Document V3jjnJKMqx2moqKBKb2qeqd9o

701 1 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA x 4 IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY Civil LITIGATION (NO. VI) Action No. 5 MDL 875 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x 6 This Document Relates To: 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 8 FIFTH DIVISION 9 CONWED CORPORATION, 10 Plaintiff, Civil 11 Action 5-92-88 12 13 14 -against- UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff No. 15 -against- 16 OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION et al, 17 Third Party Defendant. 18 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x 19 20 August 13, 1998 EDWARD ILGREN 21 22 23 24 25 702 1 2 3 August 13, 1998 4 9:50 a.m. 5 6 7 8 taken by Continued deposition of EDWARD ILGREN, 9 offices Plaintiff, pursuant to adjournment, at the 10 Avenue, of Kelley, Drye & Warren, L.L.P., 101 Park 11 New York, New York, before Nancy R. Sullivan, a 12 Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public within and 13 for the State of New York. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 703 1 2 A p p e a r a n c e s: 3 STICH, ANGELL, KREIDLER, 4 BROWNSON & BALLOU, P.A. Attorneys for Plaintiff 5 The Crossings, Suite 120 250 Second Avenue South 6 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 7 BY: ROBERT D. BROWNSON, ESQ. 8 and 9 Corporation 10 11 12 Counsel 13 RUDNICK & WOLFE, ESQS. Attorneys for Conwed 203 North LaSalle Street Chicago, Illinois 60601-1293 BY: MICHAEL R. GOLDMAN, ESQ. of 14 15 Carbide 16 17 KELLEY, DRYE & WARREN, L.L.P. Attorneys for Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff Union Corporation 101 Park Avenue New York, New York 10000 18 BY: ALAN J. GERSON, ESQ. 19 20 21 53202-5367 22 23 Counsel 24 25 and FOLEY & LARDNER, ESQS. Firstar Center 777 East Wisconsin Avenue Milwaukee, Wisconsin BY: TREVOR J. WILL, ESQ. of oOo 704 1 2 E DWARD I LGRE N 3 was 4 follows resumed having been duly resworn, examined and testified further as 5 EXAMINATION (Continued) 6 BY MR. BROWNSON: 7 Q. Good morning, Dr. Ilgren. 8 A. Good morning. 9 deposition Q. We are now continuing your 10 versus on the case of Conwed versus Union Carbide 11 others. 12 A. Yes, sir. 13 asking you Q. And I wanted to begin by 14 recent some questions about a series of three 15 papers that you have authored which are entitled 16 "Coalinga Fibre - a Short Amphibole-Free 17 Chrysotile," parts 1, 2 and 3. 18 you Do you have those in front of 19 there? 20 A. Yes, I do. 21 about Q. Why don't we begin by talking 22 those. 23 published Now, these papers have been 24 in a journal called Indoor Built Environment, 25 correct? 705 1 Ilgren 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. What kind of journal is that? 4 that is A. It is a peer review journal 5 Karger based in the United Kingdom published by 6 Press in Basel, Switzerland. 7 j ournal? Q. How would you describe this 8 Is it a scientific journal, a medical journal or 9 what is it? How would you describe it? 10 combination A. I would say it is a 11 medical, scientific. 12 medical Q. Does it publish articles on 13 topics? 14 report. A. Some. Occasionally a case 15 Some medical articles. 16 other Q. Do you know has it published 17 animal inhalation studies that you are aware of ? 18 19 the A. I don't know. Q. Now, it indicates here that 20 authors of these three articles are yourself and 21 Eric Chatfield, is that correct? 22 A. Yes. 23 parts 1, 2 Q. And I am now focusing on 24 and we and 3 which we have in front of us here 25 but will get into this in some detail later, 706 1 Ilgren 2 of those before you do, can you tell me what part 3 was three papers was done by you and what part 4 done by Dr. Chatfield? 5 virtually all A. I've done, I suppose, 6 of the papers. 7 particular Q. Can you -- is there any 8 that item in the three papers, part 1, 2 and 3, 9 so we Dr. Chatfield did that you can point to us 10 by Dr. could mark that as something that was done 11 Chatfield? 12 A. No, sir. 13 to this? Q. Now, are there further parts 14 I see reference to other things in press as I read 15 these papers ? 16 A. Yes, sir. 17 Q. What other parts are there? 18 analysis which A. Part 4 is the hygiene 19 physical will also include a description of the 20 a part 5 and chemical properties, and there may be 21 the talking about more general implications of 22 work, but there is definitely a part 4. 23 actually Q. Is that something that is 24 being worked on at this point? 25 A. Yes, sir. 707 1 Ilgren 2 Q. So that is work underway? 3 A. Yes, sir. 4 speak, or is Q. Is that in press, so to 5 it prepress? 6 7 something A. It is prepress. Q. And does Dr. Chatfield have 8 to do with the part 4? 9 10 a little A. Yes, sir. Q. And just so I can understand 11 will bit about what this is, you say the part 4 12 deal with hygiene conditions. 13 hygiene of What do you mean by that, 14 what and where? 15 counts and A. It will look at the fiber 16 size characteristics of Coalinga chrysotile as 17 noted on compared to Canadian chrysotile in air as 18 direct examination as opposed to in water 19 following indirect examination. 20 Q. When you say in air on direct 21 direct 22 examination, are you talking about a analysis technique? 23 A. Yes, sir. 2 4 Q. Basically asbestos fibers are 25 collected out of air through a pump and deposited 708 1 Ilgren 2 onto a filter and analyzed? 3 A. Yes, sir. 4 obtained Q. And have those samples been 5 already or are these something that is going to be 6 obtained in the future? 7 A. They have been obtained. 8 Q. Where are they from? 9 al. A. They are from the Muhle, et 10 taken animal 1987 bioassay and also from filters 11 region by KCAC in the region of the -- I believe 12 from the mill but also perhaps the mine. 13 at the Q. And who has these materials 14 present time? 15 A. Dr. Chatfield. 16 filters Q. How was he able to get air 17 from KCAC Company? 18 sent to A. I requested KCAC to have them 19 Dr. Chatfield. 20 you? 21 Chatfield. 22 or how is Q. Did KCAC just give them to A. They sent them to Dr. Q. Do you do any work for KCAC 23 24 them to it that they give you filters? A. I just called them and asked 25 give filters to Dr. Chatfield. 709 1 2 them over Ilgren Q. For example, when I called 3 the years to get things, they wouldn't even talk 4 talk to to me. I am just curious why is it they 5 you and give you things? 6 7 they A. I don't know. Q. It is true, isn't it, because 8 that 9 your know you are working for Union Carbide therefore they are cooperating with you in 10 work and investigation? 11 12 at KCAC A. Perhaps. I don't know. Q. Well, who have you dealt with 13 filters? in connection with obtaining these 14 A. I have dealt with Mr. John Myers and 15 Mr. Ed -- well, formerly Mr. Myers and presently 16 Mr. Kleber. 17 of course Q. And both of those gentlemen 18 Union know that you are an expert retained by 19 Union Carbide in litigation and are working for 20 Carbide, don't they? 21 A. I don't know. 22 that? Q. Well, have you told them 23 may know A. I haven' t told them. They 24 or they may not know. 25 introduction Q. Who was it who made the 710 1 Ilgren 2 to you to Mr. Myers? 3 A. I don't recall. 4 first Q. Do you remember when you 5 air contacted Mr. Myers about obtaining these 6 samples? 7 A. No, not really. Years ago. 8 samples for Q. So you have had these air 9 several years or these filters? 10 A. At least. 11 between Q. Is there any correspondence 12 you and Mr. Myers dealing with these filters or 13 Mr. Kleber? 14 A. Not to my recollection. 15 and Q. Was this contact between you 16 Myers or Kleber over the telephone? 17 A. Yes, sir. 18 between Q. And was this direct contact 19 through you and these two gentlemen or was it 20 intermediaries? 21 recall; A. It was direct contact, as I 22 direct contact as I recall, it was direct. 23 filters you Q. And in terms of these air 24 the have obtained from KCAC, do you know when 25 taken? filters were taken or the air samples were 1 2 3 was 4 were 711 Ilgren A. No. Q. Is there any information that provided to you that tells you when they 5 taken? 6 A. There may be. 7 says when Q. Have you seen anything that 8 they were taken? 9 Chatfield, A. They went directly to Dr. 10 so whatever he has may serve to identify the date. 11 12 these I just don't know. Q. And are you of the impression 13 were taken in the mill? 14 exactly A. I believe so. I don't recall 15 whether they were taken in the mill or they were 16 taken at the mine. 17 well, Q. Now, with respect to these -- 18 let me ask you this. 19 part 4 When do you anticipate this 20 paper might be published? 21 A. Several months. 22 it to the Q. And do you intend to submit 23 same journal, Indoor Built Environment? 24 A. Yes, sir. 25 samples Q. Now, with respect to these 712 1 Ilgren 2 from Dr. Muhle, this is the doctor in Germany, is 3 that correct? 4 A. Yes. 5 or what Q. What have you gottenfrom him 6 those has Dr. Chatfield gotten from him? Are 7 filters? 8 A. Yes. 9 samples Q. And arethose filters of 10 taken within rat inhalation chambers? 11 A. Yes, sir. 12 Does Dr. Q. And who has those filters? 13 Chatfield have those filters? 14 A. Yes, sir. 15 from Dr. Q. Did he get those directly 16 Muhle or did you obtain those? 17 A. Directly from Dr. Muhle. 18 about Q. Have you spoken to Dr. Muhl 19 getting those filters? 20 A. Yes, sir. 21 originally Q. Were you the one who 22 requested them? 23 A. Yes sir. 24 up or 25 Q. And what did you do, call him write him or meet with him or what? 713 1 Ilgren 2 spoke to A. I can't recall. I certainly 3 him on the phone several times. 4 filters Q. Did you ask him to send those 5 to Dr. Chatfield? 6 A. Yes, sir. 7 some Q. And these arefilters from 8 in 1987? animal inhalation study that he published 9 A. Yes, sir. 10 samples Q. Do you know when those air 11 were taken? 12 A. Not exactly, no, sir. 13 before '87? Q. But it would be sometime 14 A. Yes, sir. 15 with those Q. And was he willing to part 16 filters? 17 A. Yes, sir. 18 that you Q. What did you tell Dr. Muhle 19 needed the filters for? 20 analysis. A. For electron microscopical 21 were Q. Did you tell him that you 22 working for Union Carbide and were interested in 23 Coalinga helping them in their litigations with 24 fibre? 25 A. I don't recall. 714 1 Ilgren 2 Chatfield' s Q. And who is paying for Dr. 3 from Dr. analysis of these filters from KCAC and 4 Muhle, do you know? 5 A. Dr. Chatfield. 6 himself? Q. So he is funding that work 7 A. Yes, sir. 8 reimburse him Q. And will Union Carbide 9 or pay him for any of that? 10 A. I don't believe so. 11 it -- Q. Why is that is he just doing 12 are MR. GERSON: Objection. You 13 is or is going to ask him why Union Carbide 14 not doing something. 15 MR. BROWNSON: If he knows. 16 me . MR. WILL: Well, you can ask 17 rather ask MR. BROWNSON: I would 18 Dr. Ilgren. 19 A. It is part of our independent 20 research. 21 about Q. Now, you have told us before 22 this independent research. telling us, Are you 23 Dr. Ilgren , that the work that you and Dr. 24 Chatfield have done and will do with respect to 25 funded this Canadian or Coalinga fibre is being 715 1 Ilgren 2 solely by you and Dr. Chatfield? 3 A. Yes, sir. 4 Q. And you are receiving no 5 Carbide reimbursement as part of that from Union 6 or its attorneys? 7 A. Yes, sir. 8 MR. GERSON: Objection. 9 research. A. Why don't you qualify this 10 to the MR. GERSON: I was referring 11 him in the form of the question. You asked 12 negative. 13 for MR. WILL: To put it simply, 14 time here example, he is being paid for his 15 but he today to talk about these articles, 16 me or was not paid by Union Carbide or by 17 do the the Center for Claims Resolution to 18 articles is articles or the research the 19 based on. 20 BY MR., BROWNSON: 21 Q. And the TEM analysis that Dr. 22 Muhle Chatfield is doing of the filters from Dr 23 and the filters from Dr. -- I'm sorry, from KCAC, 24 he is just paying for that himself? 25 A. Yes. 716 1 Ilgren 2 Q. And as far as you know, he is 3 receiving no reimbursement from Union Carbide or 4 any Union Carbide lawyers or the Center for Claims 5 Resolution in doing that analysis? 6 A. That's correct. 7 we have Q. Let's now turn to the papers 8 first in front of us, and I am looking at the 9 paper which is entitled part 1? 10 A. Yes, sir. 11 you? Q. Do you have that in front of 12 A. Yes, sir. 13 abstract. Q. And I am reading from the 14 abstract, But before we get to the 15 let's get to the title, which is entitled 16 "Coalinga Fibre - A Short Amphibole-Free 17 Chrysotile." 18 Do you see that title? 19 A. Yes, sir. 20 title? Q. Are you the author of that 21 A. Yes, sir. 22 any data Q. Where in this paper is there 23 that shows that the Coalinga fibre is indicated 24 short? 25 in this A. I don't believe there are any 717 1 Ilgren 2 again. paper. Off I would have to go through it 3 there is the top of my head, I don't believe that 4 any specific data that indicated short. 5 take MR. GERSON: If you need to 6 can take time to look through anything, you 7 all the time you like. 8 general Q. Would you agree with me as a 9 are proposition that when scientific papers 10 example, published and the title of the paper, for 11 general talks about short chrysotile that as a 12 supports matter there is data in the paper that 13 this, in that and would let the reader see that 14 fact, is a short chrysotile? 15 reference to A. I believe there is some 16 go a future paper, which -- again I have to 17 our through this -- which makes reference to 18 forthcoming paper reader know 19 that there is data to that effect. 20 spoke 21 Q. And that's the part 4 that we about a moment ago? 22 A. Yes, sir. 23 I'm sorry, Q. So is that data then or 24 analysis is Dr. Chatfield's electron microscope 25 now complete so that you have the data indicating 718 1 Ilgren 2 that the Coalinga fibre is short? 3 A. Yes, sir. 4 terms of Q. What does that data show in 5 the size of the Coalinga fibre? 6 aqueous A. It demonstrates that an 7 more or solution Coalinga fibre is 96 percent or 8 recall less than 5 microns in length, and as I 9 less than 1 percent shorter than 10 microns long. 10 Dr. Q. And this is analysis done by 11 Chatfield? 12 A. Yes, sir. 13 wasn't Q. And do you know why that 14 presented in this paper where -- part 1 where the 15 Coalinga fibre is described as short? 16 fibrosis. A. Because the focus is on 17 that this Q. Will you will agree with me 18 contain paper and parts 2 and 3, for example, 19 have references of other scientific papers that 20 Are you data about the size of Coalinga fibre? 21 aware of that? 22 and check. A. I would have to go through 23 it says Q. Now, continuing in the title, 24 "Coalinga Fibre - A Short Amphibole-Free 25 Chrysotile," is there any data in this paper that 719 1 Ilgren 2 shows that Coalinga fibre is amphibole-free? 3 the part 4 A. It is the same response in 4 that that will be written with Dr. Chatfield, 5 information is contained in that as well. 6 as a Q. Would you agree with me again 7 don't general matter in scientific papers if you 8 have data to support these statements that 9 that, if normally you don't make a statement like 10 paper? you don't have data contained within a 11 him two MR. WILL: You have asked 12 questions. 13 ask the MR. BROWNSON: Well, I will 14 second question. 15 general Q. Would you agree with me as a 16 you are proposition that in scientific papers if 17 going to title it a short, amphibole-free 18 chrysotile, a reader would expect data which would 19 indicate it is short and amphibole-free? 20 be some A. I think there should probably 21 reference to help the reader find the information 22 in the paper. 23 reader Q. But is there any such way the 24 paper? could find the information out of this 25 through. I A. Again I would have to go 720 1 Ilgren 2 believe there is a reference to our forthcoming 3 part 4 paper. 4 couldn't Q. But of course the reader 5 find that because it is not published, isn't that 6 correct? 7 A. Soon to be published. 8 Q. But it is not published? 9 A. No, sir. 10 abstract Q. And now I am looking at the 11 way down of the paper, and about two-thirds of the 12 from it says, and I am quoting, "The first, 13 Coalinga, California is comprised of fibres that 14 are almost all less than 5 microns in length and 15 is not contaminated with amphibole." 16 Do you see that? 17 A. Yes, sir. 18 there is Q. Would you agree with me that 19 in parts no data obtained in either this paper or 20 2 or 3 that support that statement? 21 A. Yes, sir. 22 "The other Q. Then you continue and say, 23 the two," and I am quoting, "The other two, 24 both Jeffrey fibre and the UICC/B standard, are 25 minor Canadian long fibre preparations with a 721 1 Ilgren 2 degree of amphibole contamination." 3 A. Yes, sir. I see that. 4 that Q. Again, you are the author of 5 line? 6 A. Yes, sir. 7 in this Q. Is there any data presented 8 paper that supports the statement that UICC/B and 9 Jeffrey fibre are long fiber preparations? 10 A. No, sir. 11 that Q. And would you agree with me 12 part 1, there are references cited in your paper, 13 fibers that describe both as intermediate length 14 and not as long fibers? 15 A. I think the descriptor's 16 intermediate. called an I don't -- I think it is 17 intermediate type. I don't think it is 18 to see intermediate length, though I would have 19 exactly where that is stated. 20 the Q. Well, you are familiar with 21 a UICC/B Canadian chrysotile sample, that's 22 standard sample? 23 A. Sure . 24 that Q. And you are aware of the fact 25 that's a sample prepared from eight different 722 1 Ilgren 2 mines in types of chrysotile from eight different 3 Canada? 4 A. Yes, sir. 5 Q. And with respect to the Quebec rating 6 what is system, you are aware that that sample is 7 long known as intermediate length, it is not a 8 system? chrysotile as defined by the Quebec rating 9 the A. I am not that familiar with 10 for the Quebec rating system. I am just looking 11 word "intermediate" in the paper. 12 it is not Q. I can represent to you that 13 the in the paper which I found it in some of 14 Jeffrey references. The paper describes both the 15 agree and UICC/B as long preparations, would you 16 with me on that? 17 A. Yes, Jeffrey is long. 18 Q. And your paper says that. 19 that your So would you agree with me 20 paper consistently calls the Coalinga short fibre 21 as long and it calls these two Canadian asbestos 22 fiber, correct? 23 quotes, A. Well, they are both, in 24 "long" in relation to the Coalinga -- I mean in a 25 microscopical sense the rating is a 723 1 Ilgren 2 Canadian microscopical -- my perception of it, the 3 used to 4 more grading system is a microscopic system sort mining samples where we are talking 5 about things that are determined microscopically 6 in percentages of fibers over 5 microns. 7 you have Q. Do any of the three papers 8 fibre published here which describe the Coalinga 9 provide as short and the Canadian fibre as long 10 any microscopical data so the reader can determine 11 if that fact is true? 12 A. Not in the first three parts 13 that may Q. Again in this fourth paper 14 or may not be published, that data may be 15 presented? 16 A. Yes, sir. 17 abstract. Q. Again I am reading in the 18 It says, "This report," and I am paraphrasing 19 and I am here, "concerns rats exposed to three," 20 quoting, "types of chrysotile." 21 Do you see that? 22 abstract? A. You are reading from the 23 Q. Yes. 24 A. Yes. 25 that in Q. Now, would you agree with me 724 1 2 3 types 4 5 you 6 Ilgren fact there is only one type of chrysotile. Chrysotile is chrysotile. There are three of chrysotile. Are there - MR. WILL: In what sense are speaking, mineral? 7 Mineralogically. MR. BROWNSON: 8 that is A. Mineralogically, I suppose 9 type or true. Some people say there is a Jeffrey 10 a Carey type or another type, but in the sense you 11 are talking, I imagine that's the case. 12 abstract. Q. Again I am reading from the 13 stated With respect to the Coalinga asbestos, you 14 it "...is comprised of fibers that are almost all 15 less than 5 microns in length." 16 there is Would you agree with me that 17 papers no data presented in any of these three 18 all that supports the statement that almost 19 length? Coalinga fibers are less than 5 microns in 20 A. Yes, sir. 21 part 1 of Q. Now, let's again focus on 22 your paper. have done As I understand, what you 23 back in here is you have taken some data generated 24 the 1978 to 1980 time period, some of which was 25 thesis published by Dr. Kent Pinkerton in a Ph.D. 725 1 Ilgren 2 and you have gone back -- and very recently you 3 and you have gone back and you have looked at that 4 have drawn some conclusions from it, is that fair 5 to say? 6 A. In small part. 7 Q. Well, is there any actual 8 experimentation that you did that forms the basis 9 it a of this paper? In other words, let me put 10 different way. question. Let's ask a different 11 based This paper draws conclusions 12 you upon certain rat inhalation studies, would 13 agree with me on that? 14 A. Yes, sir. 15 studies were Q. And those rat inhalation 16 conducted back in 1978 to 1980? 17 A. Yes, sir. 18 Q. And you personally had nothing to do 19 studies, with conducting those rat inhalation 20 isn't that correct? 21 A. That's correct, sir. 22 studies? Q. And you didn't design those 23 A. That's correct. 24 any of Q. And you didn't participate in 25 the experimental work that was done there? 726 1 Ilgren 2 A. That's correct. 3 that, as Q. Who were the people who did 4 you understand it? 5 Moore, A. Dr. Gene McConnell, Dr. Jack 6 Connie Dr. Jim Crapo, Dr. Kent Pinkerton, Dr. 7 Stone, Dr. Finas Cavendar, Dr. Bernie Atkins, Dr 8 Arnold Brody, Dr. Dan McLaurin and others. 9 scientists who Q. Now, were any of these 10 be actually did these rat studies invited to 11 you are coauthors with you on your papers where 12 talking about the rat studies? 13 A. Yes, sir. 14 Q. And which were those? 15 recall, A. Dr. Kent Pinkerton, and as I 16 Dr. Gene McConnell. 17 Q. And why was it that neither Dr 18 coauthor Pinkerton nor Dr. McConnell appears as a 19 on your paper, parts 1, 2 and 3? 20 it. A. They didn't want to coauthor 21 Q. Why is that, do you know? 22 A. I don't know. 23 any doubt Q. Did either of them express 24 now is to you as to whether this old data, which 25 to draw 18 to 20 years old, could actually be used 727 1 Ilgren 2 three the conclusions which you draw in these 3 papers? 4 A. No. 5 to read Q. Were either of the two asked 6 3? and comment on these papers, parts 1, 2 or 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And did they do that? 9 quickly. A. Sorry, I answered a bit too 10 Just reask the question. 11 doctors, Q. O.K. Were either of these 12 read and Dr. McConnell or Dr. Pinkerton, asked to 13 that you comment on the papers, parts 1, 2 and 3, 14 have published? 15 A. On earlier drafts. 16 at Q. And which of the two looked 17 earlier drafts or did both? 18 A. Dr. Pinkerton. 19 Pinkerton Q. How many drafts did Dr. 20 look at, do you know? 21 A. I believe one. 22 draft Q. And do you know whether the 23 1, 2 or that Dr. Pinkerton looked at was for part 24 3 of your paper? 25 incorporated A. I believe it would have 728 1 Ilgren 2 all three. drafts which I believe there were two 3 Sorry, would have incorporated the first two. 4 there were two drafts which would incorporate 5 recall. 6 information in all three papers as I Q. So it sounds like you had a draft 7 into prepared and then later on you split it up 8 three parts, would that be fair to say? 9 case . A. As I recall, that was the 10 have been Q. And you think there might 11 two drafts like that? 12 A. Yes, as I recall, yes. 13 that Q. And is it your testimony then 14 one of those two drafts was sent to Dr. Pinkerton 15 for his review? 16 A. Yes, sir. 17 done? Q. Do you know when this was 18 sent A. I can't recall exactly when I 19 them. 20 know, did Q. And did he, as far as you 21 he read it? 22 A. As far as I recall. 23 any Q. And did he discuss with you 24 comments or changes that he had? 25 A. Sure . 729 1 Ilgren 2 or put Q. Did he make any note of those 3 them in any sort of written form? 4 A. No . 5 or Q. Do you recall what comments 6 changes that Dr. Pinkerton had with respect to 7 that draft he read? 8 A. I don't recall. 9 introduction Q. Now, I am looking at the 10 of paper number 1, and in your second sentence , 11 you talk about the Stanton hypothesis? 12 A. Yes, sir. 13 hypothes is Q. Do you believe the Stanton 14 are less is correct when it says that short fibers 15 harmful than long fibers? 16 A. Yes, sir. 17 experiments Q. And do you believe the 18 that Stanton did upon which he bases that 19 hypothesis are valid experiments? 20 A. Could you qualify "valid"? 21 Q. Are they experiments that yo' 22 consider to be valid experiments? 23 A. What do you mean? 24 Q. Well, let me back up. 25 the You say that you agree with 730 1 Ilgren 2 correct ? conclusions of the Stanton hypothesis, 3 A. Correct. 