten to the sixth? 25 A. Yes. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007401 2 10 1 Gibbs 2 Q. 28.9 million fibers per dry gram of 3 lung tissue in this individual of which half was 4 amosite, correct? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. You consider that to be within 7 background level? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. 14.4 are chrysotile, million are 10 chrysotile, correct? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. That would be a high level to find in 13 the lung of a person? 14 A. No, within the range of background. 15 Q. So you would consider that to be 16 within the range of background as well? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. 9.6 percent of something like 19 mullite. What's that? 20 A. That's aluminium silicate, it's not 21 asbestos. 22 Q. My question here is this: You and 2 3 your co-authors write that the seven cases 24 presented here that clearly related to 25 occupational exposure to asbestos and yet in this MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP UCAREF00007402 2 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Gibbs case number 6 the highest exposure to asbestos I see is to chrysotile and you say that's within background level, so what are we to make of that? A. I think you can never take one case on it's own, you have to read in context with the whole group and six out of the seven showed raised amphibole levels and the case was, was that Case 6, a person who developed diffuse pulmonary asbestos had relatively low exposure to asbestos which was clearly beyond background controls, or was it the case of diffuse pleural fibrosis occurring for some other reason with a history of exposure, but I don't like drawing conclusions from one case. Q. Yet at least as I read it you do write that all cases here are related to occupationally-exposed asbestos? A. Yes, maybe that could have been written better. Q. So were you able to do that over today you might say but Case 6 maybe is not? A. I don't know about Case 6. Q. In any event, would it be fair to say that if I was a physician in Minnesota in MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP . UCAREF00007403 2 12 1 Gibbs 2 approximately 1987 and I read this article I 3 would be left with the impression that here are 4 seven cases of diffuse pleural fibrosis all 5 caused by occupationally-related asbestos 6 exposure? 7 A. That would be reasonable conclusion. 8 Q. That, in fact, is what you write in 9 the article? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. I would note if I looked at this 12 Table 3 that at least one of these cases the 13 predominant asbestos exposure was to chrysotile? 14 A. You can't say predominant exposure 15 was to chrysotile. Yes, there is more chrysotile 16 fibers in the lung than amosite but in normal 17 individuals there is more chrysotile than amosite 1 8 so you can't say that there's more occupational 19 exposure to chrysotile. 2 0 Q. But in occupationally-exposed 21 individuals if they're exposed to chrysotile and 22 amosite isn't it your experience to see more 23 amosite than chrysotile? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. So if we were to believe that in MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007404 2 13 1 Gibbs 2 occupationally-exposed individuals, as you write 3 here, wouldn't it be fair to say that we ought to 4 see more amosite in that man number 6 than 5 chrysotile? 6 A. If he had a significant occupation 7 exposure one would expect to see more amosite 8 than that. 9 MR. WILL: Of what you found or 10 amosite than chrysotile? 11 THE WITNESS: Than what we found. 12 Q. Just so I'm clear, in 13 non-occupationally-exposed people in your 14 experience based on these mineralogical assays 15 from Professor Pooley the background level for 16 amosite is what? 17 A. One. 18 Q. One million fibersper dry gram? 19 A. Up to one. 20 Q. Crocidolite? 21 A. Up to one. 22 Q. And tremolite? 23 A. Up to one. 24 Q. And chrysotile? 25 A. Up to 50. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007405 2 14 1 Gibbs 2 Q. Why in your view do you see up Co 5(1 3 million chrysotile fibers in 4 non-occupationally-exposed figures that 5 chrysotile is cleared so much more readily from 6 the lung? 7 A. I dont' know. 8 Q. But nevertheless that's what you see? 9 A. Yeah, I don't know. 10 (Discussion off the record.) 11 Q. One thing I noticed about the 12 different animal injection papers we've reviewed 13 today by Maltoni, Suzuki and the Mellon Institute 14 is that I don't see tremolite reported in any of 15 those. In your experience has tremolite been 16 reported in animal injection studies? 17 MR. WILL: Do you mean a separate 18 agent or a contaminant of the chrysotile? 19 MR. BROWNSON: No, let me put it this 20 way. 2 1 Q. Have you seen animal injection 22 studies or inhalation where tremolite is actually 23 reported? 24 A. I think there are some. 2 5 Q. Separately? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007406 215 1 Gibbs 2 A . I think in studies of different 3 tremolites, both. 4 Q Can you cite me to any of those? 