Document O30KweKk6rv3B30prar8RY1eK

r S/ol Johns-Manville ^ Internal dorrespondence tts&j *> W. R. Curtner, 2-17 June 4, 1980 Ftn Paul Kotin, M.D., 1-06 Copies SMei MEDICAL INFORMATION FOR INSURANCE RENEWAL There are two elements to your request tor irferr.-ar.icn that can be used to convince insurance carriers that the asbestos rink is insurable. One element is the evidence that indicates that asbestos-related diseases are on the decline, and this part is discussed in the enclosed document which exarinca asbestos-related diseases in general and the biological principles governing them and reviews the medical literature on disease incidence and morbidity and mortality trends. This material can be given directly to insurance companies since it is basic to understanding asbestos-related health risks. The second element concerns data from Johns-Manville's work experience and the relationship of these data to workers* compensation and third-party cases. This part is the more difficult of the two, and although you have been very specific in the questions you have raised in your memo of May 5, 1980, many of them cannot be answered as precisely as you wish. Consequently I will respond to your questions in this nemo and you can then incorporate the information as you see fit in your discussions with insurers. .. Under 2(A) in your memo you ask about the declining incidence ' of asbestos-related disease. Explanation of this and the basis for the statement is included in the separate document. However, you also ask that the statement be quantified. Answers of this type would be mere speculation and as such fraught with dangers. In the medical area the best we can do is speak in trends. In 2(B) you ask whether "the number of lawsuits is directly related to the number of cases that are medically diagnosed as being asbestos-associated." There is no such direct relationship for a number of reasons. First, the approach in third-party litigation appears to be that of class action. In other words, cases may represent several people or large numbers of people who were employed at the same placet yet not all those individuals in the suit will have asbestosrelated disease. A related factor is the clearly documented willingness on the part of some insurance carriers to settle , such cases for lesser monies than might be at stake should a case involving a disputed diagnetis proceed to trial. The W. R. Curtner -2- June 4, 1980 recent verdict in Los Angeles where a jury awarded a plaintiff with nonasbostos-related disease a 1.2 million dollar settle ment can only generate a whole new wave of spurious claims. Second, there is a general trend toward suing for diseases which may be asbestos-related but for the most part are not because they have a multiple etiology, meaning there are a number of factors that can cause these diseases. This does not apply to asbestosis nor entirely to mesothelioma, but it does apply to lung cancer and chronic lung diseases such as emphysema and bronchitis. There are many common causes for gastrointestinal cancer as well. If asbestos exposure does play a role in gastroir.testr "nl c;r.:6.-., r minima}. Third, a number of cases represent stigmata of exposure (pleural thickening, pleural plaques). These stigmata arc merely signs of an individual's having been exposed to asbestos; they are not signs of disease. Even though many of the lawsuits wc sec do r.ot truly reflect asbestos-related disease, this does not necessarily mean that "the number of medical cases diagnosed as asbestos- related will be no more in 1980 than in previous years." There is a greatly increased awareness among the general public and in the medical community of the potential hazards of excessive exposure to asbestos. The Federal Government, through the National Cancer Institute, has undertaken an extensive educational campaign during the past two years to inform both workers who may have been exposed to asbestos in the past and physicians about possible health effects. Thus, while medical knowledge about asbestos hazards evolved slowly, the accumulated knowledge has been disseminated rapidly during the past five years. As a result, we are seeing some evidence that asbestos-related disease may be overdiagnosed at this time. ' Your questions about "a decrease in the number of people a exposed to injurious levels of fiber" can be taken two wayst' either that there has been a reduction in the number of people working with asbestos or a reduction in exposure levels. I have no figures or even estimates of the current asbestos workforce, but I can demonstrate a reduction in exposure levels at asbestos-using operations. Included in the enclosed paper on asbestos diseases is industrial hygiene data from representative Johns-Manville facilities during the period 1969 to 1979, which very definitely show J-M's progress in reducing levels of airborne fiber in our plants and that we are well under the current OSHA standard of 2 fibers per cubic centimenter of air. These reductions have occurred not only in Johns-Manville but throughout the asbestos industry. The studies of Turner-Newall facilities in England, referred to in the paper, also demonstrate such reductions in exposure levels. W. R. Curtner -3- June 4, 1980 The rest of the information you seek in item 2(B) cannot be supplied. Zt is impossible to provide estimates along such lines. In 2(C) you ask about the projections or estimates of future asbestos-related