4 the Q. Would you agree with me that 5 animal Stanton hypothesis is based upon some 6 experiments that were done by Stanton? 7 A. Correct. 8 that Q. And would you agree with me 9 and those experiments are valid experiments 10 your provided valid data on which you can reach 11 correct? conclusion that this hypothesis is 12 insightful. A. Well, I think they are 13 types of Intrapleural inoculations of different 14 which is fiber, some of which is over and some of 15 under 8 microns inlength generally a have shown 16 no tumor distinctionbetween tumor production and 17 production. 18 that the Q. So you, of course, are aware 19 Stanton hypothesis, as you said, is based upon 20 with injection studies where rats were injected 21 and different preparations of asbestos fibers 22 lengths ? other types of fibers in different 23 A. Yes, sir. 24 Q. And you have described those 25 experiments as insightful. 731 1 Ilgren 2 in fact Would you agree with me that 3 upon the Stanton hypothesis is based entirely 4 injecting rats with fibers. inhalation There are 5 studies there? 6 A. I am aware. 7 very MR. BROWNSON: Can we take a 8 short break? 9 (Recess taken) 10 BY MR. BROWNSON: 11 are Q. Dr. Ilgren, your three papers 12 three broken into first parts -- I'm sorry, into 13 parts, and the first part deals with fibrogenesis, 14 is that correct? 15 A. Yes sir. 16 with Q. And the second part deals 17 tumors, tumourigenesis? 18 A . Yes, sir. 19 Q . And the third deals with 20 biopersistence? 21 A . Yes, sir. 22 the Q . And again all three parts of 23 paper dealing with fibrogenesis, tumourigenesis 24 rat and biopersistence are based upon these 25 studies that we have described that were done back 732 1 Ilgren 2 in '78 and '80, correct - 3 4 other 5 A. Yes. Q. -- by Dr. Pinkerton and these doctors? 6 A. Yes, sir. 7 that time Q. And these studies were at 8 correct? undertaken by a group called the NIEHS, 9 A. And others. 10 Q. Well, the NIEHS is what? 11 A. The National Institute for 12 Environmental Health Sciences. 13 organization, Q. This was a government 14 correct? 15 A. Yes. 16 back at Q. Would you agree with me that 17 that time in the late 1970's, this government 18 NIEHS, organization,government laboratory, the 19 of was setting up an animalinhalation study 20 asbestos, correct? 21 complicated A. I think so. It was more 22 than that. 23 was, I Q. But whatever the big picture 24 were guess one of the things they did was they 25 setting up a study to dose rats with asbestos dust 733 1 Ilgren 2 in the air and have them inhale it and then study 3 them, is that correct? 4 the A. My only quibble with this is 5 with National Toxicology Program in conjunction 6 7 funding 8 whole the Medical Research Council of the United Kingdom, and I believe there was also some from the EPA, were also involved in this 9 study so -- 10 Council in Q. Well, the Medical Research 11 at that the United Kingdom was doing or had done 12 time rat inhalation studies with asbestos, 13 correct? 14 A. contemporaneous with I believe it was 15 Research this particular effort, the MRC, Medical 16 Council study. 17 in the Q. Well, in short, in that era 18 working 1970's, these two groups were kind of 19 together, they were going to do two animal 20 inhalation studies with the rats and asbestos, one 21 then one over in England with this MRC group and 22 here with the American government group and see if 23 summary the results jibed. Would that be a fair 24 of what was going on? 25 A. More or less. 734 1 Ilgren 2 group, if Q. In any event, the American 3 we can use that term to kind of move this 4 the deposition along -- can we use that term, 5 American group? 6 A. Yes, sir. 7 alphabet Q. The American group was this 8 National soup of government agencies. We had the 9 Toxicology Program, the NIEH and the EPA gave some 10 funding, but this American government group got 11 rolling and they were going to do these inhalation 12 studies with rats and asbestos? 13 A. Yes, sir. 14 done, Q. And certain experiments were 15 and we will get into that in a moment, and 16 rats inhalation chambers were set up and these 17 were dosed with asbestos in these chambers, and 18 time . they were examined at different periods of 19 Would that be fair to say? 20 A. Yes, sir. 21 ceased and Q. And then the experiment 22 wasn't, 23 say? 24 25 of the some of it was published and some of it some of the results, would that be fair to A. Yes. Q. And Dr. Kent Pinkerton, one 735 1 Ilgren 2 this, animal inhalation toxicologists working on 3 used some of this data for his Ph.D. thesis at 4 Duke University, correct? 5 A. Yes, sir. 6 Q. You cited that on a number of 7 occasions in your paper, right? 8 A. Yes, sir. 9 a Ph.D. Q. And Dr. Pinkerton was awarded 10 at Duke, correct? 11 A. Yes, sir. 12 has Q. And now he has gone on and he 13 moved to California where he is a scientist in the 14 fair to University of California system, is that 15 say? 16 A. Yes, sir. 17 number of Q. Now, you have cited at a 18 places in your paper Dr. Pinkerton's thesis which 19 I understand that you had obtained and read prior 20 to publishing your paper, correct? 21 A. Yes, sir. 22 here of Q. And I have obtained a copy 23 his thesis and I don't know if you have got a copy 24 to . there. We can look at my copy if we need 25 the At page 23, he is describing 736 1 Ilgren 2 Canadian Coalinga asbestos fiber and these two 3 UICC/B. asbestos fibers the Jeffrey fibre and the 4 description of Do you remember his 5 the three types of -- 6 A. If you read it. 7 you. Q. O.K. Well, let me read it to 8 UICC/B He says, "For both the Jeffrey and the 9 the chrysotiles, approximately 75 percent of 10 combined fibers and fiber clusters were less than 11 5 microns in length while less than 52 percent of 12 from the the combined fibers and fiber clusters 13 Coalinga chrysotile were less than 5 microns in 14 length." 15 Do you recall that? 16 paper. A. Why don't you show me the 17 reference. Q. It is I can show you the 18 page 23 of his thesis, and I have helpfully 19 highlighted it in yellow. 20 A. What's the chapter heading? 21 so Q. This is a double-sided thing 22 let's -- 23 of A. This chapter forms the basis 24 Pinkerton, et al. 1983, within which Pinkerton 25 generally concludes that there is no significant 737 1 Ilgren 2 greater difference in the percentage of fibers 3 than 5 microns long in an aerosol. 4 unhelpful Sorry, I didn't mean to be 5 in mixing it up. 6 Q. So you agree with me that Dr. 7 Pinkerton concluded in his Ph.D. thesis and later 8 published the fact that a significant fraction of 9 microns the Coalinga asbestos was greater than 5 10 in length? 11 A. In air, yes. 12 air that Q. And of course it is fiber in 13 people and rats breathe, correct? 14 15 just looked A. Yes, sir. Q. And the data that we have 16 at in his thesis was, as you noted, presented in 17 chapter 2 of his Ph.D. thesis? 18 19 and told A. Yes, sir. Q. And as you have also noted 20 us, that was later published by Dr. Pinkerton and 21 correct ? other authors and assigned to the paper, 22 A. Yes, sir. 23 abstract of Q. So when you said in the 24 from part 1 of your paper that the asbestos 25 Coalinga, California is comprised of fibers that 738 1 Ilgren 2 are almost all less than 5 microns in length, you 3 would agree with me that that statement is 4 his 5 6 the contrary to what Dr. Pinkerton reports in thesis? A. Dr. Pinkerton also discusses 7 more or length found upon indirect examination and 8 less concludes the same on the basis of that mode 9 10 that of preparation. Q. Well, yes, he concludes again 11 they are not almost all less than 5 microns in 12 microns. length. About half of them are over 5 13 14 from Dr. A. In air. Q. Well, I read the quotation 15 Pinkerton's thesis correctly, did I not? 16 A. Yes, sir. 17 Coalinga Q. He concluded that when 18 fibers, asbestos forms dust in the air, half the 19 in more or less , are greater than 5 microns 20 length? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Are you saying if you put those 23 24 25 fibers in water, their length differs? A. Yes, sir. Q. Why is that? 739 1 Ilgren 2 bound. A. Because they are weakly 3 Pinkerton Q. Is there some data that Dr. 4 has published which supports that conclusion? 5 A. Yes, sir. 6 Q. Where is that? 7 A. Discussion of the same paper 8 Q. In the Ph.D. thesis? 9 but it is A. It might be in the thesis, 10 certainly in the paper. 11 fibers Q. But at least in the air, the 12 in the air , you will agree with me that Pinkerton 13 says at least half are greater than 5 microns in 14 length ? 15 A. Yes, sir. 16 despite Q. Would you agree with me that 17 Dr. quoting from Dr. Pinkerton's papers and 18 do not Pinkerton's thesis in your own paper you 19 do you? present that data anywhere in your paper, 20 A. No, sir. 21 abstract that Q. And when you say in the 22 are the Coalinga fibers comprise fibers that 23 you almost all less than 5 microns in length, 24 it is in don't make any distinction about whether 25 air or in water, do you? 740 1 Ilgren 2 A. No, sir. 3 Pinkerton's Q. And also I note in Dr 4 thesis, he says that there are a number of 5 microns Coalinga fibers that are greater than 100 6 in length Did you see that? 7 A. Yes, sir. 8 are you Q. You are aware of that fact, 9 not? 10 A. Yes, sir. 11 object to MR. WILL: What fact? I 12 Pinkerton the form of the question that 13 fibers said or the fact that there are 14 greater than 100 microns? 15 reported that Q. That Dr. Pinkerton has 16 Coalinga a number of, certain fraction of the 17 length? asbestos is greater than 100 microns in 18 that. A. Yes, sir, I seem to recall 19 forth in Q. And again that's not set 20 your paper, is it? 21 A. Not here. 22 paper, Q. Now, again on part 1 of your 23 you have a section entitled "Materials and 24 Methods." Do you see that? Page 265? 25 A. Yes, sir. 741 1 2 study Ilgren Q. And you write, "The present 3 originated as part of a large joint investigation 4 undertaken by the NIEHS in the United States and 5 the Medical Research Council Pneumoconiosis Unit 6 in the United Kingdom to compare the results of 7 similar inhalation studies carried out at two 8 different locations under nearly identical 9 conditions." Is that right? 10 A. Yes, sir. 11 minute Q. That's what we talked about a 12 big rat ago in the late '70s, there were these two 13 inhalation studies? 14 A. 1975. 15 study, Q. When you speak of the present 16 are you talking about your paper here? 17 A. Yes, sir. 18 your Q. Would you agree with me that 19 or this work here was not part of the NIEHS study 20 this Medical Research Council study in England, 21 was some later analysis you have done yourself? 22 A. In that sense it is correct. 23 sentence Q. And to the extent that first 24 the of the materials and methods may imply to 25 with the reader that you are somehow affiliated 742 1 2 Ilgren NIEHS studies or the MRC studies, that would not 3 be correct, would it? 4 the A. As having been involved in 5 the design, for example, or the execution of 6 study, that would be correct. 7 as far as Q. And it is also correct that 8 doing anything, you are not affiliated with those 9 two organizations? 10 either the A. I have no affiliation with 11 NIEHS or the MRC. 12 has said Q. And neither of those groups 13 back in to you: Dr. Ilgren, we did these studies 14 and do the late 1970's. Would you now go back 15 did some further work in connection with that, 16 they? 17 help him A. Kent Pinkerton asked me to 18 write these data up. 19 appear as an Q. Well, then why didn't he 20 author of this if he asked you to do it? 21 to . A. I don't know. He didn't want 22 longer Q. But Kent Pinkerton is no 23 affiliated with either of those organizations, he 24 is out in California, isn't he? 25 affiliation is A. I don't know what his 743 1 Ilgren 2 with the NIEHS. 3 Medical Q. Neither the NIEHS nor the 4 Dr . Research Council in England has asked you, 5 Ilgren, to do any study or work or analysis of 6 these old rat studies, have they? 7 A. That's correct. 8 and Q. And again in the "Materials 9 first Methods," if you go down later in the 10 paragraph, you talk about what you call the "long" 11 fibre, Jeffrey fibre and the "short" Coalinga 12 correct? 13 A. Yes, sir. 14 this paper Q. And you present no data in 15 showing that the Jeffrey fiber is long and 16 Coalinga fibre is short, do you? 17 A. That's correct. 18 Q. If we didn't go back to Dr. 19 paper, Pinkerton's thesis, which you cite in your 20 the quote which you just read, Dr. Pinkerton's 21 Coalinga dose, there is more long fiber in the 22 correct? than there is in the Jeffrey, isn't that 23 we just A. With the qualifications that 24 discussed. 25 measurements Q. Those qualifications are 744 1 Ilgren 2 in in air, right? As opposed to measurements 3 water? 4 in air A. They refer to qualifications 5 and water, that's correct. 6 rat Q. And again going back to these 7 here, studies that form the basis of your papers 8 drinking rats are breathing asbestos, they are not 9 it, correct? 10 A. That's correct. 11 "Materials Q. Then you continue, under 12 and Methods," now I am in the second paragraph, 13 that and I am down on the second sentence of 14 paragraph, you write, "None of the Coalinga and 15 UICC/B morphometry data have been published in 16 some scientific , peer-reviewed journals though 17 have appeared in a thesis published by Pinkerton , " 18 correct? 19 A. Correct. 20 Q. I have read that correctly? 21 A. Yes. 22 Pinkerton Q. And the thesis published by 23 thesis was the one we just looked at, his Ph.D. 24 published in 1982? 25 A. Yes. 745 1 Ilgren 2 small Q. Then you say, "And in several 3 abstracts. " abstracts , Then you list a bunch of 4 correct? 5 A. Correct. 6 in your Q. Now, you cite those abstracts 7 paper, and I just wanted to look at a couple of 8 in the them. One of them you cite is an abstract 9 correct? American Review of Respiratory Disease, 10 A. Yes, sir. 11 of your Q. And you cite that at note 33 12 first paper, so I want to turn to note 33? 13 reference ? A. Note is the same as 14 Q. Reference No. 33, correct? 15 A. O.K. thank you. 16 Q. I'm sorry, let me look. 17 the Reference 33 in your paper is 18 Pinkerton thesis? 19 A. Yes, sir. 20 several Q. And then you write, "And in 21 34 . small abstracts by Crapo et al." reference 22 Do you see that? 23 A. Yes, sir. 24 Q. references 35 and "Pinkerton et al.," 25 36? 746 1 2 3 reference 37? A. Q. Ilgren Yes, sir. "And O'Neil et al.," 4 A. Yes, sir. 5 those, Q. So if we now, to pick some of 6 you cite went, for example, to the Pinkerton one 7 American at reference 35, this is the one in 8 Review of Respiratory Disease, correct? 9 A. Yes, sir. 10 -- or Q. In 1981, in volume 123 part 11 number 4, part 2, right? 12 recall, A. If you say so, but as I 13 that's the part. 14 reference Q. I am just reading from your 15 35 . 16 have A. I don't have a part. I just 17 volume 123 , page 21. 18 that the Q. Now, would you agree with me 19 conclusion that you draw and report in part 1 of 20 not your paper is that Coalinga asbestos is 21 fibrogenetic? 22 A. Fibrogenic. 23 Q. Fibrogenic, right. 24 rats? Does not cause fibrosis in 25 A. Yes, sir. 747 1 Ilgren 2 you look Q. Would you agree with me if 3 in this abstract of the American Review of 4 Respiratory Disease published by Dr. Pinkerton 5 that, do Pratt, Brody and Crapo, they do not say 6 7 8 this 9 they? A. Q. May I see your abstract, sir? First of all, have you read before? 10 you. 11 show me A. I believe so, yes. Thank Q. My question will be can you 12 not 13 14 the where they say that Coalinga asbestos does cause fibrosis in rats? MR. WILL: That isn't what 15 extent, I article is cited for. To that 16 that what would answer to your question, is 17 question? 18 in this you are asking him or a different A. Your question to me is where 19 cause article do they say Coalinga does not 20 fibrosis? 21 Q. Right. 22 A. It's not stated in this. 23 stated in Dr. Q. And in fact, that's not 24 Pinkerton's thesis either, is it? doesn't come He 25 out and say Coalinga does not cause fibrosis in 748 1 Ilgren 2 the rats? 3 A. No, sir. 4 article Q. In fact, if we look at this 5 in the American Review of Respiratory Disease that 6 and you cite at reference 35 by Dr. Pinkerton 7 these other doctors, Pratt, Brody and Crapo, they 8 if they say after three months exposure the rats, 9 are exposed, that after three months' exposure, 10 or the all of the fibers including the Coalinga 11 and the Coalinga cause injury to the epithelium 12 interstitia, isn't that what they report? 13 A. Yes, sir. 14 a MR. GERSON: We need to take 15 five-minute break. 16 (Recess taken) 17 BY MR. BROWNSON: 18 that Q. Dr. Ilgren, another reference 19 you cite of another article published about this 20 paper is rat study which forms the basis of your 21 another article in the American Review of 22 Respiratory Disease which is your reference 36, 23 right? 24 A Yes. 25 Pinkerton and Q And that's again by Dr. 749 1 Ilgren 2 Dr. Pratt and Dr. Crapo of Duke University, right? 3 A. Yes, sir. 4 paper in Q. And you reference that as a 5 1981, although I notice it was actually published 6 error in in 1980. Is that just a typographical 7 your reference? 8 A. Probably. 9 paper 10 Q. We are talking about the same here, aren't we? 11 against A. Let me just double-check 36 12 your -- yes, sir, it is probably a typographical 13 error. 14 reference Q. And in that paper which is 15 that 16 of 36 of your part 1, these authors again say after three months exposure, the patterns 17 both of injury in the rat lungs were similar in 18 talking the treatment groups, and here they are 19 correct? about the Coalinga and the UICC/B, 20 quickly. A. If I could just see that 21 Thank you. 22 actually The NIEHS intermediate is 23 says . the Jeffrey fibre, but that's what it 24 here -- Q. So what we are looking at 25 thank you for that clarification -- is the 750 1 Ilgren 2 Coalinga and the Jeffrey fibre? 3 A. Yes, sir. 4 described, Q. Now, I note again what is 5 what you have told us now is the Jeffrey fibre, is 6 again described as intermediate range chrysotile 7 fibers ? 8 A. They refer to Jeffrey fibre 9 I find repeatedly as the intermediate fiber, and 10 this very confusing myself, where the intermediate 11 is some size preparation is the UICC/B, so there 12 crossing over of terminology. 13 Q. Right. 14 the A. But the NIEHS intermediate is 15 Jeffrey fibre. 16 the Q. You would agree with me that 17 NIEHS does not classify the Jeffrey as long fiber, 18 they call it intermediate? 19 referenced to A. I don't think it is 20 call it length, but again I don't know why they 21 intermediate. 22 note 37 in Q. Then I am looking at your 23 your paper which is another published abstract by 24 these researchers of the rat study upon which you 25 base your paper, and this one again was published 751 1 Ilgren 2 in the American Review of Respiratory Disease in 3 1981, correct? 4 A. Yes, sir. 5 O'Neil, Dr. Q. And this again is by Drs. 6 is Ken Pinkerton and Dr. J.D. Crapo, and it 7 entitled "Morphologic" -- I'm sorry it is 8 entitled, "Lung Volume Changes in Rats Exposed to 9 Chrysotile Asbestos," correct? 10 A. Yes, sir. 11 paper Q. And I am looking now in that 12 and I am reading just below the middle table they 13 write, "Interstitial fibrosis was seen 14 one year histologically in all exposed animals at 15 in air," and increased in severity during the year 16 correct? 17 A. If that's what it says. 18 says? MR. WILL: Is that what it 19 highlighted MR. BROWNSON: Again I 20 that in the yellow. 21 A. That's what it says. 22 the Q. So if I can summarize here, 23 original or a group of the original scientists who 24 study exposed these rats back in this inhalation 25 have now in 1978 to 1980, have published and we 752 1 Ilgren 2 looked at a Ph.D. thesis and three abstracts, all 3 in your four of which you have cited as references 4 paper, part 1, correct? 5 A. Yes, sir. 6 that as Q. And would you agree with me 7 they say we have just seen in all three abstracts, 8 that all of the three types of asbestos including 9 lungs of the Coalinga fibre cause changes in the 10 the rats? 11 A. Yes, sir. 12 paper, Q. Now, I am continuing in your 13 now down part 1 in "Materials and Methods," I am 14 to the third paragraph? 15 A. Yes, sir. 16 "The Q. And you report or you write, 17 and wet records, histology slides, paraffin blocks 18 were tissues of the animals on lifetime test 19 located in November 1995 at the NTP archives by 20 Drs. Sils, Hamlin and Bridges as inventoried 21 documents ." Right? 22 A. Yes, sir. 23 these were Q. Then you continue 24 that's reviewed solely by the senior 25 you, right? 753 1 Ilgren 2 3 were A. Yes, sir. Q. ___" Aside from 45 cases that 4 Wagner," studied in conjunction with Dr. J.C. 5 correct? 6 A. Yes, sir. 7 that. Q. Now, I want to ask you about 8 9 here, A. Yes, sir. Q. I will try to move this along 10 but in a nutshell, are you telling us there or 11 writing there that what you did is you managed to 12 rat 13 and you find some of these old materials from the study in an archive, at the NTP archive, 14 then you managed to find them and locate them and 15 to say? looked at some of them, would that be fair 16 A. Yes, sir. 17 November of Q. You did this beginning in 18 1995, that 's when you found them and then 19 thereafter you looked at them? 20 A. Yes, sir. 21 series of Q. And then you published this 22 that three papers based upon your review of 23 material? 24 A. Yes, sir. 25 about is you Q. Now, what I am not clear 754 1 Ilgren 2 talk about 45 cases that were studied in 3 conjunction with Dr. J.C. Wagner. you found When 4 did you these in November of 1995, at that point 5 give half of them to Dr. Wagner or was this some 6 did that work he had done like before that or how 7 work? 8 would come A. I asked Dr. Wagner if he 9 to the United States in April 1996 to review some 10 of these materials with me. 11 November Q. So after you located them in 12 of 1995, you then asked Dr. Wagner -- is it Wagner 13 or Dr. Vagner -- how do we pronounce that? 14 15 anyway. A. I don't know. Q. It is the same on the paper 16 over to You asked Dr. Wagner to come 17 rat the United States and look at 45 of these 18 slides? 19 A. A subset of the slides. 20 MR. WILL: It is Chris. 21 Q. And did he do that? 22 23 in the A. Yes, sir. Q. And he did that, he came over 24 spring of 1996? 25 A. Yes, sir. 755 1 Ilgren 2 down and Q. And did you and he then sit 3 look at some of these materials? 4 A. Yes, sir. 5 Q. Where was that done? 6 7 Carolina? 8 9 10 11 to be A. At the NTP. Q. That's down in North A. Yes, sir. Q. At their archives there? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you find these materials 12 it take well organized and in good order, or did 13 some real digging and work to get them? 14 15 questions, A. That's two questions. Q. O.K. Well, it is two 16 right . 17 Were they easy to find? 18 A. No. 19 Q. They were hard to find? 20 A. Yes. 21 they Q. But once you found them, did 22 appear to be complete and in good order? 23 A. Yes. 24 sat there Q. And you and Dr. Wagner then 25 correct ? at the archive and then looked at them, 756 1 Ilgren 2 A. Yes. 3 Wagner Q. What was it exactly that Dr. 4 that. did with these 45 things? I mean strike 5 Let's back up. 6 that he What were these 45 things 7 looked at, were they slides? 8 representative A. They were 9 of 45 animals. 10 your Q. And is there any reference in 11 paper here in any of the three parts of the paper 12 Wagner? as to which 45 rats were examined by Dr. 13 A. No. 14 minute I Q. And we are going -- in a 15 data want to go through some of your tables and 16 these that you present where you talk about all 17 different rats. papers, I But when I read these 18 had -- couldn't tell, you know, which of those 19 which of were those examined by Dr. Wagner and 20 I be those were examined just by you, and would 21 that correct in saying there is nothing here 22 specifically will tell us that? 23 24 equipment A. Not in these papers, no. Q. Was there any laboratory 25 the made available to you and Dr. Wagner at 757 1 Ilgren 2 at them 3 4 archives to do this or did you just look by eyes or how did you look at that? A. They gave us a double-headed 5 microscope. look at any They said if we wanted to 6 covered of the tissues, we could do so under a 7 hood. 8 through the Q. So you could look at them 9 is that 10 11 microscope but you had to use the hood, right? A. No. We had an ordinary light 12 microscope available and and the slides were made 13 so we just went through, say, for each animal just 14 40 for an example there might have been 30 or 15 histology slides, so we would go through those and 16 or if we if we had any questions about wet tissues 17 blocks, 18 to do 19 slides. 20 had any questions about, say, paraffin they would find for us, but we didn't have that. We just looked at the histology Q. Through the microscope? 