5 A . I think Addison has done some. 6 Q 7 papers ? First of all, are those in published 8 A. I don't believe so. 9 Q. So if we were to look at Dr. Wagner's 10 published animal data and, I guess, animal 11 inhalation studies? 12 A. I think he did both inhalation and 1 3 injection studies. 14 Q. Somewhere in there does he report 15 levels of tremolite in the tissue of those 16 animals ? 1 7 A. I can't remember. 18 Q. Do you know if he has done any 19 studies whether by inhalation or injection where 20 he actually has used pure tremolite as one of the 2 1 things that's put into the animals? 22 A. I think there are a studies on pure 2 3 t remolit e. 24 Q. What I'm wondering is this: Have you 25 seen animal studies, whether inhalation or MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP . UCAREF00007407 216 1 Gibbs 2 injection, published where animals were given 3 chrysotile and researchers had broken out the 4 levels of tremolite in those animals? 5 A. I don't remember seeing anything 6 specifically. 7 Q. Do you recall if any of Wagner's a studies would show that? 9 A. There may be one or two. 10 Q. Of the published studies or 11 unpublished? 12 A. I think one or two published studies 13 that may have some data in that. 14 Q. Do you know in that 1974 paper that 15 we were looking at that Dr. Wagner did -- I 1 6 realize that's 22 years ago and you were a young 1 7 researcher at the time -- and do you know if any 18 tremolite was found or looked for in the 19 chrysoti1e-exposed rats? 20 A. I don't think they look at it at that 2 1 point in time. 22 Q. You have said that in your experience 2 3 the background level of tremolite in human lungs 24 is about up to one million dry fibers gram of 25 lung tissue? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007408 2 17 1 Gibbs 2 A. Generally this is the sort of 3 controls I've seen that Fred Pooley had done on 4 U.S. subjects. Generally we see tremolite in 5 lung tissues much less frequently in the U.K. and 6 back in controls. 7 Q. When you say it's up to a million, do 8 you know what the average number is in American 9 background ? 10 A. Average would be a nought point one 11 or nought point two. 12 1 3 200,000? MR. WILL: That's 100,000 to 14 THE WITNESS: Yes. 15 Q. In the people who have been 1 6 occupationally-exposed to crocidolite where 1 7 Dr. Pooley has done a fiber analysis of the lung 1 8 tissue is some level of tremolite also found in 19 those lungs? 20 A. One sometimes finds some tremolite in 2 1 some lungs but it's often not present. 22 Q. So that can range -- well, let's put 23 it this way. In crocidolite-exposed lungs do you 24 tend to see tremolite above background or - 25 A. Just within background. If you take MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007409 218 1 Gibbs 2 a gas mask, for instance, you d on't show much 3 tremolite at all in those but i f you were in a 4 factory with fixed usage of the asbestos which 5 included chrysotile and the cro cidolite. 6 Q. How about tremolite , do you see any 7 elevated levels of tremolite? 8 MR. WILL: You're t alking about 9 somebody who works in a factory , exclusively 10 amosite, amosite-exposed worker s? 11 MR. BROWNSON: Yes. 12 Q. Have you seen any t remolite- exposed 13 contaminant in amosite? 14 A. Not to my knowledge 15 Q. Have you ever seen or has Professor 16 Pooley ever showed the lungs of people exposed 17 only to amosite that had elevat ed levels of 18 t remolit e ? 19 A. No. 2 0 Q. Are you aware of any experimental 21 data to determine if there is tremolite 22 contamination in amosite? 23 A. I'm not aware of animal studies but I 24 would think that amosite samples have been looked 25 at and not found. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007410 2 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Gibbs Q. So you're saying that you're sure somebody has looked at samples from amosite from a mineralogical site? A. I'm not sure, I think they probably have . Q. Have you seen those data? A. I've seen data on some various asbestos samples and my impression or recollection is that tremolite is a contaminant of chrysotile but not amosite and crocidolite. Q. Again, you recognize the tremolite is a contaminant of some chrysotile but not all chrysotile? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Goldman reminds me that question I asked you about background levels of different fiber types in the lungs you reported up to one million, but do you know what average is the amosite? A. Nought point one or nought point two. Q. Crocidolite? A. Same. Q. Chrysotile? A. Average would be around five. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007411 220 x Gibbs 2 Q. Fivemillion? 3 A . Yes. 4 Q. Do you know or have you been told or 5 learned that this epidemiological study that Ed 6 Ilgren has been talking about about miners and 7 millers is going to include the analysis of any 8 lung tissue for mineral content? 9 A. I think that would be the -- one of 10 the objectives of the study. 11 Q. As far as you know is that going to 12 be done by Professor Pooley? 