disease, figures of future disease based on the KCI/NIEHS/NIOSH report on occupational cancer are entirely unsupportable. This is discussed in the enclosed paper, and copies of J-M's submissions to OSHA on the estimates are included. The data in our response to OSHA show that only a small percentage of future disease cases can be related to asbestos exposure. The estimates by the Federal Government have also been disputed by epidemiologists and cancer researchers, as can be seen in the editorial from Lancet and the letter by Sir Richard Doll which are in the separate document. Pertinent to any discussion of future estimates is the fact that the population exposed in the past to heroic concentrations of asbestos fiber is progressively aging, and many tiave already died. The aging of the exposed population, though, is a confounding factor in another way, inasmuch as disease categories such as cancer increase as a population ages, and it is virtually certain that for asbestos workers there will be an irresistible tendency to ascribe these cancers to asbestos exposure. In answer to your question whether "the claims being received today are due to earlier exposures at much heavier doses," the overall experience at J-M's newer plants certainly indicates a reduction in hazard. There were still some dusty jobs in these locations, though, and in the early days of these operations, exposure may have been sufficient to produce sporadic cases of asbestos-related disease, when compared with the experience of other J-H plants operating in "the 1930's and 1940's, however, the attack rate is reduced by every criterion. More information in this area will be available the end of July or early August when Dr. Gerald R. Chase completes his biostatistical studies. I trust this material will be useful to you. You may wish to discuss certain aspects with me in more detail. Please call if you have any questions. auSsa rsa xsecutite conuimr unnic To bo bold Monday, lombor 28th, 1929 ot 81OO P.M. ot 25 loll Street. X. Minutes of previous netting. XX. Lewis B. Broom !o) Loot oodk'a eonfereneo. b) Progress of tba Roofing Institute. (e) Contact corporation in the Central Division, (d) Solos sumqr of Australia w) New Iceland. (o) Vitcgless Corporetion. (f) Approval of $75,000. for the purchase of land at Cincinnati. (g) Tilo Roofing Coapany. (h) Frlgid&iro Contract. III. C. R. Seigles (a) Operations in Europe* 1. Baton ft Uollith . 2. Trrhnt *'r--1111* International Corporetion. (b) Euroaoan companies desiring to merges . 1. Tuner . 2. Oernan companies 5. French companies IT. E. K. Toorheeat * (a) fibre Conduit dividends. (b) Asbeatoaia. (c) Old rights on property at Asbestos. (d) Desirability of interviewing editor of the Forbes ansine. (e) Directors' Meeting Deeeaber 16th. (f) Cash. (g) Major Projects Statement. (h) Sales. (i) October Innings. (j) Dividends. T. General Business Conditions. s . Csutsch ixbsstarerlce - This eonpesy >mt*i va*y fine Asbestos cloth, using a now Ida* la carding which Hr. Saigle la endeavoring to plaoe la affaet at oaa of ov fcctoriaa. Their aalaa appraxlaato $1,000,000, aad profit runa froa 15$ to 0$. Tbagr ara desirous of polling aa a Ul iataraat and eonauaa about 1000 tona of Long Flbra par year. froa which our profit ahould approxiaata $250 par ton or $0,000, thus paying for our lnvestnant in loaa than two years. H H H H S. There are too ecapaniaa in Franca that together eonauaa 750 tona of Fibre per poor, and wa could biy 1/8 intoraat for $250,000. Turner Vaaall Co. haa triad to got tbaa. Mr. Vhitaagr at&tad thf.t if wa could not obtain entire control that a minority intoraat waa Just aa good aa a aejorlty. I H I to decided that nothing furthar would be dona with the other coatpcnies until after t decision is wade on the Turner Rowell Company. I B IT. . M. Voorbeea: I (a) 1 regular dividend of $1.00 and an extra of $2.75 payable Koveaber 50th. An additional $2.00 extrn declared payable January 2nd, waking $5.75 per aharo in all. I B I (b) Mr. Greenstone, the plaintiff'a attorney, la desirous of haww B ing all eaaoo cone to leruo at one tiaa ao that they oaa he B tried at one tern. Thia neons that the eaaos sill not eono up ' fl until April 1950 torn in Bewark, J. Our sttonuy boliorte B . that thia neana that Qroonatona ia tiylng to got ua to naka a . ^ B eaah aottlenont without evwr actually going to trial. B Froa the information being given an investigator, Mr. Qroonatona B haa Instigated those cases by nlaroprooont&tion, and it would _ appear thrt sufficient avidenco has boon aaounulated to tiwow ; B the ecoos out of court on this basis. However, wo art going I through with our investigation and defense Juat as though those suits were going to bo tried to bo aura that wa gat to the I - botton of this situation. I (e) It appears tbet restrictions of 1/20 of tha nlnlng rights on -W certain propertiaa at Aabastoa optioned end/or owned ^ Johns- * Uanville ware nsvwr recorded ia the transfer of this property, 1 the title of this 3/20 nlnlng right being vested la tha land -v:v:s|B company which originally purohtaed all tha land in this vicinity from tha Crown. Tha attorney for thia land oonpeay, which is n Britieh ocnpaiy, happens to bo our attorn^, aad at his aug- * gaatioa wa have offered tha $7000 for tbs 1/20 sitting rights I on all tha land within radius of a nils of Asbostoa. As tha ' 1 . dlraotora of the land coopaxy are la Ihgland ao reply, has aa I yet bean received. 1