21 22 23 hours. A. Yes, sir. Q. How long did that take? A. About -- as I recall 8-1/2, 9 24 spring of Q. And on that trip in the 25 England? 1996, where did Dr. Wagner come from, 758 1 2 3 4 5 and 6 in the 7 8 Ilgren A. He came from England. Q. At your request? A. At my request. Q. Was that specifically to come look at these slides that you have found archive? A. Yes. 9 clear, these Q. And again just so we are 10 are slides of these rats that had been exposed to 11 18 12 the three types of airborne asbestos , some years before? 13 14 did Dr. A. Yes, sir. Q. And on that particular trip, 15 Wagner look at anything else or do anything else 16 in in connection with the work which resulted 17 these three papers? 18 over the A. We spent several days going 19 had various data sheets and information that I 20 about received from the archives just talking 21 study overall, talking about how in his opinion i t 22 23 to be a 24 originated and who was involved. Q. And was Dr. Wagner ever asked coauthor on any of your three papers ? 25 A. Yes . 759 1 2 didn't he Ilgren Q. But I see he is not. Why 3 do that? 4 A. He didn't want to. 5 Q. Do you know why? 6 A. No . 7 come 8 several 9 stuff? Q. Who paid for Dr. Wagner to over -- fly over from England and spend days in North Carolina looking at this 10 A. I did. 11 own Q. Did you pay that out of your 12 pocket or did you get reimbursed by anybody for 13 that? 14 A. Out of my own pocket. 15 those Q. So you didn't submit any of 16 anything bills or travel expenses or vouchers or 17 anybody? to Union Carbide or their lawyers or 18 A. No, sir. 19 you about Q. Now, before we go on to ask 20 part 1 the rats, let me back you up to page 265, 21 of your paper. 22 A. Yes, sir. 23 paragraph on Q. And on the second full 24 by Davis that page , you say, "Aside from the study 25 and Jones, the most recent short fibre chrysotile 760 1 2 NIOSH," Ilgren inhalation investigation was conducted at 3 et al. " which is all capital letters, "by Platek 4 Do you see that? 5 A. Yes, sir. 6 literature and Q. Now, in reviewing the 7 Dr . even references that you cite, I note that 8 Muhler -- Muhle in Germany had a study published 9 study, in 1987, which was an animal inhalation 10 chrysotile. Are you aware of that? 11 A. Yes, sir. 12 that the Q. And isn't it correct, then, 13 and not most recent study was really Muhle's study 14 this one by Platek in '85? 15 is that A. As published, my explanation 16 has been the NIOSH work as cited in this paper, it 17 continuing. phase, but Platek published a rodent 18 also a sort of monkey phase that is being 19 completed now. So I suppose I was thinking that 20 Platek that work is still actually ongoing, the 21 work, but as cited, you are right, you are 22 correct. 23 paragraph , the Q. And again in that same 24 rats next sentence said, "These workers exposed 25 purified and monkeys via inhalation to a highly 761 1 Ilgren 2 short fibre chrysotile sample," right? 3 A. Yes, sir. 4 purified," what Q. When you say "highly 5 6 very do you mean by that? A. I suppose a sample that was 7 length. short, highly ground down to a short 8 been Q. So in other words, it had 9 milled? 10 A. Yes, sir. 11 at Q. Because in fact if you look 12 mill, Platek's paper, you will see they used a 13 they used a ball mill? 14 A. Yes. 15 j ust Q. They didn't purify it. They 16 milled it in a -- ground it up? 17 A. Yes, sir. 18 "highly Q. So to the extent your term 19 purified" may imply that it was pure chrysotil 20 with no impurities or no contaminants, that's not 21 correct? 22 A. That's correct. 23 your Q. Now, let's continue then in 24 I am on paper in the "Materials and Methods." Now 25 page 266, and you have the heading "Animals. " 762 1 Ilgren 2 Do you see that? 3 A. Yes, sir. 4 your Q. Here is where I did not find 5 how many paper to be clear. I cannot figure out 6 animals are involved here, and I would like to run 7 try to through with you and take a little time t 8 figure that out, O.K.? 9 A. Yes, sir. 10 hundred Q. You begin by saying "Four 11 male and 5-week old specific pathogen-free (SPF) 12 this female Fischer 344 rats" were involved in 13 experiment, correct? 14 A. Yes, sir. 15 clear here, Q. And again, just so we are 16 you did not select these rats or have anything to 17 of these do with the rats or raise them or do any 18 old experiments . You are talking about this 19 experiment that Pinkerton published his thesis on ? 20 A. Yes, sir. 21 three Q. Then you continue by saying 22 of this hundred and thirty of these form the basis 23 24 paper? study." And by that, do you mean your 25 A. Yes, sir. 763 1 Ilgren 2 we go Q. Now, my question is how did 3 you went from 400 rats to 330? Was it that when 4 330 of to the archive you could find material on 5 did that the rats or did you find all 400, or how 6 come about? 7 to A. There was an additional group 8 which animals were exposed to a JM 100 microglass 9 fiber preparation. And that group is not 10 amongst discussed in my paper. But it would be 11 the 400 animals. Is that clear? 12 13 study of Q. I believe so. You are saying back in this 14 the rats, some of the 400 rats were exposed to a 15 Johns Manville asbestos? 16 glass A. No, a JM 100 microglass, a 17 fiber. 18 Q. A glass fiber? 19 control, A. Right. There was untreated 20 Coalinga, UICC/B, Jeffrey and JM 100 fiberglas in 21 between the original study. So the discrepancy 22 JM 100 400 and 330 pertains to the absence of the 23 group. 24 with the Q. Now, let me just start then 25 controls. 764 1 Ilgren 2 examine Why was it that you did not 3 rats? or look at the JM glass fiber treated 4 5 and they A. I just didn't have time. Q. So you did not look at them, 6 still did not form a part of this paper and you 7 to say, haven't looked at them, would that be fair 8 9 10 those 11 12 cases. 13 less . 14 330 of you set those aside? A. Yes. Q. Do you remember how many of there were? A. I believe there are 70 or 80 Split male/female, half and half, more or Q. Well, you write in your paper 15 it must the rats formed the basis of your work, so 16 fair to mean there were 70 of them, would that be 17 18 19 were say? A. Q. About 70. So that left 330 then that 20 or were exposed -- that were either control rats 21 Coalinga exposed to the three types of asbestos, 22 UICC/B and Jeffrey? 23 A. Yes. 24 "Animals" Q. Now, let me continue under 25 because I need some -- I need to be careful here. 765 1 Ilgren 2 "Upon The next sentence you write, 3 sex in receipt at the NIEHS, 5 animals of each 4 randomly each exposure group of the 360 rats were 5 study." selected and killed for morphological 6 Do you see that? 7 A. Yes, sir. 8 say of Q. Now, my first question is you 9 were the 360. See, now earlier you said there 10 400, but now we are down to 360, and I am 11 wondering what the difference is there? 12 So A. That 360 may need to be 330. 13 there may be an error. 14 Q. So is that the same 330 as the 330 15 talking 16 17 18 What that you looked at, is that what we are about? A. Q. Yes, yes. So that is simply an error. 19 that should read is 330 rats were randomly 20 exposure selected or five of each sex in each 21 right? group out of 330 were randomly selected, 22 23 24 in the 25 second A. I believe that's true. Q. So -A. If you look for clarification legend at table 1 and you will see in the 766 1 Ilgren 2 line at "Time zero," five animals were sacrificed 3 animals for morphological analysis. As the 4 and arrived, five were taken out of each group 5 removed just for baseline studies, and when I say 6 each upon receipt at the NIEHS, five animals of 7 as the 8 were removed, that's what it refers to, is animals came in. They may not have been of each 9 sex. 10 11 12 NIEHS Q. That was my next question. You report in the text under "Animals" that upon receipt back at the 13 sex in study in the 1970's five animals of each 14 each exposure group were selected and killed for 15 up above morphological study, and then as you note 16 animals at note 1 of your table 1, you say five 17 were sacrificed. 18 it five So my question is this: Was 19 group or that were killed at the outset from each 20 was it ten? 21 numbers work A. I think the number is - 22 out in the following way: just told I know I have 23 be the you that the 360 should be 330, but it may 24 animals other way around. If upon receipt, 360 25 arrived and at time zero 40 animals were taken out 767 1 2 Ilgren to leave 320 animals divided four ways, one for 3 for untreated controls, one for Coalinga, one 4 were UICC/B and one for Jeffrey, 10 of each 5 leaves removed, meaning 4 times 10 are 40. This 6 one with 320 animals remaining, all in test or 40 7 were per -- or 40 in each group after the five 8 removed. 9 what Q. Now, do you know that that's 10 looking occurred or are you just surmising that by 11 at this? 12 to have A. That's -- that's what I know 13 on test occurred in the sense that 40 animals were 14 at the time zero, and from those four animals were 15 points removed at each of the subsequent time 16 if you being 3, 12 and 24 months, so in table 1, 17 five, see at time zero, there is 45, to take off 18 36 from that leaves 40. At three months there is 19 at which to take off 4, giving 32; and then 20 four to time -- at point 12 months, they take off 21 give 2 8. 22 Q. Before we get to the actual 23 various inhalation and how they killed them at 24 lengths of time, I want to go back and start with 25 not what they started with because I am still 768 1 Ilgren 2 3 initial clear Are you saying that at this 4 killing or sacrifice, when they started, they took 5 a total of 10 rats -- well, strike that. 6 400 7 late I will ask you the question. rats arrive at the NIEHS sometime in the 8 1970's? 9 A. Yes, sir. 10 bunch were Q. Then you describe that a 11 testing? killed right up front for morphological 12 out for A. It would appear 40 were taken 13 JM 100, and then a set were taken out for 14 morphological baseline testing. 15 were Q. So we start with 400 and some 16 then to be used with the JM 100 fiberglas? 17 A. Yes, sir. 18 might Q. You are saying you think that 19 have been 40 but earlier you had said 70? 20 A. No, I was mistaken. 21 40 then 22 Q. O.K. So we start with 400. were to be exposed to the JM fiberglas ? 23 A. Yes, sir. 24 now you Q. That leaves us with 360, and 25 killed are telling us of those 360, then 40 were 769 1 2 right up front? Ilgren 3 A. Yes, sir. 4 sex? Q. And that would be 10 of each 5 A. Five of each sex. 6 Q. Five of each sex? 7 per A. In four groups. So that's 10 8 so-called group, a group being either a treatment 9 group or the untreated control. 10 haven't been Q. And at this point, they 11 treated with any asbestos, yet they have just been 12 divided into these groups? 13 14 some kind A. Yes, sir. Q. And they killed some to get 15 of a baseline before they start the experiment., is 16 that fair to say? 17 18 leaves us A. Yes, sir. Q. So they kill 40 and that 19 with 320 rats, right? 20 21 read A. Yes, sir. Q. And those 320 rats then, as I 22 groups, your paper , were then put into four 23 UICC/B untreated controls, Coalinga exposed, 24 exposed and Jeffrey exposed? 25 A. Yes, sir. 770 1 2 did they Ilgren Q. 320 divided by 4 is 80, so 3 put 80 in each? 4 female. 5 earlier in A. Yes, sir. 40 male and 40 Q. Now, let me move back up 6 the paragraph and again focus on your statement 7 In other that 330 formed the basis of your study. 8 words, you looked at 330 of them. 9 with the My question is: If we start 10 animals, 400, we pull out the 40 JM 100 exposed 11 front, then we have the 40 that were killed up 12 were leaving 320. And then of the 320, they 13 divided into four groups of 80. 14 looked at Where does the 330 that you 15 factor into that equation? 16 320. A. I think the 330 then would be 17 paper, Q. So when you said 330 in your 18 you meant 320? 19 A. I believe so, yes . 20 so, do Q. Now, when you say you believe 21 you know that or are you just again surmising or 22 what? 23 analytical A. Well, to the best of my 24 ability discussing it with you and from 25 relevant recollection of what's written in the 771 1 Ilgren 2 papers where these data appear such as Pinkerton's 3 thesis, Pinkerton et al. 82, the Becton-Dickinson 4 I would documents and other documents, it is what 5 6 your conclude. Q. So can we then state that in 7 paper when you say you looked at 330 , that's an 8 error, you really looked at 320? 9 A. I believe so, sir, yes. 10 rats that Q. Now, we are down to the 320 11 have got formed a part of the experiment, and we COo 12 them divided into four groups of males and 40 13 40 females? 14 A. Yes, sir. 15 experiment Q. Then as I understand this 16 that was done again at the NIEHS group back in the 17 70's those animals were then exposed to asbestos, 18 were the controls weren't 80 were not -- 240 19 20 21 saw 22 23 that. exposed? A. Q. Yes, sir. Now, of the 80 controls , I reference in your paper to the term "sham control," and I was a little confused by 24 experiment, As you understood the 25 nothing were the 80 control rats just exposed to 772 1 Ilgren 2 or were some somehow hooked onto the apparatus or 3 how did that work? 4 untreated A. I think they were totally 5 or animals. There was no so-called shamming 6 put-on apparatus. understand This is as far as I 7 the study. 8 Q. So 80 were put in cages -- 9 untreated A. And whole bodily set aside, 10 controls. 11 exposed to Q. So that then left 240 rats 12 asbestos, is that right? 13 A. Yes, sir. 14 moment Q. And again we went over this 15 UICC/B ago, but of the 240, 80 were exposed to 16 chrysotile, chrysotile , and 80 exposed to Jeffrey 17 80 exposed to Coalinga chrysotile? 18 A. Yes, sir. 19 each of the Q. 40 of each sex exposed to 20 three types? 21 A. Yes, sir. 22 information Q. And then based upon this 23 that you found in the archive and what you 24 reviewed, et cetera, you saw that at different 25 killed intervals of 3, 12 and 24 months some were 773 1 Ilgren 2 your out of each group, and you report that in 3 table 1? 4 A. Yes, sir. 5 you Q. Now, is table1 a table that 6 from prepared and designed or did you take that 7 some of the earlier published work? 8 A. No, I designed that table. it. 9 Q. So table 1 -- well, let me do 10 This will be faster. 11 what Why don't you describe for us 12 us what table 1 shows. Run through that and tell 13 that is. 14 A. Table 1 indicates the so-called 15 number design of the study with reference to the 16 time of animals found at each time point, so at 17 group, 18 360, zero with 45 animals of each sex in each that makes 90 per group or 4 times 90 is 19 20 one sex hence the 360. At time zero, looking just at 21 for the in any one group, five animals are removed 22 baseline sacrifice to be studied morphologically 23 leaving 40 animals to go on to this lifetime test. 24 Q. Right. 25 additional A. So that at time zero, four 774 1 Ilgren 2 the animals are taken off to be studied using 3 electron microscope for morphometrical analysis, 4 months, and then the same is done at 3, 12 and 24 5 this so that absent the animals taken off for 6 as you baseline morphological study, leaving 40, 7 three take off 4 at time zero, you end up at 8 months with 36. 9 more out And then again if you take 4 10 up with of that, for morphometrical study, you end 11 12 at that 32 by 12 months. And again if you take 4 more 13 with 28 point, you end up in theory of 24 months 14 15 these 16 that is animals of each sex on a lifetime test. Q. O.K. Now, did your review of materials in the archive indicate that 17 actually what occurred? 18 looked A. I did find -- when I actually 19 at the data at the archive, one or two so-called 20 2 4-month extra animals, so that instead of at the 21 time point, there being, say, just 28 months on 22 test in one or two cases there was 29 or 30, and I 23 couldn't work that out. where the I don't know 24 that -- extra animal came from. But by and large 25 in the this is -- this conforms to what I found 775 1 Ilgren 2 vast majority of the cases. 3 in the Q. Now, did you find something 4 said study design or study protocol where they 5 going to here's what we are going to do. We are 6 months, kill four of each sex at zero time and 3 7 -- stop at 12 and 24 out of each of the groups and 8 there? 9 A. Yes, sir. 10 original Q. That was the intent of the 11 study? 12 A. Yes, sir. 13 when you Q. Then what you are saying is 14 you went back to the archive and looked at it, 15 did, but determined that that in fact is what they 16 also had as you have noted, you found that they 17 one or two extra animals? 18 A. In one or two instances. 19 extra Q. And were these one or two 20 animals that you found in one or two instances 21 killed animals at one of these time periods or 22 were these animals that remained alive? 23 remained alive. A. They appeared to have 24 under Q. You report, now continuing 25 320 were "Animals," a total of 96 rats out of the 776 1 Ilgren 2 used for morphometric study. 3 these Is that what you mean there, 4 are the ones that were killed along the way at 3, 5 12, and 24? 6 A. Yes, sir. 7 trying to Q. So again backing up, I am 8 be as clear as I can here, the study started with 9 three 240, four groups of zero control and the 10 way, so asbestos groups. 96 were killed along the 11 we should really, to determine how many are left, 12 then subtract 96 from 240, and we get 144. And 13 what you are saying is you noted that there were 14 right on one or two extra ones here or there, am I 15 that? 16 96 A. There would be -- well, the 17 doesn't appear to take into account the 18 animals morphometrical analysis of the time zero 19 months. It would just appear to be 3, 12 and 24 20 at any So just for example, you have 21 any one time point four animals of each sex of 22 group untreated or treated removed. that would So 23 in all. be 32 animals for -- at any one time point 24 Do you understand? 25 Q. Right. So should there really be 108 777 1 Ilgren 2 that were killed in the original experiment and 3 not 96? 4 A. Right, I believe it is 120 - 5 go off MR. WILL: Wait, can we just 6 the record for a second. 7 MR. BROWNSON: Sure. 8 (Discussion off the record) 9 on the MR. BROWNSON: Let's go back 10 record, and Dr. Ilgren will continue the 11 answer. 12 repeat MR. GERSON: Why don't you 13 the last question. 14 BY MR. BROWNSON: 15 position. Q. Let's start at this present 16 Ilgren, I think we were clear, Dr. 17 now you until we ran into this number of 96 and 18 really are now explaining to us that that number 19 can you 20 is something different and what it is and describe that for us ? 21 A. Yes, I could. 22 Q. O.K. 23 number of A. The 96 rats pertain to the 24 animals that were analyzed morphometrically at 3, 25 the 12 and 24 months. It does not pertain to 778 1 Ilgren 2 morphometrical analysis of the animals studied at 3 time zero, so there should be an additional 32 4 128 animals added to the 96 to give a total of 5 rats . 6 "A total So the sentence that reads, 7 of 96 rats out of 320 were used for morphometric 8 study" should actually continue as at 3, 12 and 24 9 all out months. In fact, a total of 128 rats in 10 of 320 were used for the entire morphometric 11 study. 12 additional Q. So there should be an 13 rats 14 sentence in here that says a total of 128 were used for morphometrical study ? 15 A. Yes, sir. 16 rats Q. So can we then take the 240 17 were ready to be studied and subtract 128 that 18 killed along the way beginning at time zero to get 19 our remaining live rats? 20 MR. WILL: 240? 21 MR. BROWNSON: 240. 22 I A. It should be 128 out of 320, 23 out of believe. Is that what you asked me? 128 24 320? 25 you. Q. No, that's not what I asked 779 1 Ilgren 2 not the MR. WILL: Because 240 is 3 4 5 what we 6 -- when 7 8 JM 100 right number. Q. Let me do this. Again I don't want to rehash already did but after the -- when we took they took the 400 rats that came into the laboratory and then after taking out the 9 and then rats which was 40, we ended up with 360 10 four they killed off five of each sex out of 11 groups, 40 more? 12 A. Right. 13 320 rats, Q. And that brought us down to 14 right? 15 A. 16 confusion Q. Right. O.K. Now I see where my 17 18 begin is, O.K. So we have 320 rats ready to 19 were to the experiment. 80 were controls and 240 20 Is that be controlled to asbestos, is that fair? 21 correct I mean? 22 A. Yes. 23 you are Q. Total of 320. And then what 24 zero saying is 128 were killed along the way at 25 months, 3 months, 12 months and 24 months? 780 1 Ilgren 2 A. For morphometric study, yes. 3 determine Q. So what we need to do to 4 128 from how many rats remained alive is subtract 5 320? 6 A. I believe so, yes. 7 Q. What do we get there? 8 9 rats? A. 192. Q. So that leaves us with 192 10 11 great A. Yes, sir. Q. And againwithout going into 12 detail and belaboring this, your paper here, parts 13 guess to 1, 2 and 3, was a review by you, and I 14 some extent Dr. Wagner of these 192 rats or -- I'm 15 whatever sorry, the remaining slides or tissues or 16 of these 192 rats that remained alive after the 17 study to see what happened to them at their death. 18 Is that fair to say? 19 A. Yes, sir. 20 repeat the MR. GERSON: Could you 21 preceding question. 22 (Record read) 23 A. synthesis of the Plus an analysis and 24 morphometric data in connection with the 25 based on morphological or histological studies 781 1 Ilgren 2 those materials . 3 summarize Q. So if -- I am trying to 4 this to put it in laymen's terms. 5 A. Sure. 6 here is, Q. What you were trying to do 7 this going back to this archive and pulling out 8 long old material of the rats who now are all 9 dead, and you were going to examine them -- one of 10 the the things you were going to examine is of 11 remaining 192 living rats, after the experiment 12 and some they eventually all died or were killed 13 you were tissues or slides were kept of those and 14 going to look at those , right? 15 A. Yes. 16 correct? Q. And that' s what you did, 17 A. Yes. 18 you Q. And then in addition to that, 19 have just told us that you also in your paper talk 20 the about some of this morphological data of 21 prior 22 killed rats that Pinkerton and these other people have done? 23 A. Well, they did morphometrical 24 electron studies, studies done -- largely by an 25 suppose microscope, some light microscopy, but I 782 1 Ilgren 2 I was what I was saying before was that in 1992, 3 which sent morphometrical data and some tables 4 asked to presented some pathology data, and I was 5 put together a manuscript and publish this 6 material. 7 looked at the And at that time when I 8 data tables for the animals on lifetime tests, you 9 that you know, we are talking about the animals 10 was and I have been talking about just now, it 11 were clear that 40 to 50 percent of the animals 12 through missing, and so I satisfied myself with -- 13 most of discussions with Kent Pinkerton that I had 14 the morphometrical data. 15 nor I But at that time neither Kent 16 that had knew where the rest of the animals were 17 agreed been on lifetime test, so at that point we 18 that we needed to try to determination, 19 of an and so the study was originally conceived 20 data but analysis not only of the morphometrical 21 data, I the so-called -- when I say morphological 22 test as am talking about the animals on lifetime 23 means -- analyzed by traditional light microscopic 24 should but Kent and I both agreed that the study 25 be an attempt to integrate both his own work done 783 1 Ilgren 2 by an electron microscopical analysis and 3 morphometrically with these lifetime studies which 4 had never really been published before. 5 in 1992 Q. Now, you say you were asked 6 to publish the morphometrical data. asked you Who 7 to do that? 8 thing as A. I said to publish the whole 9 an integrated work. 10 Q. Who asked you to do that? 11 A. Kent Pinkerton. 12 "Dr. Q. Did he come to you and say, 13 or had 14 this 15 Ilgren, I have selected you to do this, you gone to him before then, or how did contact originate? 16 came A. In 19 -- I believe in 1991, I 17 across Kent's 1983 paper entitled something like 18 Fiber "A characterization of the size of Three 19 Types in an Aerosol," the three fiber types being 20 fibre. the Coalinga the UICC/B and the Jeffrey 21 and I 22 earlier And I read the paper through, believe as we have discussed in the 23 depositions, he had indicated in his paper, in 24 that 1983 paper, that he felt the implications of 25 and the his findings had a biological relevance 784 1 Ilgren 2 the manner in which the data had been set out, 3 the thoroughness and the completeness in which 4 data had been set out in this 1983 paper suggested 5 to me that this was a part of a much larger study. 6 It was the so-called exposure data analysis of a 7 large inhalational bioassay. 8 confirm or And so just to sort of 9 to find refute that particular suspicion, I tried 10 Kent Pinkerton, and I looked in the 1983 paper and 11 the he was listed at Duke. And so I called 12 Department of Pathology at Duke and I asked for 13 Crapo. 