13 A. I would imagine that wouldbe done by 14 Professor Pooley. 15 Q. Do you have any information as to the 16 timing when this might be done? 17 A. No . 18 Q. Have you ever visited the miner mill 19 in King City, California? 20 A. No. 21 Q. When Dr. Pooley went outthere to 22 take these samples do you know who he went with 2 3 on that occasion? 24 A. No. 2 5 Q. Until you saw this material that you MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007412 221 1 Gibbs 2 got from Mr. Gerson were you aware that Pooley 3 had been out there? . 4 A. I knew that Pooley had been out there 5 but I didn't know what the content of the report 6 was . 7 Q. Do you know in what context that he 8 went out there; in other words, was it only 9 interest or in connection with some work doing a 10 Union Carbide? 11 A. I don't know the context, I knew he 12 went but we didn't actually discuss what the 13 arrangements were about. 14 Q. Have you spoken to anyone from the 15 miner mill? 16 A. No. 17 Q. There's a Mr. Meyers out there, for 18 example, was a manager. Have you ever spoken to 19 him? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Beginning in, I believe, 1971 Union 22 Carbide put labels on the bags of calidria 23 asbestos that said -- they said different things 24 at different times, but essentially warnings that 25 breathing this dust was a health hazard? MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007413 22 2 1 Gibbs 2 MR. WILL: Objection to the form of 3 the question. I think you misstated the date the 4 warnings appeared. I don't know if it's critical 5 to the question or not. 6 MR. BROWNSON: Let me back up, 7 different question. 3 Q. Have you seen any warning labels 9 placed on the calidria bags from time to time? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Do you know when those labels first 12 appeared on the bags? 13 A. No. 14 Q. At some point in time the labels bore 15 the legend cancer hazard? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Do you believe as you sit here that 18 in fact the handling of calidria is a cancer 19 hazard to occupational workplaces? 20 MR. WILL: I object to the preamble 21 of the question. It misstates, I believe, the 22 fact, at least to the fact Union Carbide is 23 concerned. Why don't you just ask him what his 24 idea of a cancer hazard presents? 25 MR. BROWNSON: Because there is a MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007414 22 3 1 Gibbs 2 1abel. 3 MR. WILL:: No . 4 MR. BROWNSON: Yes , but I don ' t want 5 to argue. 6 Q. I'll ask Trevor's question. Do you 7 recall a label where asbestos would be a cancer 8 hazard to workers handling it? 9 A. From very prolonged exposures, no. 10 (Discussion off the record.) 11 MR. BROWNSON: You may have some 12 questions here. I don't know if you do or don't. 13 MR. WILL: Couple. 14 MR. BROWNSON: It would be fine with 15 me if we continued this deposition by telephone, 16 but I don't know if you want to do that or not. 17 MR. GERSON: Why don't we get back to 18 you on that. 19 MR. BROWNSON: That's an option, 20 that's fine with me now that we've spent the day 2 1 talking with Dr. Gibbs and we've met. 22 MR. GERSON: I throw it out as a 23 possibility. Based on that maybe we can work it 24 out. 25 MR. GOLDMAN: Yes. MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007415 2 24 1 Gibbs 2 MR. WILL: There's a five-hour time 3 difference between where. 4 MR. GOLDMAN: We can work that out. 5 MR. WILL: Just to indicate on the 6 record that I did talk to Mr. Brownson last 7 Friday indicating that Dr. Gibbs would have to 8 leave at four today and try to start at nine to 9 accommodate and at the time you indicated you 10 thought you'd be able to finish. 11 MR. BROWNSON: I thought so. 12 MR. WILL: We'll obviously get back 13 to you and deal with finishing this one. 14 MR. BROWNSON: I can state for the 15 record I have some more questions to talk to 16 Dr. Gibbs about, but I'm perfectly happy doing it 17 by telephone if that's the way you guys want to 18 do that. If you want to come back, that's fine, 19 too . 20 MR. WILL: Do you have any other 21 documents that you want to address with him, 22 because obviously if we're going to do that... 23 MR. BROWNSON: Should I get them to 24 you ahead of time? 25 MR. WILL: How else can we do it? Do MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007416 22 5 1 Gibbs 2 you want to mark them, because he wants to get 3 going. 4 MR. BROWNSON: We'll get them 5 marked. 6 MR. WILL: Okay. 7 MR. BROWNSON: Just for the record, a will you retain the exhibits with the original 9 and the way we've been doing it in this case is 10 sending the original transcript to me with the 11 original exhibits and then I get a copy and an 12 ASCII disk and I think he gets a copy too. 13 MR. WILL: We'll talk about what we 14 want but I will want a complete copy of all of 15 the exhibits as well. 16 MR. BROWNSON: So do I. 17 MR. GERSON: Make three complete 18 copies. 19 MR. GOLDMAN: And you can make me a 20 copy too. Can I have one of the mini 21 transcripts. 