14 to Kent Pinkerton, and they put me on to Dr. And Dr. Crapo had said that he had moved 15 California. 16 involved in But since Dr. Crapo was 17 calling this particular study, I said, "Well, I am 18 might be because I have a suspicion that there 19 study. other data attendant to this particular Is 20 that true?" 21 mountains And he said, "Yes, there is 22 23 be very 24 be able of unpublished data." And so I said, "Well, I would interested in speaking with whomever might 25 to tell me more about these data." 785 1 2 give you Ilgren And he said, "Well, I will 3 Kent Pinkerton's telephone number in the 4 University of California." 5 some point So I believe late 1991 or 6 maybe in early 1992, I called Kent Pinkerton in 7 looking California and I told him that I have been 8 for some at the issue of long versus short fiber 9 years and in particular the Coalinga fibre, and he 10 said that indeed he had a great deal of 11 unpublished data and that he wrote me a letter and 12 1992, in he said, I believe it was in December 13 sort of this letter that he would be pleased if I 14 to put cut, paste, did anything I want with this 15 it into a written manuscript. 16 use the Q. Did he give you permission to 17 data out of his doctoral thesis and the tables and 18 that sort of material? 19 4 of A. Yes, sir. He sent me chapter 20 tabular his thesis, two rough manuscripts, five 21 summaries of the lifetime bioassay, the animals in 22 letters, lifetime test, and there were also two 23 Gene one from Jim Crapo from 1979 addressed to 24 to Kent McConnell and another 1991 from Dr. Crapo 25 Pinkerton. me at the I believe that's all he sent 786 1 2 time . 3 materials? Q. Ilgren Do you still have those 4 5 those, 6 7 it. 8 move on 9 10 part 1, 2 A. Yes, sir. MR. BROWNSON: Can we get Trevor? Just the letters. MR. WILL: Let's talk about MR. BROWNSON: O.K. let's here . Q. And is it then this paper, 11 morning and 3 that we have been talking about this 12 you that that is the resulting published work by 13 originated back in 1991 when you called Dr. Crapo 14 15 16 neither and Dr. Pinkerton? A. Yes, sir. Q. And again I am wondering why 17 since they -- this was their original work, is a 18 coauthor on your papers? 19 A. I beg your pardon? 20 him that. MR. WILL: I already asked 21 Dr. MR. BROWNSON: I asked about 22 both. Pinkerton. Now I am asking about 23 Q. This was the original animal 24 toxicology work for Dr. Pinkerton and these other 25 doctors in the 1970's at the national program we 787 1 Ilgren 2 some of talked about, and you now have examined 3 that that data and published it and you told us 4 sent you Dr. Pinkerton invited you to do that and 5 a bunch of material. 6 why none My question is do you know 7 are of those doctors who did the original work 8 coauthors on your paper? 9 that. He MR. WILL: I object to 10 was in only talked about the three that he 11 and contact with, McConnell, Pinkerton 12 longer Crapo. Earlier he gave you a much 13 list of doctors. 14 asking how MR. BROWNSON: Now I am 15 as come none of them are on the papers 16 coauthors. 17 want to A. I believe I said they didn't 18 be on the paper. 19 testimony that Q. And again is it your 20 why they none of them gave you a specific reason 21 didn't want to be on the paper? 22 problem. You MR. WILL: Here is my 23 have now expanded the question. 24 MR. BROWNSON: I know. 25 it in a MR. WILL: But you have done 788 1 Ilgren 2 talked to way that makes it suggest that he 3 paper a lot of doctors about being on the 4 he did. when there isn't any testimony that 5 up and MR. BROWNSON: Let me back 6 clarify this then. 7 BY MR. BROWNSON: 8 asked two Q. Is it true that you just 9 people to be coauthors I'm sorry, three people 10 to be potential coauthors, Wagner, McConnell and 11 Pinkerton? 12 A. To my recollection. 13 three Q. And none of the three or all 14 15 16 Do you 17 of the declined to be coauthors? A. As I recall, yes. Q. And now my new question is: know any of the specific reasons why any 18 19 20 21 feel three decided not to be coauthors? A. Well, I didn't ask Chris so specifically, but I had the sense from our discussion and interaction that he didn't 22 that he had done, and again I am surmising, but I 23 that had the sense that he felt he hadn't done 24 this much work on the overall projects, i.e., 25 be a specific present study that he wanted to 789 1 Ilgren 2 surmise. coauthor. I That's my -- that's what I 3 with don't have a -- and I believe the same 4 5 though, 6 McConnell. Q. How about Dr. Pinkerton, because this, after all, was his data? 7 8 us, if I A. I don't know. Q. So what you have just told 9 can again try to sum this down to a nutshell, is 10 when you that your own interest here began really 11 and all saw this 1983 paper by Pinkerton and Brody 12 wanted these authors and that you read it and you 13 call to to follow up on it, and you placed this 14 Dr. Crapo, and away you went? 15 could you A. And away -- sorry, I was -- 16 just repeat that? 17 has now Q. This work that you have done 18 resulted in the three-part paper that we have been 19 looking at, again to summarize and paraphrase, 20 1983 really began when you found and read this 21 authors paper by Dr. Pinkerton and Crapo and other 22 fair? sometime in about 1991 or so, is that 23 but I -- A. Well, these specific papers 2 4 I mean I had gone to visit Dr. Muhle in Germany in 25 1988, and I have been talking to him about 790 1 Ilgren 2 somewhat Coalinga fibre at about that time or 3 in my earlier. So I suppose the inception time 4 the own mind is before my 1991 discussion, but 5 is data that goes into these specific papers 6 period really time-lined or begins in that 1991 7 that we just talked about. 8 if you Q. And kind of a seminal event, 9 called will, is when you found this 1983 paper 10 "Three types of" -- called "Characte rization of 11 Three Types of Chrysotile Asbestos after 12 Aerosolization," reference number 45. 13 A. Yes. 14 with the Q. Now, your first contact then 15 talking authors of that old rat study we have been 16 you about all morning was the telephone call 17 up placed to Duke University, and you ended 18 getting Dr. Crapo, right? 19 A. Yes, sir. 20 with Dr. Q. He then put you in contact 21 Pinkerton right? 22 A. Yes, sir. 23 any of Q. Did you speak in addition to 24 the other coauthors, that would be, Dr. Brody, Dr. 25 McLaurin, Atkins, O'Connor, Pratt? 791 1 2 3 speak to? Ilgren A. Yes. Q. And which of those did you 4 Bernie 5 6 A. I spoke with Dan McLaurin, Atkins , I think it is Dr. O'Connor, Q. How about Philip Pratt? 7 A. No . 8 Q. How about Arnold Brody? 9 believe so. A. I can't recall. I don't 10 between Q. Do you know if at any time 11 Crapo 1991 and today whether you have told Dr. 12 in 13 that you are doing work for Union Carbide consulting work in asbestos litigation? 14 A. I don't believe I told him. I 15 that at believe Kent Pinkerton and I talked about 16 from the some off and on, and he was aware of that 17 beginning. 18 2 and Q. Now, in your papers, parts 1, 19 3, you have various acknowledgements to different 20 people, correct? 21 A. Yes, sir. 22 three Q. Now, here in either of the 23 parts of your paper, however, is there any 24 there? acknowledgement to Union Carbide, is 25 A. Not that I can see, no. 792 1 Ilgren 2 however, Q. You would agree with me, 3 this that during the time period you worked on 4 doing 5 6 7 paper and up until today, you have been consulting work for Union Carbide and its attorneys in cases involving Union Carbide Coalinga asbestos, right? 8 9 would be A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you think, Dr. Ilgren, it 10 of that a good practice to have made some mention 11 fact in the acknowledgements so that the reader of 12 you were these three papers would know that while 13 use your concluding that Coalinga asbestos is, to 14 with and term, a nuisance dust, you are consulting 15 helping Union Carbide in its asbestos litigation? 16 A. I didn't think that influenced my 17 analysis and interpretation. 18 that is Q. Would you agree with me that 19 a bias that some reader might be interested in 20 knowing, however? 21 the MR. WILL: Well, I object to 22 form of the question. 23 the It is not common practice in 24 put down scientific industry for authors to 25 everybody they consulted with. 793 1 2 but -3 Ilgren MR. BROWNSON: No, it is not strike that. 4 BY MR. BROWNSON: 5 deposition Q. You told us at a prior 6 that during the time over the past few years, and 7 these that includes the time you were working on 8 income papers , your main source of consultation 9 asbestos has been from Union Carbide in its 10 litigation , correct? 11 the MR. WILL: Well, I object to 12 said what form of that question, too. He 13 time. I 14 entire he said during certain periods of don 't think that is true for the 15 period of time. 16 and A. A. I would have to receive the Q 17 I don' t believe I said that. 18 you have Q. Over the past several years, 19 been doing consulting for Union Carbide in 20 asbestos litigation, correct? 21 A. Yes. 22 way, 23 Q. Including this case, by the right? 24 A. Yes, sir. 25 Q. One we had versus Union Carbide ? 794 1 2 3 time, you A. Q. Ilgren Yes. During the same period of 4 correct ? were working on these three papers, 5 A. Yes, sir. 6 your Q. And you have published and in 7 asbestos papers concluded that although Canadian 8 can be both fibrogenic, tumourigenic and 9 biopersistent , Coalinga asbestos is not? 10 A. That's what the data shows. 11 concluded, Q. That's what you have 12 correct? 13 that's A. On the basis of the data, but 14 my conclusion. 15 asbestos Q. Now, with respect to the 16 that was given to these rats in the Pinkerton 17 study back in '78 to 1980 -- 18 A. Yes, sir. 19 thesis and Q. -- Dr. Pinkerton in his 20 1983 Dr. Pinkerton in his published paper in 21 describes that as "Coalinga mine chrysotile," is 22 that right ? 23 A. I believe so, sir. 24 there Q. And as you know, Dr . Ilgren, 25 have been historically at least three operating 795 1 Ilgren 2 which of mines in the Coalinga deposit. We know 3 the three this chrysotile came from? 4 A. COF25 Calidria 5 Q. How do you know that? 6 7 Calidria A. I have the documentation. Q. So this is Union Carbide 8 to? chrysotile that these rats were exposed 9 10 correct? A. Cyclone overflow. Q. From the Union Carbide mine, 11 A. Yes. 12 little Q. By the way, and I disagree a 13 bit. 14 California Are you aware that the 15 chrysotile that Meltoni used in his experiments 16 was also from the Union Carbide mine because I see 17 some you take some pains in your paper to raise 18 doubt as to which mine that came from? 19 that A. He never responded a reply to 20 effect, so what do you base that on? 21 Dr . Q. I based it on the fact that 22 it from Langer gave it to him and Dr. Langer got 23 that mine? 24 A. That's interesting. 25 a Q. So now you know that there is 796 1 Ilgren 2 helpful piece of information? 3 information. A. It is another piece of 4 paper that Q. I am looking at the 1983 5 that we kind of started all this study for you 6 read have talked about, and I take it you have 7 correct ? that paper and you familiar with it, 8 A. Yes, sir. 9 called Q. Now, that paper has a table 10 "Table 1," which is entitled "Gravometric 11 Measurements for Each Chrysotile Preparation in 12 13 that is the Exposure Chapter," O.K. And again this is the paper 14 to the talking about the rats that were exposed 15 three types of asbestos? 16 A. Yes, sir. 17 the Q. And that table indicates that 18 were concentration of dust to which the rats 19 exposed -- strike that -- that table indicates the 20 were concentration of dust to which the rats 21 exposed? 22 meter. A. As milligrams to per cubic 23 the Q. Exactly. And it reports both 24 total dust in the chamber and milligrams per cubic 25 the meter, and then it reports what is called 797 1 Ilgren 2 respirable concentrations in the dust chamber in 3 milligrams per cubic meter? 4 A. Yes. 5 the Q. It is true, is it not, that 6 Carbide respirable concentration of Calidria Union 7 only dust to which these rats were exposed was 8 about a third as much as the two Canadian 9 exposed? chrysotile dusts to which those rats were 10 opposed A. I think it is 42 percent as 11 to 76 versus 82 percent. 12 UICCB and Q. It is 42.3 Calidria, 75.7 13 87.1 Jeffrey. 14 concentration, they And by respirable 15 rats? mean the dust that gets breathed by the 16 A. Yes, sir. 17 more Q. Now, let me ask you a few 18 questions about that. 19 percentage, You have noted that the 20 if you will, was 42 percent for the Calidria, 75 21 Jeffrey for the UICC/B Canadian and 87 for the 22 that the Canadian, but it is also true, is it not, 23 total concentration of dust from which the 24 respirable fraction was derived was different, 25 wasn't it? 798 1 Ilgren 2 A. I believe so. 3 mean I am Q. And I can show you this. I 4 not trying to be tricky. 5 the A. No, I know. But just show me 6 numbers real quick and I will -- yes, that's fine. 7 total Q. So what we have got, the 8 dust or concentration of what's called chamber 9 dust in the chamber was 11.36 milligrams per cubic 10 meter for the Jeffrey chrysotile? 11 two A. Casella or Cascade, there are 12 Casella. methods, the top is Cascade or the top is 13 you can Q. It looks like "Cascade," but 14 check it. 15 A. Yes, it is the Casella. 16 Q. So according to table 1 in 17 the Pinkerton's paper 1983, he reports that 18 Jeffrey chamber dust concentration by mass for the 19 Canadian chrysotile is 11.36 milligrams per cubic 20 meter, correct? 21 A. Yes. 22 chrysotile, Q. For the UICC/B Canadian 23 it is 10.99 milligrams per cubic meter? 24 A. Yes. 25 Carbide, it is Q. For the Calidria Union 799 1 Ilgren 2 7.76? 3 A. It is not 3.28? 4 the total Q. No, no, I am talking about 5 chamber dust? 6 right, A. I'm sorry, right, right, 7 sorry. 8 same table, Q. Then when you turn to the 9 he next reports the respirable concentration of 10 the dust which is what the rats breathe? 11 A. Right. 12 Jeffrey Q. And he reports that the 13 cubic Canadian chrysotile is 9.9 milligrams per 14 meter, correct? 15 A. Correct. 16 8.2 grams Q. And the UICC/B Canadian is 17 per cubic meter? 18 A. Right. 19 Carbide is Q. And the Coalinga Union 20 3.28 grams per cubic meter? 21 A. Right. 22 that Q. Now, would you agree with me 23 Union what that tells us is that the Coalinga 24 as the Carbide asbestos is about a third as much 25 Jeffrey in terms of the respirable concentration? 800 1 Ilgren 2 A. Yes. 3 mass? MR. WILL: By weight, by 4 5 9.9 for A. By mass. Q. As reportedhere, it isabout 6 the Jeffrey and about 3.28 for the Coalinga? 7 8 not, Dr. A. Yes, sir. Q. So it is fairto say, is it 9 Ilgren, that these rats back in the NIEHS 10 third as experiments got about -- breathed about a 11 did the much Union Carbide Coalinga dust as they 12 Canadian chrysotile? 13 yes . A. That would be the assumption, 14 not by MR. WILL: Again, by mass, 15 fibers. 16 reported in 17 MR. BROWNSON: Well, as this -- 18 19 do not 20 each A. As reported by mass, yes. Q. And would you agree that we have any actual data as to how many fibers 21 do have rat or the different rats breathed, but we 22 asbestos the data as to the mass or the amount of 23 they breathed? 24 that paper A. Yes, that's correct. Per 25 those, You are talking just about on the basis of 1 2 3 your 4 fact 5 rats 801 Ilgren that paper, right. Q. Now, can you tell us where in papers, parts 1, 2 or 3 you report that in the doses or the exposure amounts that the 6 got to the three types of asbestos was different ? 7 presentation or A. I believe there is a 8 3, I representation of those mass data in part 9 have to check that. another part. It might be in 10 part 4, Again that 's discussed at great length in 11 which as you have pointed out, is not yet 12 mass published. I thought we had repeated the 13 data, but I guess we hadn't repeated it. 14 abstract of Q. Again I will go to the 15 part 1 of your paper which is entitled "Coalinga 16 Fibre - A Short Amphibole-Free Chrysotile," part 17 1, "Evidence for a Lack of Fibrogenic Activity, " 18 you 19 rats and what you say in your abstract and what then say in the paper is that the exposed 20 showed back in this Pinkerton et al. experiment 21 fibrogenic responses to both asbestos types from 22 Canada but none from the Coalinga chrysotile, 23 correct? 24 25 there A. Yes. Q. But you never say anywhere in 802 1 Ilgren 2 of that they only got a third as large a dose 3 Coalinga chrysotile as they did of the Canadian? 4 paper. A. It is not discussed in this 5 inference Q. Would you agree with me the 6 rats that the reader is left with is that these 7 who were all exposed to the three types of 8 asbestos in equal amounts and those exposed to 9 Canadian asbestos got sick and those exposed to 10 Calidria did not? 11 exposures A. They were all occupational 12 13 p.m.) but one would infer that. (Luncheon recess: 12:30 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 803 1 2 AFTERNOON SESSION 3 1:45 p.m. 4 5 E DWARD ILGREN , 6 follows: resumed and testified further as 7 EXAMINATION (Continued) 8 BY MR. BROWNSON: 9 again plow Q. Dr. Ilgren, I want to once 10 through the number of animals, but hopefully we 11 can finish it fairly quickly. 12 thing But before I do that, one 13 find an occurred to me which I could not get - 14 know. answer from your papers and maybe you 15 sacrificed Do you know if any of the 16 about rats, you know, the ones we have talked 17 earlier that were sacrificed at either before it 18 at zero, started, before the experiment started or 19 of those 3 or 12 or 24 months, do you know if any 20 that ? rats had tumors? Do we have any data on 21 of, I 22 this - A. Yes. Yes, there is mention believe, two tumors at 24 months and I put 23 2. It this should be in my paper. It is in part 24 25 then. is in part 2, I believe. Q. I don't want to jump ahead 804 1 Ilgren 2 A. That's fine. 3 Q. We will get to that. 4 your Now, going back to part 1 of 5 paper, you had spoken about one of the things that 6 the federal government groups who were doing the 7 had this rat inhalation study was doing was they 8 big group of Fischer control rats that they were 9 looking at. 10 about 11 there? Do you know what I am talking 12 A. Controls? 13 we have 14 Q. Not on this particular study been talking about. 15 A. The Solleveld. 16 Q. Yes, the Solleveld? 17 A. Yes, the Solleveld group. 18 that I Q. And I pulled the reference 19 I found found in your paper with respect to that. 20 you had a paper. This is one of the papers that 21 referred to. History of It is called "Natural 22 in the Body Weight Gain, Survival and Neoplasia 23 authors? F344 Rat," by Solleveld and some other 24 A. And the question is? 25 confirm Q. Well, first of all, I want to 805 1 Ilgren 2 is that the paper that - 3 A. Which I havecited in here? 4 Q. Yes. 5 to go and A. I believe so. I would have 6 this is check, but I am very -- I am pretty sure 7 the paper which is cited. Yes, it is reference 8 42. 9 my notes Q. Now, I am going to work off 10 here and let me see if I got it correct. 11 that paper If you turn to page 942 of 12 at table 1, have I got that correct? 13 A. Yes . 14 big group, Q. I count 5,747 rats in this 15 is that right? 16 A. Yes . 17 us, Dr. Q. Now, just can you explain for 18 was kind Ilgren, what this is. I understood this 19 344 rats of some big general study of the Fischer 20 this for general purposes. It wasn't tied into 21 particular study we have been talking about this 22 morning, is that right, or is this just -- 23 put the A. No. My explanation as having 24 same question to Chris Wagner, his explanation 25 being rather to me was that when the study was 806 1 Ilgren 2 designed, they wished to have not only a so-called 3 of the concurrent control, a control group, say, 4 time but 80 rats that would be running at the same 5 they also wanted to build in two additional 6 control groups. 7 number 2, And if you look at my paper 8 control table 1, you will see that these two 9 Dr. groups are incorporated. So they brought 10 counted Solleveld from Holland. They more or less 11 Dutch him from the TNO, which is I believe the 12 Cancer Institute, to be working with Dr. McConnell 13 in 1978 more or less at the same time, I believe 14 much or 1980, to set up an analysis of a much, 15 larger group of control animals, again, untreated 16 span control animals, some so-called pure life 17 which controls and other are historical controls 18 are animals that are just left in groups for years 19 how one and years and years. I don't know exactly 20 differentiates between these, but they are 21 differentiated so that's my explanation, that's as 22 I best recall what Chris told me this study was 23 about. 24 looking Q. One of the things I noted by 25 study, at table 1 at page 932 of this rat control 807 1 Ilgren 2 these which is the Solleveld paper, it lists all 3 control different types of neoplasias that these 4 to rats had. None of these rats were exposed 5 asbestos, just so we are clear? 6 A. No, sir. 7 they MR. WILL: Is that correct, 8 were not exposed. 9 not A. That's correct. They were 10 exposed to asbestos. 11 of Q. If you look down on this list 12 says two males, when we come to mesothelioma, it 13 they rats, and they were both mesothelioma, and 14 are just .4 percent, I guess? 15 A. I believe so. 16 they 17 18 19 Well, 20 Now, could I see that? Were cited as NOS. Q. I don't know. A. Yes, I think they are NOS. they would be plural. 21 with me Q. In any event, would you agree 22 that out of this control group of some 5,748 rats 23 two were not exposed to asbestos they found 24 mesotheliomas? 25 our 1991 A. Yes, we have cited those in 808 1 Ilgren 2 paper and in the book. 3 that comes Q. And I did my own math, and 4 right? out to .03 percent. Does that sound about 5 with, A. If that is what you come out 6 sure . 7 least Q. So would you agree that in at 8 344 rats among this control group of the Fischer 9 talking which were used in the study we have been 10 about today that the naturally occurring or 11 background level mesothelioma is about .03 12 percent? 13 thing that A. I would say yes. The only 14 comes to mind is I think there were a couple of 15 and I 16 it is a other studies of untreated Fischer rats, can't remember what they found. I think 17 slightly higher incidence reported by others, but 18 yes, I would agree with that. 19 1983 Q. I want to go again to the 20 before Pinkerton paper we were talking about 21 lunch, and again this is the paper cited by you as 22 23 24 of that reference 45 in part 1 of your paper? A. Yes. Q. Now, I am looking at table 2 25 I will paper. Are you familiar with that table? 809 1 2 3 paper. 4 Ilgren show it to you. A. Yes, I am familiar with the Q. And this table 2 is entitled "Optical 5 Microscopy Fiber Characterization Percentage of 6 Size All Fibers Greater than 5 Microns in Each 7 Class," right? 8 A. Right. 9 of the Q. And what this table shows is 10 fibers greater than 5 microns break down 11 into different lengths, correct? 12 A. Yes. 13 reported Q. And these are the data as 14 with and published by Dr. Pinkerton in 1983 15 two respect to the Coalinga asbestos and the 16 correct? Canadian types, UICC/B and Jeffrey, 17 18 a A. Right. Q. Do you agree with me that as 19 greater general proposition, that of the fibers 20 there 21 than 5 microns, the three asbestos types, isn't a great deal of difference in their 22 breakdown in the different categories? 23 A. Agreed. 24 Q. I am now turning back to the 25 of your "Materials and Methods" section of part 1 810 1 2 bottom 3 heading Ilgren paper. I am at page 266, and down at the of the right-hand column, you have got the 4 "Histopathological Analysis." 5 A. Yes. 6 lifetime Q. And you write, "Animals on 7 test were analyzed histopathologically as 8 described by McConnell et al." 9 analyzed Now, my question is who 10 who did these? When you say they were analyzed, 11 that ? 12 13 us about A. I did with Chris Wagner. Q. This is that review you told 14 when you earlier this morning down at the archive 15 16 17 of that 18 were looked at the slides under the microscope? A. Yes. Q. Then in the second paragraph section, you say, "The interim sacrifices 19 were scored," and then you talk about how they 20 that you scored. Who did that? Is this something 21 did again or is this going back to the early work? 22 table A. That's early work, chapter 5, 23 X, thesis Pinkerton, 1982. 24 of part 1 Q. Now, I then turn to table 2 25 of your paper, which is certain fibrosis scores on 811 1 Ilgren 2 at the the rats on lifetime tests, and you look 3 three different asbestos types, right? 4 A. Yes. 5 and make Q. First of all, let me go back 6 sure I am clear. 7 about When you are talking here 8 those lifetime tests, are you now talking about 9 rats that lived past the 24-month period? 10 A. Yes. 11 about? Q. That's what we are talking 12 A. Yes. 13 many Q. And just again, that is how 14 rats? 15 there A. 28. As I indicated before, 16 be one were -- in one instance, there appeared to 17 look at or two more such as in table 2. If you 18 the UICC/NIEHS 1996, you will see for males, there 19 two is 30, so I mean in that instance, I found 20 extra animals. 21 sex per MR. WILL: And that's 28 per 22 group. 23 THE WITNESS: Yes. 24 so I can Q. So let's back up again just 25 be clear on this. 812 1 2 24 3 Ilgren Of the rats that survived the months and were not killed as of 24 months 4 A. Yes. 5 the math Q. -- and we may need to work 6 had here, there were -- what was it, 192, we 7 point? figured earlier that were left at that 8 A. I believe so. Yes . 9 four Q. And those were again in the 10 groups, control group, Coalinga rats Jeffrey rats 11 and UICC/B rats? 12 A. Yes, I believe so, yes. 13 Q. And as a general matter, as I 14 table 2, understand what you are telling us in 15 these there were equal numbers of each except 16 we will couple of extra ones here and there that 17 look at here, is that right? 18 A. That's to the best of my 19 recollection. 20 Q. So, for example, on the control rats, 21 females. you report there were 28 males and 26 Is 22 that what that says? 23 A. Yes. 24 have got Q. Now, let me just see if I 25 this terminology straight. 813 1 Ilgren 2 Table 2 starts by saying 3 "Control/NIEHS 1996"? 4 A. Yes. 5 again what Q. And what these are, are -- 6 rats all of these things are in table 2 are the 7 that survived more than 24 months? 8 A. Yes. 9 1996," Q. When you say "Control/NIEHS 10 what you are describing there are the slides of 11 than 24 rats that were dead but had lived more 12 when you months that you and Dr. Wagner looked at 13 went down to the archives? 14 the A. Right. In conjunction with 15 autopsy protocol and the gross pathology findings, 16 but that's 17 NIEHS, you Q. 18 North found them 19 Carolina? 20 A. That's correct. 21 longer Q. So if I was to more, in a 22 are, sentence, <describe what those control rats 23 those are sorry, let 24 me back up 25 what those If I was going to describe 814 1 Ilgren 2 rats who control rats are, those are the control 3 were not killed in the original experiments, up to 4 24 months, but who later died and the slides were 5 them and preserved in the archive and you found 6 say? looked at them in 1996, is that fair to 7 A. Yes. 8 what you Q. Now, do we know in terms of 9 call the lifetime rats or these lifetime scores or 10 lifetime lifetime tests, do we know how long this 11 was ? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. How long was that? 14 A. It varied. 15 MR. WILL: Which rat? 16 their Q. Were they allowed to live out 17 point? life or were they all killed at some 18 out A. No, they were allowed tolive 19 their life and the survival data for the 20 data individual rats are given in individual 21 legend tables. I think if you look at the figure 22 at the bottom of table 2 where you see 750 plus 23 there 24 I 25 but days, well, that pertains to MRC data, but were survivors generally in excess of, as recall, 600 days, 700 days for most rats, 815 1 Ilgren 2 every rat that died has a survival duration for 3 it. O.K. 4 Q. So these rats that were not 5 allowed sacrificed as part of the experiment were 6 when to live out their life in a cage and then 7 were and they died, somebody noted how old they 8 is that cut them up and to preserve these slides, 9 fair to say? 10 11 within A. Yes. Q. Then this was all filed away 12 and '6, 13 the archive. Then you came along in 1995 found it and looked at it, and you are now 14 that 15 reporting in this table 2 what you saw, is correct? 16 A. Yes. 17 2, and Q. Now, if we then look at table 18 as I I will try to get through this as quickly 19 controls can, the first thing you report is the 20 that you looked at, and there were 28 males and 26 21 females, right? 22 A. Right. 23 1984, 34 Q. Then you say "Control MRC, 24 total rats." What is that data? 25 from A. Well, those data are the data 816 1 Ilgren 2 the companion concurrent collaborative study that 3 Research was run in conjunction with the Medical 4 Council in the United Kingdom, so as the study was 5 groups originally set forth the -- there were two 6 control that were run in parallel, an untreated 7 group and a UICC/B chrysotile exposure group, and 8 at the 9 NIEHS. 10 they were, to my knowledge, started almost same time in the United Kingdom and at the And that was the primary purpose of the study. 11 the The NIEHS group also added 12 their Coalinga short and the Jeffrey long to 13 the protocol, but those two were not added to 14 United Kingdom protocol. O.K.? 15 Q. Just so we are clear, this 16 the 70's collaborative study that was done back in 17 and 80 s as well? 18 was A. Right, that's McConnell 1984 19 cited. 20 Q. You mean Wagner? 21 et al. A. No, it is actually McConnell 22 we come Q. Now, continuing in table 2, 23 to the Coalinga lifetime rats, and again these are 24 right? slides that are being looked at by you, 25 A. Yes. 817 1 Ilgren 2 correctly, Q. O.K. And if I read this 3 there were 27 male rats exposed to Coalinga fibre 4 and 24 females who were allowed to live out their 5 lifetime right ? 6 A. That's correct. 7 51 -- Q. So that gives us a total of 8 data A. Maybe I should -- there were 9 found in the archives for 27 animals. The 10 would be number -- the proper number at the start 11 sheets a calculated 28, but in the actual data 12 records that I found in the archives, there were 13 for 27. 14 males and Q. That was my question. 27 15 24 females? 16 could be A. Exactly. And the ones that 17 by, say, used for scoring that were not confounded 18 paper it leukemia, as I indicated in the tumor 19 would be Coalinga males 21. 20 know Q. Now, do we know or do you 21 whether 28 rats -- 28 male rats and 28 female rats 22 live out were exposed to Coalinga and allowed to 23 their lifetime or you couldn't find records or 24 females? they really only did 27 females or 24 25 A. I don't know. 818 1 2 those two Q. 3 it was? Ilgren So we don't know which of 4 5 male rats A. Correct. Q. But you found records of 27 6 and 24 female rats exposed to Coalinga fibre and 7 allowed to live out their lifetime? 8 A. That's correct. 9 score Q. And then in terms of giving a 10 you to those rats for fibrosis in their lungs, 11 determined that 21 of them were -- 21 males and 17 12 females were able to be scored? 13 Wagner. He A. That's correct, with Dr 14 the and I went through, as I recall, all of 15 Coalinga and the untreated controls together as I 16 recall. 17 Q. So there were -- 18 second. I A. I believe -- excuse me one 19 cases 20 don't think we specifically state which we -- no, we don't specifically state which ones 21 we looked at, but he -- Chris and I went through a 22 Coalinga fair sampling of the control and the 23 the slides together. We didn't look at any of 24 UICC/B together and we also looked at a number of 25 the Jeffrey together as well. 819 1 Ilgren 2 at a fair Q. But when you say you looked 3 looked sampling of them together, you personally 4 at all of them? 5 he and I A. I looked at all of them, and 6 looked at a sampling of them. 7 figure out Q. So in terms of trying to 8 whether the Coalinga exposed rats that lived out 9 or not, their lifetime had fibrosis in their lungs 10 you determined that there were 21 male rats and 17 11 that female rats that could be examined for 12 purpose? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And you also determined that there 15 were six males and seven females or a total of 13 16 that you were unable to score because there was 17 some problem with the slides? 18 A. Yes. 19 whether Q. So of those 13, we don't 20 they had fibrosis or not because you weren't able 21 to make that determination because the slides were 22 obscure or whatever? 23 of that A. We discussed the possibility 24 the 25 and there is a discussion of that point in paper itself. 820 1 Ilgren 2 I just want to see here. 3 267, As I have indicated on page 4 the column 1, paragraph 2, with reference to 5 believe animals which we could not score but we 6 that the that there wasn't any reason to believe 7 larger group that we could sample was not 8 representative of the whole. 9 Q. And why do you say that? 10 consistency A. Just on the basis of the 11 of what we saw in the group -- in the cases which 12 we could see. whatsoever There was no suggestion 13 in the 38 animals exposed to Coalinga which could 14 be histologically scored of fibrosis. 15 find Q. Well, O.K. You did, however, 16 not be age-related lesions on those that could 17 scored, correct? 18 A. Sure. 19 lesions the Q. And was the age-related 20 reason they couldn't be scored? seems to be That 21 what you are saying here. 22 A. Well, I am saying that these 23 which particular so-called age-related lesions, 24 includes the Fischer cell leukemia and includes a 25 which is mode of death very common to these rats, 821 1 Ilgren 2 a renal failure due to amyloidosis and secondary 3 uraemia and pneumonitis causing edema, there was 4 no reason to believe that these were necessarily 5 not that obscuring an underlying fibrosis. It is 6 there was an age-related fibrosis per se. 7 lesions? Q. You call it age-related 8 A. Yes, exactly. 9 age-related Q. But then you say 10 What do lesions were probably treatment-related. 11 you mean by that? 12 A. Where are you reading? 13 paragraph you Q. I am reading in that 14 just cited me to the second paragraph on the first 15 16 here column on page 267. A. I think what we are saying 17 The 18 pertains to competing causes of death. Coalinga and the untreated animals died of 19 so-called ageage-related 20 form of lesions was the kidney disease and this 21 22 died cancer, this leukemia. The Canadian-treated animals 23 prematurely because of the pathogenic and 24 the fibrogenic and cancer-inducing effects of 25 recall, Canadian asbestos, and there was -- as I 822 1 Ilgren 2 3 dying there was less age-related lesions in the Canadian-treated animals because they were 4 effects from asbestos exposure or the attributable 5 of the asbestos exposure. 6 looking Q. And that is determined by you 7 at these slides in 1996? 8 had, A. And all the other data that I 9 the autopsy reports. 10 looking at Q. So it is determined by you 11 in all this material you found in the archive 12 1996? 13 A. Yes, sir. 14 summarize the Q. So if I can then try to 15 heading results as described by you under the 16 "Results," you're saying that after you looked at 17 rats the archival materials, 38 Coalinga-dosed 18 control that lived out their lifetime and some 19 you rats and some Canadian chrysotile rats 20 Coalinga concluded that those data showed that the 21 chrysotile is not fibrogenic but the Canadian is? 22 A. It is absolutely clearcut. 23 data Q. That is in contrast to other 24 including data to papers you cited in your 25 Coalinga references which would show that the 823 1 Ilgren 2 asbestos is fibrogenic in certain instances , 3 correct? 4 form, MR. GERSON: I object to the 5 of course. 6 the A. I don't see the data. I saw 7 statement. 8 three Q. Well, we looked at those 9 abstracts a moment ago that you cited. 10 O'Neil, Crapo A. You showed me a line in 11 1981 that said histologically there is 12 data. interstitial fibrosis, but I never saw the 13 Q. Did you look for it? 14 piece of A. I looked for every single 15 data associated with this study. 16 presented Q. But, Doctor, this is data 17 in a paper, and you rely on papers and all 18 eminent scientists rely on papers, and if these 19 scientists like Dr. Pinkerton said that 20 Coalinga-exposed rats got interstitial fibrosis, 21 you don't doubt them, do you? 22 form of MR. WILL: I object to the 23 Let him the question on several grounds. 24 finish the question. 25 Pinkerton Q. Just because it only took 824 1 Ilgren 2 one line to say it, you don't doubt what he found, 3 do you? 4 A. Is that the question? 5 concerned that Q. Well, you seem to be 6 ask the it -- that I quoted one line, so let me 7 question. 8 in the You will agree with me that 9 same group of rats, that is, the Coalinga-exposed 10 their rats, but those that did not live out 11 lifetime, those that were killed at various time 12 these periods along the way, Dr. Pinkerton and 13 other doctors who did the study did find 14 Coalinga interstitial fibrosis caused by the 15 asbestos? 16 based that A. I have no idea what they 17 on. 18 they? Q. But they found it, didn't 19 A. Well, Kent Pinkerton and I 20 data. communicated. We He sent me all of his 21 sent me. have had numerous discussions of what he 22 that he I don't find anything in terms of the data 23 said to ever sent me or in fact anything he ever 24 support that statement. 25 but you Q. Doctor, you don't find it, 825 1 Ilgren 2 will agree with me that Dr. Pinkerton reported in 3 in the American Review of Respiratory Disease 4 three different abstracts he published there that 5 he found interstitial fibrosis in Coalinga-exposed 6 rats from this experiment? 7 says MR. WILL: I don't think it 8 interstitial fibrosis. 9 1981 that A. It says in O'Neil, Crapo in 10 histologically they found interstitial fibrosis. 11 I think As I recall they had looked at 24 months. 12 they go to 24 months, is that correct? 13 Q. Yes , they do. 14 never A. And I am saying that. I have 15 data seen any light microscopical histological 16 or Dr. which either Dr. Pinkerton or Dr. O'Neil 17 Crapo have ever compiled to support that 18 data, I statement, and I have been given all the 19 have reviewed all the data. discussed with I have 20 have - them their data, and in my opinion they 21 there is no basis to say that or to support that 22 particular line in O'Neil et al. 1981. 23 Q. Which really is 1980? 24 25 Pinkerton A. I'm sorry, 1980. Q. So are you saying that Dr. 826 1 Ilgren 2 American was simply wrong when he reported in the 3 was Review of Respiratory Disease that there 4 Coalinga interstitial fibrosis caused by the 5 fibrosis in rats? 6 specific MR. WILL: Can you be more 7 said with the article. I think what you 8 this morning was lung changes, if I 9 remember the quote correctly. 10 and Q. In one article Dr. Pinkerton 11 Brody these other doctors including Drs. Crapo, 12 includes and Pratt said that all fibers, and this 13 the Coalinga, caused injury to the epithelium and 14 interstitium, correct? 15 A. Pinkerton et al. You are reading from 16 17 18 on, in 1981, that particular - Q. Yes, I am. A. And in that -- before you go 19 2 4-month that particular paper, do they report 20 21 not, data? Q. I don't know if they do or 22 12-month data? 23 paper, they A. Well, in that particular 24 don't report the complete data. 25 rat gets Q. Let me ask you this. If a 827 1 Ilgren 2 asbestosis in three months, does -- that 3 asbestosis doesn't go away and disappear? 4 they say A. Do they say asbestosis or do 5 inj ury? 6 Q. O.K. 7 A. They are talking about acute 8 reactions which are clearly reversible for 9 that the Coalinga, all the data clearly indicate 10 small acute reaction, the accumulation of very 11 exposed, accumulation of cells and matrix in the 12 high exposed Coalinga animals are reversible and 13 life . disappear. They disappear at the end of 14 They disappear at the end of 24 months. 15 Q. You say that? 16 data is A. Their data say that. Their 17 data. presented in this paper. These are their 18 out of an Q. The data that you have dug 19 you say 20 21 Dr . archive and you have presented in a paper says that? A. The data which I was sent by 22 in this Pinkerton which are replicated precisely 23 thesis, precisely in his papers, Pinkerton, et al. 24 1984, 1996, 1990, these are precise replications 25 of his very data as sent to me by him. These data 828 1 Ilgren 2 say that there is resolution, there is no 3 persistent significant reaction to Coalinga fibre 4 by 24 months. 5 put his Q. Yet Dr. Pinkerton refused to 6 told us name on that paper, didn't he, as you have 7 earlier today, correct? 8 A. He said he didn't want to be a 9 coauthor. 10 part 1 11 Q. Now, let's move to table 4 in of your page? 12 A. O.K. 13 generated or Q. Is this a table that you 14 did this come from somewhere else? 15 was sent A. Well, these are data that I 16 by Dr. Pinkerton, is that your question? 17 wondering, Q. Right. That's what I am 18 A. Right, these are data. 19 from Q. Do you draw any conclusions 20 these data? this, these In other words, as I read 21 I don't numbers are kind of all over the map, and 22 curious see any pattern or conclusion here. I am 23 what you draw from it. 24 A. Well, there is no persistent 25 induction or accumulation of noncellular 829 1 Ilgren 2 the end interstitial matrix induced by Coalinga at 3 Coalinga of the 24-month period when you compare 4 to controls. 5 2 4-month Q. O.K. But I don't see any 6 data in this table? 7 table A. Well, it is 12 plus 12. The 8 9 10 at 12 reads 3-month exposure. Q. O.K. A. 12 months exposure, and then 11 months, exposure ceases and so it is -- 12 13 14 what? 15 16 males at MR. WILL: O.K. I got you A. Yeah, O.K. Q. This is reporting noncellular A. Interstitial matrix volume. Q. Now, in the controls, in the 17 it was 24 months, it is 178, but in the Coalinga 18 287 . Are you saying those are the same? 19 statistical A. On the basis of the 20 animals, comparisons using the small number of 21 the 178 there is no statistical difference between 22 and the 287 . 23 illustrate Q. Well, doesn't that just 24 get the 25 that we don 't have enough animals here to power of statistics to work? 830 1 Ilgren 2 what you A. I think what it indicates is 3 have to do is you have to interpret the study as a 4 whole and not rely solely on the morphometry. I 5 If you think the morphometry are very telling. 6 look at a bigger picture and compare in that same 7 a table 4 the two Canadian fibers, there is 8 massive increase by 24 months in the interstitial 9 matrix volume or what Pinkerton terms the 10 were morphometric equivalent of fibrosis. Each 11 well over 400 as compared with the controls, as 12 the compared with the Coalinga fibre. I think 13 indeed study, the morphometrical analysis is 14 four of limited by the fact that there were only 15 each sex taken out - 16 Q. O.K. 17 absolutely A. -- for each group, that's 18 posed by certain. And there is also limitation 19 the fact that the electron microscopical analysis 20 relied on 1 millimeter cubes of tissue, whereas in 21 at the light microscopical analysis, you look 22 lump. basically a section through the whole 23 So I think each method adds 24 gives information, and to some extent one method 25 another you information you can't get from but I 831 1 2 thing Ilgren think you have got to look at the whole 3 thing together. When you look at the whole 4 together, it all comes together to say there is no 5 fibrogenic potential to Coalinga. That is 6 7 not at 8 4. absolutely clear from these data. Q. It is clear to you, but it is all clear to me, so let's return to table 9 A. All right then. 10 all you Q. You are saying at 24 months 11 had was 8 Coalinga-exposed rats, 8 controlled 12 And you rats, 8 UICC/B rats, and 8 Jeffrey rats. 13 had this one small cube of tissue, each looked at 14 microscopically? 15 A. Right. 16 a small Q. You are saying based on such 17 Coalinga number of rats, you cannot say that the 18 is greater than the control, right? 19 the A. Well, I am simply saying that 20 statistical analysis will not differentiate 21 between the control and the exposed. 22 aren't Q. And that's because there 23 enough rats to do that? 24 A. Not necessarily. 25 Q. Well-------- 832 1 2 3 between 178 A. Q. Ilgren It is -A difference in a volume 4 That's and 287 you have to agree is significant. 5 are over an 80 percent increase in volume , you 6 saying that 's insignificant? 7 standard A. It is also a question of the 8 deviation, and the variation in confidence here, 9 you know it is more than just the absolute 10 multiple numbers, and this is why one uses a 11 comparison analytical method which you know, but I 12 mean this is why this is done. 13 Q. O.K. But to get back to the 14 me, that question, there is, you will agree with 15 the 8 among the 8 Coalinga-exposed rats versus 16 data controlled rats which are the Pinkerton 17 described by you at table 4, there is nearly 80 18 percent increase in the volume, in the 19 control. Calidria-exposed rats, as opposed to the 20 that is We can argue all day, I guess, whether 21 22 of the significant or not, but that's a fact? A. It is a fact in the analysis 23 you 24 compare 25 an numbers, but if you go back to table 2 and actually see that, you know, if you average fibrosis scores, I mean there is 833 1 2 Ilgren apparent difference of the Coalinga has a 3 and I so-called slightly higher fibrosis score, 4 to here think the difference that you are alluding 5 terming is manifest perhaps in this what you are 6 you look an 80 percent difference, but I mean if 7 at the females, there is absolutely no difference 8 whatsoever. 9 Q. But I wasn't looking at -- 10 A. You are looking at the males. 11 is there What I am trying to say is, 12 taking is -- there is some quote/unquote effect 13 fibrosis place, but it is not reflected in the 14 here. 15 Q. Yes, or by you? 16 Chris A. As scored by me, as scored by 17 Wagner. 18 table 2 is Q. Well, as scored by you in 19 what I am saying. 20 scored in A. Yes. In fact, it is also 21 look at table 3, which is the other table used to 22 parenchymal fibrosis. 23 attention to Q. Now, I am turning my 24 table 7 which is at page 271. 25 MR. GERSON: Table what? 834 1 Ilgren 2 MR. BROWNSON: 7. 3 "Changes in Q. This is a table entitled 4 number of the individual cellular components of 5 the alveolar interstitium in rats sacrificed at 3, 6 Jeffrey 12 and 24 months treated with Coalinga, 7 and UICC/B chrysotile," right? 8 UICC/B A. Well, it is right, but the 9 should obviously not be there. 10 Q. Why not? 11 according A. Because the sections were 12 to Kent Pinkerton. including I made a mistake in 13 it. That's why. But basically the full 14 explanation is that Kent never analyzed for these 15 cellular particular changes in the individual 16 that's components, the UICC/B treated animals, so 17 an error on my part. 18 page 271 Q. Now, let's turn on the same 19 Rates of to your section which is headed "Survival 20 Animals on Lifetime Test." 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And again I am confused. You 23 describe 53 controls, but going back to our early 24 discussion today, there should be 80. 25 find Are we saying you could only 835 1 Ilgren 2 records of 53 of them? 3 where are 4 MR. GERSON: Excuse me, you looking at? 5 top of MR. BROWNSON: Right at the 6 the second column, page 271. 7 actually 54, A. Well, I have in table 2 8 4 out of so that should probably read on page 271, 9 what it 10 should 54 concurrent controls. I think that's should read, so that's correct, the record 11 read 5 4. 12 page 271, Q. So that's an error in the 13 that should be 54 and not 53? 14 A. Yes. 15 when Q. But again that indicates that 16 you you reviewed these records in the archive, 17 could only find a record of 54 of the controls, 18 54 were and we don't know if that means that only 19 couldn't done or if all 80 were done and you just 20 find the records - 21 60, it 22 23 end of A. No. All 60 -- you meant all would have been -- oh, wait a minute. 56 actually. Remember it would be 28 at the 24 way 25 the 24-month period, you are going all the back. 836 1 Ilgren 2 don't Q. You're right O.K. 56. So we 3 know what happened to the other two controls, if 4 didn't they were just not done or if the records 5 survive, correct? 6 A. That's correct, yes. 7 same 8 Q. Now, the next section on that page is entitled "Parenchymal Fibrosis and 9 Survival"? 10 A. Yes. 11 saying here Q. And basically what we are 12 that the is that, or what you are concluding is 13 the Canadian asbestos reduced the life span of 14 did not , surviving rats but the Coalinga asbestos 15 correct? 16 A. Yes. 17 your Q. And again this is based upon 18 review of that same number of rats we talked about 19 earlier? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. But you then say, "Cases with 22 pulmonary tumors, severe leukaemic infiltration, 23 were or marked uraemic involvement of the lung 24 excluded from the analysis," right? 25 A. Yes. 837 1 Ilgren 2 Q. Why were they excluded? 3 instances A. Because in those particular 4 have you couldn't with absolute certainty, as I 5 indicated before, this is these were 6 confounding features which have made it difficult 7 there to analyze fibrosis in particular -- well, 8 the were virtually -- very few cases in which 9 pulmonary tumor obscured the level of fibrosis. I 10 think there was one, but as I have indicated, I 11 believe in paper number 2, there were cases, and 12 this is at the end of tables, I think number 2 - 13 read. there were cases that just could not be 14 the If you look -- if you look at 15 it says bottom of table, for example, 2-A and 2-B, 16 be read "cases from lifetime test that could not 17 due to autolysis or cases on lifetime tests that 18 it is could not be read due to leukaemia." So 19 again. part of this issue of age-related lesion 20 the page, Q. Now, going to the bottom of 21 were you say, "A small percentage of slides 22 missing, 2 percent (5/208)." 