22 {Time noted: 4:05 p.m.) 23 24 25 ALLEN ROBERT GIBBS MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007417 1 Gibbs 2 3 Subscribed and sworn to before me 4 this _______ day of _ __ _.......1996. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 226 MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007418 227 1 2 CERTIFICATE 3 STATE OF NEW YORK ) 4 : ss . 5 COUNTY OF NEW YORK ) 6 7 I, EVELYNE JOSEPH-PAULINE, a 8 Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public within and 9 for the State of New York, do hereby certify: 10 That ALLEN ROBERT GIBBS, the witness 11 whose deposition is hereinbefore set forth, was 12 duly sworn by me and that such deposition is a 13 true record of the testimony given by the 14 witness. 15 I further certify that I am not 16 related to any of the parties to this action by 17 blood or marriage, and that I am in no way 18 interested in the outcome of this matter. 19 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto 20 set my hand this day of 199 6. 21 22 23 EVELYNE J 24 25 MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007419 22 8 1 2 EXHIBITS 3 DESCRIPTION PAGE LINE 4 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 for identification, copy of curriculum 5 vitae . ).............................................................................................................................................. 4 23 6 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 for identification, document entitled 7 Asbestos: Effects on health of exposure to asbestos.).......................................................................... 131 20 9 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 for 9 identification, document entitled Mesothelioma.).......................................................................................................... 133 3 10 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 4 for 11 identification, document entitled Occupational Exposure Limit For 12 Asbestos.).......................................................................................................................... 136 22 13 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 for identification, one-page memoranda.).............. 139 18 14 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 6 for 15 identification, document.)...................................................... 143 3 16 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 7 for identification, document.)...................................................... 143 5 17 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 8 for 18 identification, document.)....................................................... 143 7 19 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 9 for identification, article from the Volume 20 13 January to December 1930 issue of Minnesota Medicine.).................................................................................. 155 4 21 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 10 for 22 identification, the July 8, 1966 report by the Mellon Institute.).............................................................. 158 6 23 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 11 for 24 identification, the September 3rd, 1971 report by the Mellon Institute.)................................. 158 12 25 MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007420 229 1 2 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 12 for identification, notes from the Mellon 3 Institute of Industrial Research- Chemical Hygiene Fellowship.)............................................. 164 2 5 4 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 13 for 5 identification, reprint of an article published in Volume 102, Supplement 5, 6 October 1994 issue of Environmental Health Perspective.)................................................................................. 170 15 7 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 14 for 8 identification, document entitled The Effects Of The Inhalation Of Asbestos 9 In Rats . ).............................................................................................................................. 178 23 10 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 15 for identification, document entitled 11 Malignant Mesothelioma Induced by Asbestos and Zeolite in the Mouse 12 Peritoneal Cavity.)..................................................................................... 194 12 13 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 16 for identification, document entitled The 14 Relevance of the Experimental Approach in the Assessment of the Oncogenic 15 Risks From Fibrous and Non-Fibrous Particles.)...................................................................................................................... 201 7 16 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 17 for 1 7 identification, document entitled Thorax: The Journal of the British 18 Thoracic Society.).......................................................................................... 207 6 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MANHATTAN REPORTING CORP. UCAREF00007421