23 there? What are we talking about 24 there A. Well, there were just five - 25 but when were autopsy reports for all the animals, 838 1 Ilgren 2 I went -- and on each autopsy report, there was an 3 when I animal number and a histology number, but 4 went to go to the actual cardboard boxes where the 5 find the histology slides were kept, I couldn't 6 five slides for that particular animal, so in 7 cases that was so. 8 which is on Q. Now, let's go to table 8, 9 the next page, page 272. 10 A. Yes. 11 shows a Q. And this is a table which 12 number of things, but it lists the different types 13 of asbestos. 14 A. Yes. 15 of Q. And it shows various scores 16 fibrosis, and then it also shows tumor response, 17 correct? 18 A. Yes. 19 Coalinga Q. Now, ifyou look at the 20 looked 21 number 6, which were the slides that you at, right - 22 23 rats that A. Yes. Q. -- these were thesurviving 24 later? died, and you looked at their slides 25 A. Yes. 839 1 Ilgren 2 Q. And if you go to tumor response, you 3 from? say 2 of 90. Where does that number come 4 A. That would come from paper 2. 5 Q. I don't want to jump ahead of 6 response ourself, but in paper 2, it says tumor 7 of 51? for the same surviving Coalinga rats is 2 8 I j ust A. I think what I did there was 9 in the 10 was took 90 as the original number of animals entire so-called Coalinga group before any 11 correct taken out, which may not be the absolutely 12 be 2 of way to present that. It should probably 13 80. 14 should be Q. So 2 of 90 is incorrect, it 15 2 of 80? 16 wants to A. I believe so. Unless one 17 risk as consider the absolute number of animals at 18 also be 56, which might also be -- which might 19 because appropriate. Does that make sense to you, 20 28 animals run lifetime test? 21 2, but Q. We are jumping ahead to page 22 finding just to do it at this point, you report 23 lifetime two tumors in the Coalinga-exposed 24 animals, right? 25 A. Yes. 840 1 2 -- two 3 or 56 4 80 or 5 6 7 Ilgren Q. And in terms of figures out out of how many, it could be either 90, 80 or is 90 just an error, it could be either 56? A. It could be 80, 56. MR. WILL: Or 90 if you count before 8 you took the first ones out. 9 THE WITNESS: Yes. 10 about this A. There is one 11 3.3 table. I am going to jump ahead, but the 12 that average concentration for Coalinga COF25, 13 should probably have been 8.8. 14 the Q. Because are we talking about 15 overall concentration? 16 overall A. Yes, I believe that's the 17 it is concentration and that would indicate that 18 probably at least several hundred fibers per cc in 19 20 your 21 that order. Q. So is this another error in table when you say 3.3? 22 average A. Well, if one is talking about 23 masses. concentrations all being total dust 24 talking Q. I don't know what you are 25 about. Concentration," Your table reads "Average 841 1 Ilgren 2 that is and it reports 3.3, and you are now saying 3 wrong -- 4 the A. Well, all I am saying is that 5 other data, to my recollection, were expressed as 6 total mass doses, and the 3.3 is the respirable 7 you? concentration. Does that make sense to 8 or Q. Well, I don't know if it does 9 doesn't -- 10 A. Well, O.K. it is not. 11 report in Q. You are saying the 3.3 you 12 is wrong? 13 wrong, A. I don't say it is necessarily 14 others, but to make it perhaps comparable to the 15 high it should probably be 8.8, which is a very 16 levels dose consistent with some of the higher 17 that's reported in the other treatment groups, 18 all. 19 very high Q. Well, when you say it is a 20 dose, again if we go back, the average 21 concentration as actually reported in the 22 Pinkerton paper was 7.9, it wasn't 8.8. 23 A. Sorry, 7.9. 24 a little Q. The other two Canadians were 25 over 10 and a little under 11, right? 842 1 Ilgren 2 3 example, where A. Q. That's correct. So up at the top, for 4 you get you say "Short 2" and "Long 2," where do 5 that 10? are going Should that be the 11? If we 6 to change these numbers? 7 from Davis A. No. "Short 2" "Long 2" is 8 paper and Jones reference 24. That's their 1988 9 long where they exposed the rats to short and 10 fiber preparations. 11 is that What I am trying to say here 12 the COF25 administered at 7.9, as you pointed out, 13 the correct figure would generate a fiber 14 which equivalent of well over 100 fibers per cc, 15 is listed. column of You see that in the third 16 table 8? Do you? 17 correct? Q. Of greater than 5 microns, 18 dose . 19 state A . Yes, which is a very high Q . But, Dr. Ilgren, didn't you 20 said it earlier in this same paper and in fact you 21 asbestos right in the abstract that the Coalinga 22 than 5 was, to use your words , virtually all less 23 microns in length and now here you are saying we 24 you are have in this table -- in this table now 25 saying we have 100 fibers per cc over 5 microns in 843 1 Ilgren 2 length? 3 water. A. We are talking about air and 4 That's what we are getting involved? 5 about Q. Well, no. We are not talking 6 air and water. We are talking about this 7 was air 8 Pinkerton data which you told us before data? 9 A. Right. 10 Q. concentration by 11 mass? That was the 7.9 12 13 question? A. Right. MR., GERSON: What is your 14 out to Q. And you are saying that works 15 microns ? over 100 fibers per cc greater than 5 16 which he A. As a fiber concentration 17 never calculated. 18 somebody else Q. Well, apparently you or 19 has, because you have it listed here in the third 20 column. 21 more A. Correct. Chatfield and I, 22 specifically Chatfield, has calculated that it is 23 with the over 100, which is thoroughly consistent 24 fiber 25 calculation that you've made which was a equivalent of 131 greater than 5. 844 1 Ilgren 2 5 Q. It is 100 fibers greater than 3 microns of Coalinga asbestos, right? 4 A. Right. 5 Q. Now, I am looking at the 6 from the asbestos-exposed rats, which is the third 7 a paper bottom on your table which you get out of 8 reference number 52, right? 9 A. Right. 10 chrysotile , Q. And on that particular 11 you report that there is 111 fibers, I guess, per 12 is that cubic centimeter greater than 5 microns, 13 right? 14 A. That's correct. 15 tumors ? Q. And that produced 18 and 40 16 A. That's correct. 17 published Q. And that paper that Davis 18 that - - that's not your data? 19 A. That's Davis et al., 1986. 20 greater Q. Now, if 111 fibers per cc 21 short than 5 microns can produce and that's 22 chrysotile again? 23 A. Say that again. 24 this Davis Q. That is short chrysotil in 25 paper? 845 1 2 Ilgren A. No, that's very long. You can see 90 3 percent over 10 in the second column That's the 4 5 10 6 wet disperse chrysotil preparation. Q. So 90 percent of that is over microns in length? 7 A. Yes. 8 percent Q. Whereas in the Coalinga, 23 9 is over 10, right? 10 A. Well, you can see that superscript 5 11 Q. I do see that. 12 A. Within the air that was the 13 measurement that was found. 14 Q. And you claim that they were 15 process. artificially made longer by a spinning 16 Where do you get that from? 17 should be a A. I don't think that's -- 18 spinning process. word is a I think the correct 19 that clustering. That was an editorial edition 20 John who -- we had a discussion about spinning. 21 word. It is really a clustering, that particular 22 the Q. So it says spinning, and if 23 but it reader like me reads it, I read spinning, 24 shouldn't be that, it should be clustering? 25 "produced by A. In fact it should be 846 1 Ilgren 2 clustering. 3 person who MR. WILL: Who was the 4 put in that word? 5 mistake. THE WITNESS: It is not a 6 I The chief editor of the journal and 7 put in discussed this, and he wanted to 8 spinning, and I said it should be 9 be clustering, and he said it should 10 spinning. 11 anywhere there Q. Is there any evidence 12 that this is spinning fiber? 13 sense of A. It is not spinning in the 14 spinning a yard of textile, it is clustering, and 15 I differed with John about that. 16 difference in MR. GERSON: Is that a 17 mean the semantics? By spinning, did he 18 same thing that you meant by clustering? 19 20 asbestos Q. THE WITNESS: Yes. Of course as we know in the 21 carries toxicology field, textile-grade long fiber 22 certain connotations, doesn't it? 23 A. Yes . 24 something Q. And the word "spinning" is 25 synonymous with a textile process? 847 1 Ilgren 2 A. Yes. 3 conclude Q. So the reader could fairly 4 long that this is some sort of textile- grade 5 fiber, when in fact it is nothing but Coalinga? 6 MR. WILL: I object to the 7 hypothetical. 8 9 "spinning,. " I Q. A. Isn't that a fair -I don't like the word 10 think it should be clustering. 11 are in Q. Let's now move down. Now we 12 the discussion on page 272 , below table 8 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And you talk about in discussion 15 and then other studies with Coalinga chrysotile, 16 al. is you say, "The investigation by Muhle, et 17 Coalinga the only other inhalation study of 18 chrysotile and it too failed to find fibrosis. 19 That's what you say, right? 20 A. Yes. 21 51 to Q. Then you cite your reference 22 the Muhle study, but in checking it, I note that 23 it is really 52? 24 25 there, A. Yes. Q. So that's a little error 848 1 Ilgren 2 correct? 3 A. Yes. 4 analysis Q. What you are saying is your 5 least of the surviving Coalinga-exposed rats, at 6 you those you were able to grade for fibrosis, 7 you find didn't find any, and now you are saying 8 correct? support for that in Dr. Muhle's study, 9 A. Yes. 10 study, 11 but it Q. I am looking at the Muhle which is your reference 52 -- you say 51, 12 anything is 52 -- and I don't see where he reports 13 in his about fibrosis. Do you know where that is 14 paper? 15 paper? A. Do you want to give me the 16 changes Table 7, "Histopathological 17 fibers in the lungs of rats exposed to various 18 septal (inhalation study column heading No. 3 19 thickening) interstitial fibrosis interstitial 20 21 you are inflammation." Q. So is that the fibrosis that 22 talking about? 23 A. Well, that's what I am making 24 reference to. 25 Q. And that's in table 7? 849 1 2 3 Ilgren A. Yes . Q. Of Muhle's paper? 4 A. Yes. 5 Calidria Q. And where is the Coalinga or 6 table? chrysotile asbestos reported on that It 7 just says chrysotile. Coalinga ? Is that the 8 9 is that A. Yes. Q. Now, what that table reports 10 as the septal thickening, which is described 11 interstitial fibrosis interstitial inflammation, 12 and 24 is 42 percent in the Coalinga-exposed rat: 13 percent in the controls, right? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. So it is almost doubled? 16 17 nose? A. There is two controls. Q. Well, one control is by the 18 so-called A. There is actually a sham, 19 sham control at 11 percent and an untreated 20 control 24 percent, and I think the more 21 plus the appropriate comparison is the 11 percent 22 control 24 percent, and then there is also another 23 missing from that which would be a nonfibrous dust 24 bottom. control. There is two controls at the 25 is what Q. Two different controls. One 850 1 Ilgren 2 is called the sham control where they actually put 3 him the nose tube on the rat but didn't make 4 breathe any dust? 5 A. That's right. 6 without Q. And one is the control 7 treatment , where they just let the rats run around 8 in cages? 9 A. That's right. 10 kinds of Q. So there is two different 11 controls? 12 A. Yes. 13 table -- Q. And they are called in this 14 we call well, for purposes of our questions, can 15 them sham control and untreated control? 16 A. Right, that's fine. 17 reports Q. So Dr. Muhle in his paper, 18 that the Coalinga -- Dr. Muhle in his published 19 exposed paper reports that the Coalinga chrysotile 20 rats at 42 percent fibrosis? 21 A. Septal thickening. 22 you Q. Well, septal thickening, but 23 called that fibrosis in your paper, right? 24 A. No, I don't believe so. 25 to find Q. Well, you said it too failed 851 1 Ilgren 2 fibrosis? 3 A. I said in this investigation, 4 fibrosis was assessed as septal thickening, but 5 the Muhle didn't mark it or didn't distinguish 6 scar thickening, whether it was due to proper 7 as I tissue or whether it was due to cells, and 8 paper, think I also indicated in this or another 9 that we tried to get the slides to discriminate 10 between those, and they were no longer available. 11 But go on. 12 he Q. Whatever it was and whatever 13 called it, he called it septal thickening? 14 A. Right. 15 Q. You saw that as a result 16 lifetime consistent with results you found in the 17 rats? 18 A. But if you look at page 272, 19 percent paragraph 2, I have said that the level 42 20 of 36 21 22 am just is not different than a combined control percent. Q. Yes, you did say that, and I 23 wrote. trying to establish, Dr. Ingren, what you 24 results in You wrote that Dr. Muhle's 25 his rat inhalation study is consistent with these 852 1 2 rats, 3 4 5 write 6 right? 7 8 9 10 Ilgren conclusions you derive from the lifetime correct? A. Q. Yes. O.K. And you then say, you that Dr. Muhle failed to find fibrosis, That's what you say? A. Yes. Q. And in Dr. Muhle's study, the fibrosis which he reported was this septal 11 thickening, right? 12 A. Yes. 13 the form MR. WILL: Well, object to 14 term 15 of the question. He is using the "septal thickening" as a proxy for 16 he's -- 17 I am fibrosis, but that doesn't mean MR. BROWNSON: Well, I guess 18 writes. just reading what Dr. Ingren 19 it MR. WILL: He didn't quote 20 accurately. 21 fibrosis Q. Fibrosis -- Muhle identified 22 as septal thickening, right? 23 24 25 ago, in A. Quote/unquote. Q. Right? And as we just said a minute 853 1 Ilgren 2 Coalinga Muhle's rats, out of 50 rats exposed to 3 chrysotile, 21 or 42 percent had septal thickening 4 or this type of fibrosis, right? 5 type of A. Well, I wouldn't call it a 6 it fibrosis. They had septal thickening, and 7 absent doesn't differ from the combined controls, 8 another needed control. 9 though, Q. Yes. Before we get to that, 10 time. I am trying to take this a piece at a I am 11 just trying to use your language. 12 that You are the one, Dr. Ilgren, 13 fibrosis says that Muhle's study did not find 14 that's your exact quote, right? 15 A. Yes. 16 was Q. And what Muhle was reporting 17 that's septal thickening, which as you say is - 18 page 272 the thing that you call fibrosis here on 19 right? 20 form. MR. WILL: I object to the 21 the next No, that's not what he says. Read 22 sentence, Bob. It explains it. 23 start MR. BROWNSON: Let me please 24 over. 25 finds no Q. You say that Muhle's study 854 1 Ilgren 2 correct ? fibrosis caused by Coalinga asbestos, 3 fibrosis. A. It too failed to find 4 Q. Pretty clear? 5 A. But it is clear. 6 found was Q. And the thing that Muhle 7 septal thickening, right? 8 A. Right. 9 that Q. That's the so-called fibrosis 10 you are talking about here, right? 11 "Fibrosis A. That's what I am saying. 12 was assessed as 'septalthickening.'" 13 Q. By Muhle? 14 A. By Muhle. 15 Q. Now, of Muhle's 50 Coalinga 16 42 chrysotile-exposed rats, 21 of those, or 17 correct? percent had the septal thickening, 18 A. Correct. 19 same as Q. And you say, well, that's the 20 the control rats because it is pretty close to the 21 amount found in the control rats, right? 22 A. Right. 23 Q. And, ergo, the Coalinga doesn't cause 24 fair increased septal thickening, is that a 25 conclusion? 855 1 2 3 Muhle's A. Q. Ilgren Right. O.K. Now, if we look at 4 of control rats, he's got two different types 5 the controls. He's got what we called earlier 6 sham controls and he's got the without treatment 7 controls, correct? 8 A. Correct. 9 55 of 10 this -- Q. And the sham controls he had those rats , correct? I am just looking at 11 12 give him A. O.K., sure. MR. WILL: Why don't you 13 14 at it. the paper. MR. BROWNSON: Take a look 15 We only got one there. 16 A. Right, he's got 55. 17 thickenings did Q. And how many septal 18 those 55 sham control rats get, 6, right? 19 A. 6. 20 percent Q. 11 percent. Now, you say 12 21 percent, in your paper, but you really mean 11 22 right? 23 24 say in 25 A. I mean 11 percent. Q. And it is not 6 of 50, as you your paper, it is 6 of 55? 856 1 Ilgren 2 A. 6 of 55. 3 rats, 50 Q. Now, then he had another 50 4 control rats that were the untreated control rats, 5 correct? 6 A. Correct. 7 control Q. And of those 50 untreated rats, 12 had septal thickening, which is CO 9 percent, O.K.? 10 A. O.K. 11 paper, Q. And what you then say in your 12 of Dr. Ilgren, is if you put the two groups 13 what you control rats together, the 50 which -- 14 other 50 call 50 but what is really 55, and the 15 which is 105 -- 16 A. Yes. 17 percentages, Q. -- and you add those two 18 24, you what you call 12 but what is really 11 and 19 get 36, but it should really be 35, right? 20 A. Right. 21 Q. And you are saying that 35 is 22 essentially the same -- 35 percent is essentially 23 the same as 42 percent? 24 A. Right. 25 question, Q. Now, let me ask you this 857 1 Ilgren 2 Dr. Ilgren. 3 groups of We have got two different 4 septal control rats One of them has 11 percent 5 thickening and one has 24 percent septal 6 control thickening. You add those and say the 7 correct? rats have 36 percent septal thickening, 8 9 control rats A. Right. Q. But there is no group of 10 here that has 36 percent septal thickening , is 11 there? 12 A. You just add them together. 13 two bank Q. Well, Dr. Ilgren, if I have 14 accounts and one earns me 24 percent and one earns 15 I made me 12 percent , I didn't make 36 percent. 16 18 percent, didn't I? 17 A. I imagine so. 18 equivalent. MR. WILL: They are 19 reason A. But the manipulation -- the 20 why it is added we -- to my mind, the manipulation 21 induce in itself would seem to have been able to 22 them some kind of change. That's why I added 23 here is together, and I think what we are seeing 24 that there is some kind of age-related increase in 25 I think septal thickening which is consistent, and 858 1 Ilgren 2 data is what we are not seeing at all in the Muhle 3 the nonspecific nonfibrous dust control which is 4 that. totally absent. He I mean he has included 5 which has included that in other studies, things 6 the attempt to account for the specificity of 7 observation, and that's not here at all. 8 talking Q. But that's not what you are 9 about. 10 because Let's look at Muhle's data 11 Muhle's 12 13 14 right? 15 16 17 18 19 the 20 21 a 22 hour 23 24 up on 25 that's what you are talking about, O.K. controls are 105 total rats? A. Right. Q. 55 shams and 55 untreated, A. Right. Q. Those 105 rats had 18 septal thickenings, right ? A. Right. MR. GERSON: Can we go off record for a second? MR. WILL: Why don't we take break . We have been going for an already. MR. GOLDMAN: Let's finish this calculation here. 859 1 Ilgren 2 18 of Q. Muhle has 105 control rats, 3 them got septal thickening, right? 4 A. Right. 5 rats, even Q. 18 percent of his control 6 a little less, got septal thickening, isn't that 7 8 that's true? A. Based on that calculation, 9 correct. 10 Q. 11 A. 12 exposed to Q. That's just straight math? That's straight math. And 42 percent of his rats 13 Coalinga chrysotile asbestos got septal 14 thickening, correct? 15 A. That's correct. 16 of the Q. So when you said 36 percent 17 a control rats had septal thickening, that's 18 mistake, isn 't it? 19 A. It may be a mistake. 20 comparing is 18 Q. So what we are really 21 percent control rats with septal thickening versus 22 septal 23 24 data 25 be 42 percent Calidria chrysotile rats with thickening ? A. That on the basis of those adding them together that would appear to 860 1 Ilgren 2 correct. 3 Q. And that's over a 100 percent 4 it? increase, it is over twice as much, isn't 5 terms of A. For whatever that means in 6 over 100 the composition of the thickening, it is 7 percent. 8 Q. Well, but you -- 9 going MR. GERSON: Bob, if you are 10 we need to question further on this report, 11 to make a copy of it. 12 that. I MR. BROWNSON: We can do 13 will stop. We can do that. 14 (Recess taken) 15 BY MR. BROWNSON: 16 page 271 of Q. Now, I am backtracking to 17 part 1 of your paper. 18 that. You MR. WILL: You can't do 19 can only go forward. 20 and down Q. I am moving forward to 271 21 column to "Age-Related Lesions" in the right-hand 22 earlier. toward the bottom. We talked about this 23 There were the 22 percent of slides that could not 24 be read. Do you see that? 25 was 11 of And you state there that it 861 1 Ilgren 2 50, but I note over on table 2 it indicates it is 3 11 of 51. 4 the Do you know which of those is 5 correct number? 6 A. I believe it is 51. 7 page 271 Q. So the notation 11 of 50 on 8 is an error that should be 11 of 51? 9 A. I believe so. 10 to part Q. Now, I would like to move on 11 2 of the paper, which is entitled "Coalinga 12 Fibre - a Short Amphibole-Free Chrysotile," part 2 13 "Evidence for lack of tumourigenic activity," 14 right? 15 16 of the A. Yes. Q. And again this is your review 17 the slides and other surviving materials from 18 archive of the old Pinkerton rat experiments, 19 right? 20 21 in part A. Yes . Q. The same data really we had 22 the same 1 -- part 1 , 2 and 3, we are working off 23 this all data, so I don't have to keep repeating 24 the time. 25 A. That 's right. 862 1 2 do this Ilgren Q. And again if I can -- I will 3 at my peril , but if I can summarize your 4 conclusion here in a nutshell, what you are saying 5 is that the two types of Canadian chrysotile, the 6 UICC/B and the Jeffrey caused tumourigenic 7 responses in the rats, rats, but in these lifetime 8 fair to the Coalinga chrysotile did not. Is that 9 say? 10 correct. A. Above controls, that' s 11 looked Q. So again what you did is you 12 13 of 14 kind of at the lifetime control rats , the lifetime Coalinga-exposed rats and the two groups lifetime Canadian-exposed rats and just 15 terms? compared them, if I can put it in layman's 16 17 in 18 at the A. Q. Correct. And your conclusion was again layman's terms, is that the control rats 19 rats at end of their life and the Coalinga control 20 the end of their life had about the same number of 21 tumors, and the two Canadian chrysotile-exposed 22 had more groups of rats at the end of their life 23 tumors , is that right? 24 25 conclusi ons, A. That's correct. Q. Now, the basis of these 863 1 2 the 3 and the Ilgren as I understand your paper, was again from archive material, you looked at the slides 4 autopsy reports and such documentation and 5 determined which of those rats died of tumors or 6 right? which had tumors and which didn't, is that 7 correct. 8 analysis or A. Yes, that's basically Q. Now, again, was this an 9 by you an examination by you or by Dr. Wagner or 10 11 before. and Dr. Wagner or by others? A. It is the same discussion as 12 examined I examined all of them and then I also 13 for the same subset as the ones we looked at 14 fibrosis with Dr. Wagner. 15 untreated There had also been for the 16 controls. controls, concurrent controls, life span 17 controls The concurrent controls and the life span 18 had been and also for the UICC/B, those materials 19 reviewed before, indicated as and in table 1 it is 20 NIEHS. such as control 1984 NIEHS or UICC 1984 21 They are the same animals I looked at. 22 attention to Q. Can we -- let's turn our 23 table it table 1 of part 2 of your paper. In this 24 is a table that you put together, understand as I 25 it? 864 1 Ilgren 2 A. Yes. 3 if you Q. This summarizes the tumors, 4 will, on these different groups of rats? 5 A. Yes. 6 the Q. Now, let's start then with 7 actually controls because, as you just noted, you 8 right? list five different kinds of controls, 9 A. Yes. 10 1984 Q. And if the 1, 2, 3, 4 one - 11 NIEHS, that looks like a big group of controls of 12 the 5,400 and some -- 5, 740? 13 A. Yes. 14 5,000? Q. Or whatever it was. Over 15 A. Yes. 16 those Q. The control 1998, is that 17 were the that group of lifetime rats that died but 18 slides? control group that you then looked at the 19 That's what they are? 20 animals as the A. Yes, they are the same 21 the - third one down Control 1984 NIEHS, that's 22 they are the identical animals. they found Except 23 three tumors and I found two. 24 Q. something new to Now, I guess this is 25 me. Let me ask you this. 865 1 Ilgren 2 1984 the I wasn't aware that back in 3 rats, NIEHS actually analyzed those lifetime 4 control rats, did they do that? 5 et al. A. That's published in McConnell 6 1984 in the Euro report symposium. It is 7 referenced in this particular paper. 8 looks like Q. Maybe I missed it, but it 9 rats, what you are saying is that the lifetime 10 both the controls and the UICC/B-exposed rats, 11 were examined back in '84? 12 A. Yes, they were. 13 again? Q. And then you looked at them 14 A. Yes, that's right. 15 looked Q. And in addition to that, you 16 rats, at the Jeffrey Canadian chrysotile-exposed 17 these you didn't look at the rats, you looked at 18 slides - 19 A. Right. 20 the Q. -- in 1998, and youlooked at 21 1998? Coalinga chrysotile-exposed rat slides in 22 A. That's correct. 23 terms of Q. And then you summarized in 24 had which rats among all these various groups 25 1? tumors, you summarized that all in table 866 1 Ilgren 2 A. That ' s correct. 3 you derive Q. It is this data from which 4 the your conclusion that the tumors amongst 5 were 6 the control rats and the Calidria-exposed rats about the same and then the tumors among 7 higher? Canadian chrysotile-exposed rats were 8 A. That's correct. 9 -- first Q. Now, let's look at the table 10 the of all, if we go through the columns on 11 whether left-hand side, is the type of exposure, 12 they they are control or which type of asbestos 13 were exposed to, right? 14 A. Yes. 15 male or Q. Then next we have the sex, 16 female? 17 A. Yes. 18 marked "N1," Q. Then the next column is 19 right? 20 A. Yes. 21 column Q. Now, I was looking at the 22 your marked "N1" back in table 2 of part 1 of 23 paper. 24 instead A. They should probably read 28 25 of 30. 867 1 Ilgren 2 getting to. Q. Right. That's what I am 3 that's There is different numbers in the two, and 4 what I am wondering about. 5 6 the A. Yes, yes. Q. So table 1 then in part 2 of 7 paper for this top group, the 1998 controls should 8 be, you say, 28 instead of 30 for males? 9 exemplified A. Yes, the problem was as 10 at UICC in this table 1, for example, if you look 11 29 1998 in the data table itself there were 12 animals found in the archives so again there is a 13 discrepancy between what one would calculate to be 14 finds in on lifetime test as opposed to what one 15 some of the data tables. N-1 should But generally 16 be 28 in the table 1. 17 in table Q. Actually what you called N-1 18 2 of part 1 really looks to me to correspond more 19 that to what you call N-2 in table 1 part 2 if 20 makes any sense although there is still a couple 21 different numbers, but is that right? 22 again? N-1 A. Would you just say that 23 in - 24 in Q. Let me put it a different way 25 N-1 as I table 2 of part 1 the column you marked 868 1 Ilgren 2 that you understood it were the archival rat data 3 were able to find? 4 5 been A. That's correct. Q. As opposed to what might have 6 you know back when? 7 A. That's right. 8 in part Q. And then if you go to table 1 9 2 it looks to me like what your column marked "N2" 10 find is - - that same data that you were able to 11 that 12 and "N1" looks like it is more of the data should have been, is that a fair -- 13 A. That's a fair statement. 14 Q. Is that a fair statement? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. O.K. 17 A. But you see with respect to 18 determining the presence or absence of tumors as 19 opposed to determining the presence or absence of 20 fibrosis, there is a it is easier to tell whether 21 and the tumor there; in other words, the leukemia 22 that autolysis and the other -- the confounders 23 might make fibrosis difficult are not playing the 24 same sort of effect when you are diagnosing 25 tumors. Is that -- 869 1 Ilgren 2 Q. Well, you anticipated my next 3 the question because if we go down and look at 4 Coalinga data, male rats you examine 27 slides of 5 didn't and 24 of females and it looks like you 6 have that reading problem you had with the 7 fibrosis, that's what you are just saying? 8 9 paper A. Right, that's exactly right. Q. So in terms of your part 2 10 where you are determining whether the different 11 types of asbestos were tumourigenic in these rats, 12 you were able to actually read more slides , at 13 trying least for the Coalinga rats, than you were 14 to determine if it was fibrogenic? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Now, let's look at the 17 that are Coalinga- exposed rat slides that you read 18 said reported in table 1 of part 2, and as we 19 before, there are 27 males and 24 females, 20 correct? 21 A. Yes. 22 slides that Q. Now, again were these the 23 the you looked under the microscope at down at 24 archive? 25 A. Yes. 870 1 2 of which Ilgren Q. And this determination then 3 of them had tumors and which didn't was made upon 4 what data or what basis? slides or Looking at the 5 autopsy reports or what? 6 at the A. The criteria? Well, looking 7 et al slides, applying the criteria of McConnell 8 versus 9 which would be hyperplasia versus adenoma carcinoma in conjunction with the gross 10 autopsy description that was principle in the 11 the reports. That would be the basis . Just 12 traditional way of diagnosing a tumor. 13 Q. Now, with respect then to the 14 tumors Calidria-exposed rat slides, you found two 15 you were among the 51 Calidria-exposed rat slides 16 17 18 tumor able to examine, correct? A. Yes. Q. That works out to 7. 4 percent 19 rate, right? 20 A. Yes. 21 in table Q. That's what you report here 22 1. Now, if we go up and look -- 23 2 out of MR. WILL: Well, he reports 24 not -- 25 27 is 7.4 percent, 2 out of 51 is MR. BROWNSON: You' re right. 871 1 Ilgren 2 Q. Among the males -- 3 A. Among the males. 4 5 zero ? 6 Q. -- it is 7.4 percent. Among the females, it is A. It is zero. 7 8 look at the Q. I must have been adding it. Now, then if we go up 9 it is -- control 1998, we see that among the males 10 There is A. Well, there is an error. 11 the 12 is a again under "Total" there is "2(7.4)" but exact tumors, again I don't know why there 13 adenomas zero there, but there should be either 2 14 or 2 carcinomas or 1 adenoma or 1 carcinoma 15 There was no mesothelioma. 16 want to Q. Before we talk about that, I 17 "Total." focus on the right-hand column, which is 18 A. Sure. 19 of the 20 1998 Q. What we see among the slides control lifetime rats that you examined in 21 was that there were two tumors among the males for 22 7.4 percent and none among the females for zero 23 percent? 24 A. 25 that when Q. Yes . Am I right in saying then 872 1 Ilgren 2 about you conclude the Coalinga-exposed rats at 3 the same rate of tumors as the control rats, you 4 are the were comparing those two numbers and they 5 same? 6 A. Yes. 7 zero 8 Q. 7.4 percent for the males and for the females, right? 9 A. Yes. 10 what you Q. Now, I wanted to move on to 11 just mentioned, but when I go back and look at the 12 control other columns that you got there for the 13 are. rats, I don't see where those two tumors 14 tumors? That's my question. Where were those two 15 have to go A. There is an error here. I 16 back and check the data. 17 look at 18 tell you 19 20 three 21 MR. WILL: I think if you the 1984 NIEHS control, does that where - MR. BROWNSON: That one has tumors. 22 23 but with MR. WILL: Right. A. Well, that has three tumors, 24 reference to that specific data set, have to go I 25 notebook. and check my -- I have to check my 873 1 Ilgren 2 now are 3 can't Q. What I would like to focus on the slides that you looked at, O.K. So we 4 control tell from looking at table 1 which of the 5 there slides had tumors other than you just say 6 were two male tumors someplace? 7 were both A. We can't tell whether they 8 adenomas or whether they were both carcinomas or 9 10 were whether there was one of each. We can't. Q. Do we know in fact that there 11 two, however? 12 13 those A. Yes. Q. So you are saying that one of 14 error? zeroes are. Maybe more than one is an 15 16 7.4 17 A. Yes. Q. There were two tumors, and at percent that's not the error? 18 19 part 2 of A. That's not the error. Q. So the open question then, 20 reported the paper doesn't tell us and your data 21 at table 1 doesn't tell us is where were these two 22 control tumors? 23 right. A. Benign versus malignant, 24 fairly Q. Would you admit that that's a 25 tumors important question since we need those two 874 1 Ilgren 2 to make the controls be the same as the Coalingas ? 3 A. In what sense? 4 were no Q. Well, if, for example, there 5 control tumors, then there would be an increase of 6 tumors among the Coalinga, wouldn't there? 7 I don't A. Well, there are two tumors. 8 know whether they were both benign or both 9 malignant. 10 creates some Q. But at least your paper 11 doubt as to where those tumors might be? 12 ones A. You mean in the class are the 13 benign or malignant? 14 Q. Well, what they are at all. 15 going t o be A. Like I said, it is either 16 of adenoma or carcinoma, and for the purpose 17 it is assessing so-called risk in this instance, 18 the same, you count them the same. 19 that your Q. But you will agree with me 20 tumors? paper provides us no specifics on those 21 those A. On the malignant potential of 22 two tumors. 23 this Q. Right. Then if we look at 24 the -- column marked BAH, is that what you called 25 A. Hyperplasia. 875 1 2 a 3 did you Ilgren Q. You had another term you used minute ago, pretumors or something, what 4 5 adenoma call it? A. No, I said hyperplasia versus 6 versus carcinoma. 7 that Q. So BAH, why did you include 8 column in your reporting here? 9 included in A. Because that's what was 10 other pages in a standard way. 11 considered Q. And that's because that's 12 but it a significant finding. It's not a tumor, 13 asbestos is a hyperplasia which can be induced by 14 exposure, for example, correct? 15 like to A. As I say, some people would 16 what the see that particular lesion to understand 17 level is, right. 18 many Q. And in fact some scientists, 19 scientists consider that a significant finding in 20 asbestos-exposed animals because it is a marker of 21 if there exposure and a marker of potential tumors 22 fair to is more exposure along the way, is that 23 say? 24 form of MR. WILL: I object to the 25 to ask the question. I think it is fair 876 1 Ilgren 2 fair to him if he thinks it is. It is not 3 may or may ask him what a lot of scientists 4 being not think without naming them and 5 specific. 6 A. I don't think it is a tumor, 7 necessarily a tumourigenic lesion, and I think the 8 the lesions of concern are the adenomas and 9 that. carcinomas. Others may disagree with 10 looking at Q. Well, for example, I am 11 that he this Muhle paper we looked at a moment ago 12 talking published in 1987, and remember, we were 13 but he about the septal thickening a moment ago, 14 example, also has -- in that same table, he for 15 reports on the BAH, does he not? 16 A. Yes. 17 references Q. And I note that in your 18 you cite this paper by Oberdorster. 19 A. What about Oberdorster? 20 of myself Q. Actually I am jumping ahead 21 for a in citing Oberdorster. Forget that paper 22 minute. moment. I am going to cite that in a 23 has Here is what -- Mr. Goldman 24 paper in reminded me if we turn to page 24 of your 25 with the second column called "Other Studies 877 1 2 or Ilgren Coalinga Chrysotile," about halfway down 3 you have two-thirds of the way down in the column, 4 the sentence, "However, Muhle et al. have 5 countered" -- do you see that? 6 A. Yes. 7 Muhle, Q. And I will read it, "However, 8 ' the et al. have countered this by stating that 9 high rate of bronchiolar alveolar hyperplasia of 10 74 percent, one case of squamous metaplasia and 11 of the one adenocarcinoma may indicate a tendency 12 crocidolite fibres used to induce neoplasms.'" 13 Do you see that? 14 15 to A. Yes. Q. Again at my peril, I will try 16 was a summarize this, but in Muhle's paper there 17 asbestos finding where not only did the Coalinga 18 not produce tumors but neither did crocidolite 19 that he dosed these rats with? 20 A. Right. 21 about, Q. And Muhle in that paper talks 22 that -- and you talk about in your paper the fact 23 the the fact that there was BAH present among 24 crocidolite-exposed rats, tendency of indicates a 25 the crocidolite fibers to induce neoplasms; right? 878 1 2 3 Ilgren A. Right. MR. WILL: Just to correct 4 something, you stated earlier, Mr. 5 one Brownson, Muhle's paper does report 6 it tumor with a crocidolite. You said 7 didn't produce any. 8 MR. BROWNSON: O.K. I stand 9 corrected. 10 is Q. But in any event, what Muhle 11 him and saying there and from what you quote from 12 that say in your own paper is that the BAH in 13 instance indicates a tendency of the crocidolite 14 fibers to produce neoplasm? 15 suggested. A. At 74 percent it is 16 table 1, Q. Now, again if we turn to 17 the part 2 of your paper, I note that none of 18 examined lifetime control rats whose slides you 19 but of had BAH, right, neither male nor female, 20 females the Coalinga-exposed rats 3 males and 3 21 for a total of 6 had BAH, correct? 22 A. Right. 23 that there Q. So would you agree with me 24 is more BAH or bronchiolar adenomatous hyperplasia 25 are at among the Coalinga-exposed rats than there 879 1 Ilgren 2 the control rats at lifetime? 3 4 there A. Yes. Q. So at least as to that thing, 5 versus is a measurable increase, zero? there is 6 6 A. Right. 7 here of Q. Now, again I am in table 1 8 earlier, page 2 of your paper, and as you noted 9 rats 10 call 11 IEHS there are a number of different control described. And I am not looking at what I the big control group which is this 1984 12 group of some 5,000 rats. 13 A. Right. 14 these are Q. I see that out of -- and 15 asbestos, rats who were never exposed to any 16 right? right? We talked about this earlier, 17 That's the big control group? 18 A. Right. 19 control Q. I see that among that large 20 60 21 22 23 to be 24 25 group, out of 2,320 male rats, there were tumors? A. Q. Right. And you have calculated that 2.7 percent, right? A. Right. 880 1 2 females, out Ilgren Q. I also note that of the 3 right? of 2,320 rats, there were 28 tumors, 4 5 1.3, 6 1.2? A. Right. Q. You calculated that to be although when I calculated, I only got 7 A. Right. 8 1.2 or 3 Q. Be that as it may, there is 9 among the females, O.K.? 10 A. O.K. 11 all of Q. Total tumor rate then among 12 those control rats in this big group over 5,000 13 and controls again would be the average of 2.7 14 it is 1.3, and I didn't do that exact math but 15 about 2 percent? 16 17 the 18 was 7.4 19 and I 20 3.7 21 A. Right. Q. And the tumor rate then among Coalinga-exposed rats at lifetime, which of the males and zero among the females, didn't do the exact math but it is about percent, correct? 22 A. Right. 23 that Q. And you would agree with me 24 that's about a 50 percent increase or difference 25 over a percentage in the big group of controls? 881 1 2 percent 3 increase. 4 5 on the 6 take the 7 8 you have Ilgren MR. WILL: No, it is a 25 decrease, not a 50 percent MR. BROWNSON: 2 to 3-1/2. MR. WILL: It just depends way you do the math, whether you percentage -A. I mean I think the analysis 9 just done -- you're analyzing the number of tumors 10 the 11 out 12 that appear in the life span controls and historical controls, and you are working percentages? 13 14 the very Q. Right. A. And the former analysis of 15 same concurrent control group done and kept under 16 time, the same identical conditions at the same 17 "Control which is the third entry down on table 1, 18 report 1984 NIEHS" found up to 10 percent -- they 19 the 10 percent tumors in the males and none in 20 females. 21 appropriate And I think the more 22 control is to compare the concurrent control from 23 the same study as reviewed by McConnell and others 24 with what we have here both for the control group 25 span and and the Coalinga group, I mean the life 882 1 2 Ilgren the historical groups are done at different times, 3 different periods under different conditions and 4 have -- different lapse, and we know that they can 5 they can have an effect. 6 appropriate So I would say the more 7 another control comparison, if you are looking for 8 with control is to compare the third group down 9 for the findings that we made in this study 10 so -- 11 controls and to compare against Coalinga does that make sense to you? 12 comparison Q. Yes. The most important 13 boldface of course are the ones you highlighted in 14 are the type when we are looking at the Coalinga 15 Coalinga identical lifetime rats, control rats, 16 rats, UICC and Jeffrey rats? 17 again the A. Well, the identical -- and 18 identical group is also the third entry down, this 19 20 control one here I am indicating. MR. WILL: The 1984 NIEHS 21 group. 22 A. That's the same group. 23 same 400. 24 rats . 25 animals, the Q. Well, that came out of the MR. WILL: No, it's the same A. No, it is the exact same 883 1 Ilgren 2 exact same slides. confusing I am sorry it is so 3 the They are the exact same animals. They are 4 exact same slides. being for The only difference 5 the control 1998, looked at Chris Wagner and I 6 them. 7 saw Q. You saw two tumors and they 8 three? 9 1984 , A. Exactly. And for the control 10 Dr. McConnell and I think one other pathologist 11 but they looked at them and they saw three tumors, 12 exact are the exact same slides, same animals, 13 same everything. 14 What you Q. Well, let me ask you this. 15 lifetime are saying then is you take those same 16 control rats and when you looked at the slides in 17 1984, Dr. 1998, you found two tumors, and back in 18 McConnell and others found three, right? 19 A. Right. 20 the Q. And when you then looked at 21 Coalinga slides in 1998, tumors but you found two 22 because we don't know what they would have found 23 they never looked at those slides? 24 A. Right. 25 closest Q. O.K. So interms of the 884 1 Ilgren 2 comparison being the same rats, slides of the same 3 it would those dead rats and the same reader, you, 4 be the 1998 controls versus the 1998 Coalingas ? 5 that? As Do you agree with me on 6 7.4 7 luck would have it, both turn out to be percent? 8 is that A. Without the variable readers, 9 what you are saying? 10 Q. Yes. 11 A. Sure . 12 telling me Q. What I understand you are 13 is the next closest comparison would be these 1984 14 somebody controls because it is the same rats but 15 else is looking at the slides, right? 16 17 next A. Correct. Q. Then after that, would the 18 that are closest comparison be the big rat group 19 people different rats, bigger group, different 20 looking at them? 21 A. Correct. 22 that to be Q. And you must havethought 23 it here of some significance because you include 24 in your table? 25 A. Well, I mean I think it is of 885 1 Ilgren 2 that was importance that this is just a data set 3 not 4 people. 5 the generated by the NIEHS at the same time, necessarily in the same place, by the same I just thought it would be of interest to 6 readership to see that there. 7 little Q. But again you had told us a 8 in bit earlier today that it was in fact done 9 because connection with this particular study 10 remember, thing that I asked if that was a general 11 no, it had nothing to do with this, and you said 12 study was this big control group tied into this 13 and that study was in England? 14 controls A. But again one is historical 15 and the other is concurrent controls. 16 back to Q. Now, I notice again if we go 17 you the BAH column that the Coalinga rats when 18 read their slides had the highest level BAH of any 19 controls of the different asbestos types or the 20 for that matter, is that correct? 21 absolute A. Well, there is more as 22 higher numbers, but whether there is an actual 23 percentage remains to be seen, understand if you 24 what I mean. 25 mean. There Q. I do understand what you 886 1 Ilgren 2 were six among the Coalingas and five among the 3 UICC, but the percentage may be a little 4 different? 5 A. Right. 6 for that Q. But in any event, at least 7 or the problem of the longs, the Coalinga is not 8 the Canadian chrysotiles are not worse than 9 Coalinga, are they? 10 A. No, it doesn't appear to be. 11 out, we Q. How would we be able to find 12 able to or you or anybody, how would anyone be 13 are? find out where these two control tumors 14 the A. I have them in my notebook in 15 office. check those. I can -- it is not -- I will 16 I have those data. 17 in a Q. You have those data somewhere 18 notebook? 19 A. Yes. 20 themselves, are Q. How about the slides 21 they sitting down in that archive? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And if a layman like me stumbled into 24 25 find that archive and looked for them, are they organized in such a fashion that you could 887 1 Ilgren 2 try to them or would it take a skilled person to 3 figure out which were which? 4 you know, A. I think you have to apply, 5 retrieve for permission to review, but they will 6 the slides for you. 7 Q. But assuming you applied for 8 will permission and they said yes, Brownson, we 9 let you look at them, would they be available to 10 look at anyway, as far as you know anyway? 11 12 haven't A. Yes, sure. Q. As far as you know, they 13 time? thrown them away or anything since that 14 15 the only A. As far as my knowledge. Q. As far as you know, are you 16 person that ever looked at those archives or did 17 other 18 19 you get the impression or find out that people had been examining these? A. They said they were lost. 20 the Q. But then they found them in 21 archives, right? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And were you able to form any 24 the impression one way or another if you were 25 these or first person to, you know, come across 888 1 2 know? 3 whoever Ilgren had other people examine them, do you MR. WILL: You mean since 4 looked at them originally? 5 6 McConnell and A. MR. BROWNSON: Sure . I think originally Dr. 7 Dr. Boorman had reviewed those. 8 study? Q. Back at the time of the 9 10 very clear. 11 A. Back in 1981. Q. I guess my question isn't Were you able to get any impression 12 from the people down in the archives whether since 13 the time those things -- you know the study was 14 archive, over and the slides were put away in an 15 first did you get any impression if you were the 16 at the person then that had come down and looked 17 archive or did you find out or seem to think that 18 years? other people have done that over the 19 subsequent to A. My impression is that 20 no one McConnell and Boorman looking at them that 21 had ever looked, but I can't be sure. 22 Q. You don't know for sure? 23 A. I don't know for sure. 24 archive, Q. Now, when you went to this 25 material did they allow you to look at this 889 1 Ilgren 2 of them, voluntarily or did you have to pry it out 3 was it - 4 A. Pry it out of them? 5 Q. Well, when you asked to look at it, 6 it," or did they say, "Sure, go ahead and look at 7 did they give you a hard time? what I am This is 8 wondering. 9 one A. I don't understand. I mean, 10 person's hard time is another -- 11 Freedom of Q. Did you have to make a 12 stuff or Information Act request to get at this 13 did they voluntarily let you look at it? 14 free to A. Once they found it, I was 15 look at it. 16 request Q. But when you made your first 17 they say, to look at it before they found it, did 18 Ilgren," "O.K., we will go find this for you, Dr. 19 make or did you have to take forceful steps to 20 them look for it? 21 Dr. A. Well, in 1992, I had asked 22 McConnell where they were, and he said the 23 archives. 24 check and And then I said, "Would you 25 see if they are in the archives?" 890 1 2 they Ilgren And he said he checked and 3 4 various weren't in the archives. And so after discussions with 5 they -- other people who questioned the fact that 6 they may I mean -- they questioned this idea that 7 number not be in the archives. I called quite a 8 they of people at the NTP and requested that 9 search again, several-year and I suppose over a 10 period, materials, but they ultimately found these 11 once they were found, it was just a question of 12 or two writing them a letter and asking in a line 13 these would I have the permission to look at 14 materials. 15 question? Does that answer your 16 look at Q. Did they say yes, come on and 17 them? 18 A. Sure. 19 of people Q. So you had to call a number 20 and kind of get after them to get them to look for 21 them and find them, but once they found them, you 22 had no trouble going and looking at them? 23 A. No, not at all. 24 Q. Now, I am continuing in -- 25 the MR. WILL: They were back in 891 1 2 Raiders of 3 4 to be 5 6 7 back. Ilgren warehouse next to the box for the Lost Ark. MR. BROWNSON: We don't have on the record here. (Discussion off the record) MR. BROWNSON: Let's go 8 BY MR. BROWNSON: 9 paper, I am Q. Again in part 2 of your 10 2 0 and now looking at tables 2-A and 2-B at pages 11 here is 21. And it looks like what you have done 12 you have set out some big tables for the 13 UICC/B-treated lifetime rats and the 14 through Jeffrey-treated lifetime rats where you go 15 every single rat and tell what kind of tumor they 16 have, et cetera, right? 17 A. Right. 18 Q. For both males and females? 19 A. Right. 20 think this Q. Now, my question is and I 21 isn't is of great interest to all of this, why 22 there a table like this for the Coalinga- treated 23 rats? 24 fibrosis, A. There was no significant 25 response. and there was no significant tumor 892 1 2 among the Q. 3 males? 4 significant A. Ilgren Well, there were two tumors But I consider that to be 5 increase over controls, include it in so I didn't 6 a detailed table. have seen I mean all you would 7 2's and for fibrosis scores is a bunch of 1's and 8 see the odd 3, and for primary tumor you would 9 none straight down the page except for two 10 entries, extrapulmonary, and then there was some 11 remember there was some pancreatic -- I can't 12 exactly what the extrapulmonary tumors, but there 13 were a few extra. 14 it would Q. Would you agree with me that 15 be helpful for the reader of this paper since the 16 purpose of the paper is to compare the 17 tumourigenesis of the three types of asbestos if 18 you were to set out all of the rats and all of the 19 tumors for the three types of asbestos? 20 the A. No, because as I just said, 21 editor wouldn't have let it in. 22 because Q. Is that why it is not in here 23 the editor wouldn't let you put it in? 24 exact A. I can't remember what the 25 "For discussion was. He may have said to me, 893 1 Ilgren 2 findings, space reasons unless there are positive 3 don't put it in," but I mean there just weren't a 4 include significant number of positive findings to 5 them in the paper. 6 told us, Q. Well, O.K. It would have 7 for example, what those two particular tumors were 8 that were found in those male rats, we would have 9 had that data? 10 say, I mean A. Well, that you could just 11 1. that should have been in table -- in table 12 All it Q. But it is not in table 1. 13 us all just says is two tumors. It doesn't give 14 2-B? this detail that you give us in 2-A and 15 they should A. But that's an error. But 16 was no have been included in table 1 but there 17 reason why if you could simply convey that 18 generate, information in table 1 why you had to 19 all of say, a table 2-C or a table 3 to indicate 20 that. 21 column in Q. O.K. Well, you also have a 22 Canadian both table 2-A and 2-B for the two 23 have no asbestos for extrapulmonary tumors, and we 24 data one way or another on the Coalinga-exposed 25 the rats or extrapulmonary tumors anywhere in 894 1 Ilgren 2 paper, do we? 3 in A. There might be a description 4 don't the -- in another part of the page, but I 5 think so. 6 there? Q. But there isn't, though, is 7 say so, I A. I don't recall, but if you 8 will take your word for it. 9 2-A and Q. So if I can summarize what 10 with 2-B show us with respect to the rats dosed 11 go the two types of Canadian chrysotile, you 12 what through every single rat and you tell us 13 primary their fibrosis score is. If they have a 14 tumor, secondary what that is, if they have a 15 tumor, what that is, and if they have an 16 extrapulmonary tumor, what that is, right? 17 A. Right. 18 Q. We don't get that sort of data for 19 the Coalinga-exposed rats? 20 necessary since A. I didn't think it was 21 the findings were very clearcut. 22 question. With Q. Let me ask you this 23 respect, for example, to the male Coalinga-exposed 24 your rats, there is only 27 of them, right, in 25 table 1? 895 1 Ilgren 2 A. Right. 3 count Q. And of those 27 rats, if you 4 what the BAH and the tumors which we don't know 5 20 they are, that's 5, 5 out of 27 is almost 6 percent. significant? Are you saying that's not 7 am not A. Yes. Because I do not -- I 8 counting the hyperplasias as tumors. don't see I 9 anybody else who would count that. 10 reporting Q. Yet in table 2-A you are 11 the hyperplasias? 12 tumors. A. In brackets but not as 13 provided to Q. But it is data that is 14 to the reader and it is data that you saw fit 15 Canadian provide to the reader with respect to the 16 asbestos, right? 17 for the A. But it is also provided here 18 need to Coalinga. You are saying basically that I 19 out all put an extra table in for Coalinga to lay 20 the extrapulmonary tumors, to lay out everything 21 22 you else. Q. I am not saying anything what 23 the have to do. I am saying you did it with 24 with the Canadian asbestos but you didn't do it 25 Coalinga. 896 1 Ilgren 2 as much A. I have not attributed nearly 3 clearcut significance to the BAH's as to the 4 increase in the primary tumors in the 5 Canadian-treated animals. 6 Ingren, if Q. But you have to admit, Dr. 7 this, the careful reader here wanted to compare 8 the tumors and the other problems in the 9 might Coalinga-exposed animals, as small as they 10 in the be, with the tumors and the other problems 11 reader Canadian-exposed animals, that careful 12 for the can't do it because you just give the data 13 Canadian. You don't give the data for the 14 Coalinga? 15 A. The careful reader - 16 you MR. WILL: The answer is no, 17 didn't give the other data. 18 answer. A. But I don't think that's the 19 I think the answer is that the careful reader has 20 to apply been asked if they wanted additional data 21 this to the authors, it is not necessarily for 22 it is in item but -- and I can't remember whether 23 places part 1 or part 2, but there are certain 24 where we say data not included, authors will the 25 wants provide the data, and I think if someone 897 1 Ilgren 2 tell that information, I am perfectly happy to 3 them which animals -- 4 Q. You have such a table? 5 A. With -- in my raw files? 6 Q. Yes . 7 A. Probably, sure. 8 tumor did Q. What lethal nonpulmonary 9 10 tell female rat number 11 in table 2-A get? A. Lethal -- oh, one couldn't 11 because N/A means not available. said in the They 12 largely autopsy description that the animal was 13 cannibalized. That was the only one. 14 Q. Where does it say N/A? 15 A. Are you looking at table 2-A? 16 Q. 2-A females? 17 number 2. 18 A. You are looking at female Q. No, number 11. 19 what's the A. Oh, 11, I'm sorry. And 20 question? 21 Q. What was that thing? 22 or in A. In terms of a primary tumor 23 terms of what was what thing? 24 mark in Q. Well, you have got a question 25 am parenthesis and two exclamation points. I 898 1 Ilgren 2 3 or it wondering what that is. It is either some horrible tumor that is too bad to mention 4 5 j ust is -A. Oh, I see what that was. I 6 the wanted to indicate that when you looked at 7 actual autopsy report, Mr. Brownson, there was an 8 page for each animal. autopsy report There was an 9 details , which gave the findings and all the and 10 it said in the gross description that there was a 11 at the lung tumor seen grossly, but when I looked 12 actual slides, that's that I couldn't see it, so 13 14 2-B? 15 strange notation there. Q. Going back to table 2-A and A. Yes. 16 two 17 these Q. The heading of each of those tables where we where you lay out all 18 19 20 tumors tumors for the Canadian asbestos, it says "Nonpulmonary neoplasia." Are there also pulmonary 21 reported someplace? 22 to -- A. Hang on. I'm sorry, go back 23 pages 20 Q. In both tables 2-A and 2-B, 24 and 21 -- 25 there is A. Oh, what I am trying to say 899 1 Ilgren 2 j ust that the table 1 is supposed to talk about 3 pulmonary neoplasia. 4 indicate Table 2 is supposed to also 5 it should actually be after the Coalinga. 6 "Lifetime Test:" Do you see that on a 7 and And the heading, it should be "Pulmonary 8 Nonpulmonary Neoplasia." 9 Q. So that's just an error? 10 A. Yes. 11 beat a dead Q. But again I don't want to 12 the horse on this. We have no data here as to 13 in table nonpulmonary neoplasias anyplace, whether 14 the 1 or in table 2-A or 2-B with respect to 15 16 17 2-B. I Coalinga-exposed rats. A. Not in this paper, no. Q. Now, I am looking at table 18 the male note that, for example, with respect to 19 probably rats, it says there are 8.3 percent 20 that? lethal nonpulmonary tumors, do you see 21 22 23 24 tumors ? 25 lethal A. I beg your pardon? Q. Table 2-B? A. I see that. 8.3 percent. Q. Those are the nonpulmonary A. 8.3 percent, 2/24 probably 900 1 Ilgren 2 nonpulmonary tumors. question on What is your 3 that ? 4 it says Q. I am just saying that's what 5 there. 6 A. That's what it says there. 7 tables put Q. First of all, were these 8 out of together by you or were these again taken 9 some - 10 A. 11 there? Why Q. No, I put these together. Why did you write that 12 tumors ? did you write probably lethal nonpulmonary 13 14 to 15 that I mean what significance does that have? A. I have to go back to the text refresh my memory on this point. I think 16 of discussion has to do with competing causes 17 death in trying to understand a bit more fully why 18 appeared the lung tumor incidence of the females 19 you to be much more lower than the males. Are 20 with me on that? 21 Q. O.K. 22 look in A. And the -- well, for example, 23 table 2-B, if you look under female No. 13, female 24 25, you No. 14, female No. 18 or the female No. 25 which had these huge, often metastatic tumors 901 1 Ilgren 2 to 3 females clearly were lethal, and I was just trying understand what, you know -- whether the 4 were developing these tumors earlier a that that 5 was causing a reduction in survival as opposed to 6 the asbestos. 7 you? Does that make any sense to 8 again we Q. Well, I guess it does, but 9 respect don't have that sort of information with 10 anywhere to the Coalinga-exposed rats, in do we, 11 these papers? 12 13 which is A. No. Q. Now, I am going to results, 14 at page 22. 15 A. All right. 16 about -- Q. And again we are talking 17 primary you're talking about the incidence of 18 rats pulmonary tumors in the Coalinga-exposed 19 rats. whose slides you examined. You You had 51 20 you examined for tumors for -- slides of rats 21 examined for tumors, right? 22 A. Right. 23 you 24 25 Q. And you had two tumors and calculated that out to be 3.9 percent? A. Right. 902 1 Ilgren No. 2 1 at Q. Now, earlier back in paper 3 table 8 remember, we noted in that right-hand 4 5 did you column, you had noted two tumors out of 90 Coalinga-exposed rats, and my question is 6 for examine the slides of 51 rats or 90 rats 7 tumors? 8 9 1, that A. No, 51 rats. Q. So again, going back to part 10 of 51 is an error. That should be changed to 2 11 and 2 of 90? 12 are A. No, the data presented -- you 13 talking about paper 1, table 8. 14 15 90, 16 the Q. Right, table 8. A. It should be 80 as opposed to just to standardize that with the rest of 17 8, studies that were under comparison. Table 18 "Summary of Selected Inhalation Bioassays," is 19 that what you are talking about? 20 Q. Yes. 21 respective to A. The studies which are 22 the short, long, chrysotile, et cetera, are 23 studies of John Davis, and in those studies the 24 which denominator or 40 is the number of animals 25 original he actually started out with in his 903 1 Ilgren 2 the group, and so I would say that the number, 3 in this comparable starting number, so to speak, 4 instance, I guess would be 80. 5 80? In Q. But the question is was it 6 other words, slides of you didn't examine 80, the 7 You only 80 dead rats to see if they had tumors. 8 if they examined the slides of 51 dead rats to see 9 had tumors? 10 comparable A. I don't know what the 11 number would be for the denominators in the Davis 12 study? examined less In other words, he probably 13 than 40 as well. Do you understand? 14 are Q. I guess I understand what you 15 saying, examined or but you don't know what he 16 didn't examine? 17 the A. I would have to go back to 18 original papers. 19 actually Q. But we do know what you 20 dead examined and you examined the slides of 51 21 rats for tumors? 22 23 on page A. Right. Q. Now, under your results again 24 25 second. 22. MR. WILL: Excuse me one 904 1 2 witness . )i 3 4 results, page 5 22? 6 Q. A. Ilgren (Counsel confers with MR. WILL: Go ahead. I am now looking at the O.K. 7 second Q. And you say there in the 8 paragraph, tumor-bearing "The 2 Coalinga-treated 9 were animals had fibrosis scores of 3.0 which 10 uraemic probably overestimates due to concomitant 11 pneumonitis and leukaemic infiltration." 12 Do you see that? 13 A. Yes. 14 something, Q. Again, unless I am missing 15 can see 16 17 18 showing I don't see the data in a paper where we that. Is that presented somewhere? A. Q. Just in my notes. If there had been a table 2-C 19 the Coalinga -exposed rats, we would have seen that 20 sort of data on the table? 21 A. No . 22 fibrosis Q. Well, the table has the 23 scores? 24 be put A. Well, the fibrosis score can 25 in text, but you wouldn't have seen the 905 1 Ilgren 2 information about uraemic pneumonitis, for 3 example. 4 what the Q. But we could have determined 5 fibrosis scores were of the two tumor-bearing 6 animals and we could look at all the other 7 couldn't fibrosis scores and we could see that, 8 we? 9 A. Well 10 about the Q. And we could see something 11 leukemic infiltration since that is a nonpulmonary 12 tumor of the sort of thing you described in tables 13 2-A and B, couldn't we? 14 you know, A. If I felt it was important, 15 was a I would have put it in. I didn't feel it 16 major confounder. I mean I just - 17 was a Q. Well, then why do you say it 18 confounder? overestimate? You say it was an 19 sense that A. Well, a confounder in the 20 it didn't prevent one from scoring. wasn't the It 21 kind of extensive pneumonitis or infiltration that 22 the sort precluded scoring. I mean this was not 23 of thing that one would put down as prevent slides 24 that was from being read. This was just something 25 reader also there, and I just wanted to tell the 906 1 2 3 4 5 3. Do 6 grade? Ilgren that the additional cellularity due to the pneumonia and due to the leukemia probably increased the so-called fibrosis score. You see the fibrosis score of you know the scoring system for the Wagner 7 Do you know the scoring system? 8 Q. I have read it? 9 but the A. Well, there is eight grades, 10 4, 5, first three are actually cellular grades. 11 6, so-called 7 and 8 are so-called fibrosis, so a 12 fibrosis score of 3 really just denotes increased 13 cells cellularity and the pneumonitis increases 14 and the leukemia increases cells. doesn't -- It 15 it doesn't causes fibrosis per se. just adds It 16 additional cells so I am -- 17 Q. O.K. 18 have an A. O.K. So I am saying that you 19 -- on additional level of cellularity on top of 20 leukemia top of this lung which was clearly due to 21 and the uraemic edema and the pneumonitis. 22 the Q. It is also true that some of 23 had some Canadian chrysotile asbestos-exposed rats 24 several of this additional cellularity caused by 25 their things as well which could have raised 907 1 2 fibrosis cells? Ilgren 3 cross A. We are perhaps talking at 4 you knew purposes here. That's why I asked you if 5 the grading system. 6 Q. Let me ask that question. 7 those rats Isn't it true that some of 8 here in also had these -- things that you describe 9 these two Coalinga rats? 10 to make A. Yes. The point I am trying 11 you are here, if you look at tables 2-A and 2-B, 12 the dealing with so-called scores -- let's put 13 word "fibrosis" aside for one moment -so-called 14 single scores of 5 and above, and almost every 15 instance where a score can be assigned, and so it 16 cells is is not a question of whether additional 17 is a going to increase the score as such. It 18 is that totally different situation. Does that -- 19 clear? 20 Q. I am not sure it is clear. 21 doesn't MR. WILL: Additional cells 22 right? affect 4, 5 and 6 scores, is that 23 moderate to A. You go from minimal to 24 to moderately severe cellularity with respect 25 Grades 1, 2 and 3. 908 1 Ilgren 2 called For Grade 4, you get what is 3 cuboidalization of the alveolae. 4 increased For Grade 5, you get an 5 collagen definition. 6 linking of the 7 lovules. 8 massive For Grade 6, you get a And for 7 and 8, you get a 9 laying down of fibrosis. 10 don't entail But Grades 4, 5, 6 and 7 11 an in the definition of those scoring grades 12 increase in cells. O.K. 13 14 conceptually Q. O.K. A. I know it is difficult 15 to visualize this, but it is the clearest 16 explanation I can give. 17 data you Q. Let's continue then with the 18 and the then are presenting, is the tumor rates 19 from the number of tumors in the surviving rats 20 right, experiments whose slides you looked at, the 21 lifetime surviving rats? 22 A. Right. 23 in your 24 Q. Because then you go on to say results, and I am now reading over on the 25 right-hand column on page 22, "The incidence of 909 1 Ilgren 2 tumors in the interim sacrifice animals could not 3 records be determined precisely since some of the 4 were missing." 5 animal lungs A. Well, the 3 and 12-month 6 lost. were not available for review. They were 7 We couldn't find them. 8 controls and The 24-month animals for 9 already for the UICC/B, if I have this right, had 10 been reported. Then there was some other 11 thesis statement, I believe, in Kent Pinkerton's 12 animals. about tumors in the 24-month interim 13 animals? Q. How about the 3 and 12-month 14 you A. There has been no -- well, if 15 look at McConnell et al. basically says 1984, he 16 low that tumor incidence or neoplasia is very 17 there is before 24 months. But there is no -- 18 question no -- there is no -- the answer to your 19 is there is no data on the 3 and 12-month. 20 there is Q. So you're speculating that 21 probably no more than one tumor in the 22 part of Coalinga-exposed rats who were killed as 23 the original experiment, but you don't know that 24 for sure? 25 here. A. I am just reading my sentence 910 1 Ilgren 2 here in I just want to see what I am referring to 3 reference 19 and 20. 4 object to MR. WILL: I just want to 5 use of the the form of the question, to the 6 the word "speculate." His report says 7 think it available data suggests, and I 8 is strongly suggests and I think that 9 different than speculating. 10 recall - A. I need to go back. I can't 11 there if you look on page 30 under "References," 12 thesis is 19 and 20, I can tell you that from the 13 percent Kent Pinkerton said that no more than 0.1 14 tumor of the Coalinga-treated animals had any 15 and he tissue in the lung among the ones he saw, 16 wouldn't have been able to say whether they were 17 primary or secondary, plus he included under the 18 definition of tumor he had metaplasia, and 19 neoplasia, do you understand? 20 talking So it is unclear what he was 21 about. 22 would have As far as reference 20, I 23 to go back and see. don't recall You know, I just 24 what I am referring to when I say the available 25 tumor. data strongly suggests an absence of I 911 1 Ilgren 2 just don't recall. 3 out in the Q. But you are willing to put 4 text of your paper that it was a strong 5 exactly suggestion, even though you don't know 6 what it is? 7 here A. I just can't remember sitting 8 today. I can't recall. 9 recall when Q. And I guess you couldn't 10 said you you wrote the paper either because you 11 think it couldn't tell precisely, but you didn't 12 was more than one? 13 sitting A. Yeah, but I can't establish 14 the NTP here today, or I can't recall what was in 15 that documents that made me, you know, come to 16 conclusion, so I just have to check that. 17 Q. Now, you make an interesting 18 "Other statement on page 24 under the heading 19 Studies with Coalinga Chrysotile." 20 Muhle You are talking about this 21 chose paper again. You say, "These workers 22 they Coalinga as their 'positive' control since 23 of were unable to obtain sufficient amounts 24 Canadian chrysotile for a bioassay"? 25 A. That's correct. 912 1 2 say 3 1988? Ilgren Q. Is that what -- and then you that's from a personal communication in 4 A. That's correct. 5 said, Q. Is that what Muhle actually 6 that he couldn't get Canadian chrysotile? 7 time get A. He said he couldn't at that 8 do the the several-kilogram amount he needed to 9 inhalation. He could do enough to do the 10 and injection, which is why he contacted NIOSH 11 asked them if he could get the other material. 12 25 . Q. Now, I am now turning to page 13 paper. Let's go back to page 23 of part 2 of the 14 At the top of 23 is table 4. 15 page? MR. GERSON: On top of what 16 MR. BROWNSON: 23. 17 reason. O.K. A. I just lost 23 for some 18 I have got it. 19 title in Q. And without quoting that 20 is detail, basically what you are reporting 21 rats, changes in cell volume among the different 22 asbestos, exposed to the different types of 23 correct? 24 A. And number, yes. 25 Q. And this is a table you got out of 913 1 2 3 here . 4 5 text on Ilgren Pinkerton's data, this is not your data? A. Right, and the other sources But that's correct. Q. And if you look down in the 6 page 23 where you are talking about that increases 7 the in cell volume, and I am looking now in 8 right-hand column, you are making these different 9 talking comparisons with fferent types and you are 10 asbestos about, among other things, the Jeffrey 11 increasing cell volume, right? 12 you are in A. Just remind me again 13 the text, is it over on page -- 14 Q. 23, in the second column. 15 A. O.K., right. I got it. 16 don't see Q. When I look at table 4, I 17 that? anything above Jeffrey asbestos. Where is 18 the A. That's another when they did 19 editorial -- well, there has been an editorial 20 and they deletion of the Jeffrey data column here, 21 so the 22 are going to publish that as an erratum, Jeffrey had not been included in here. 23 the MR. WILL: That was sent to 24 25 and they paper. A. That was sent to the paper, 914 1 Ilgren 2 put the table vertical instead of horizontal and 3 deleted it. 4 you read Q. Didn't you catch that when 5 the galleys? 6 that way. A. Well, it didn't come back 7 Where is page 22? You see page 22? 8 you, the Q. So when it came back up to 9 Jeffrey was in there but when they published it, 10 it got cut off? 11 A. Right. You see howthey have 12 arranged the headeron table 3? 13 Q. Yes. 14 arranged it A. And you see how they have 15 in table 4? 16 17 the left Q. Yes . A. Well, they put the header to 18 of the column. 19 through Q. So in any event , that slipped 20 and nobody caught it and it got cut off and now we 21 careful don't have it available and again if the 22 doesn't reader looks for the Jeffrey column, he 23 find it? 24 A. Right. 25 the same Q. Let me go back on table 1 in 915 1 Ilgren 2 some paper, part 2 and you know we talked at 3 you length about the controls where we had -- 4 for the report two tumors, but then when we look 5 different categories "00." something else Is that 6 that slipped through the galley - 7 that form. MR. GERSON: I object to 8 just an Q. Well, I am wondering is that 9 error that slipped through or I mean did you - 10 I am as A. I don't know. I don't know. 11 surprised to see it as you are. 12 which Q. Now, with respect to table 4, 13 cell is at page 23, which is the increase in 14 through volume table, again, I don't want to go 15 -- the this in detail because your paragraph is 16 text is almost a full page long, but essentially 17 you say that this table supports your conclusion 18 getting that the Coalinga-exposed rats weren't 19 tumors, right? 20 point out A. Do I say that -- can you 21 where I say that? 22 the Q. Otherwise why would it be in 23 paper? tumors, what's It says that they don't get 24 support the point of having it here if it doesn't 25 your -- 916 1 2 idea Ilgren A. It is consistent with the 3 data. 4 5 6 7 I read that -- or it is consistent with the tumor I think that 's what you are trying to say? Q. Right. A. O.K. Q. Now, my question is this: As 8 over the this again, these scores are kind of all 9 controls map but, for example, at 12 months, the 10 minus 8, have 57 for the report of volume plus or 11 but the Coalinga has 118 plus or minus 5 0. That 12 13 or 3? 14 15 cell 16 17 cell looks to me like a pretty big increase? A. Which one are you on, table 4 Q. I am on table 4. A. O.K., and which are you on, volume? Q. I am looking at the 24-month 18 19 20 know, number. A. Cell number, O.K. Well, like I said before, you 21 sample the statistical comparison based on the 22 size, the standard deviation and the confidence 23 interval suggests that there is no significant 2 4 difference between these two. 25 is no Q. It also suggests that there 917 1 Ilgren 2 difference between the controls and the chrysotile 3 the and the UICC/B? That's even lower than 4 Coalinga? 5 was A. But the confidence interval 6 very -- it is plus or minus 7. 7 what the Q. And of course we don't know 8 one off. Jeffrey is because the editors cut that 9 higher If we looked then at cell volume, which is 10 will up in the table again, for example, and I 11 control look at some of these at 24 months, the 12 males are 28 plus or minus 9, and the 13 15 . Coalinga-exposed rats are 62 plus or minus 14 Wouldn't you call that a significant increase? 15 the A. No, I mean the significant - 16 the numbers were put into, as it indicates in 17 legend of the table, the various statistical tests 18 tests, which are Dr. Duncan's multiple comparison 19 for example, and when the data were put into that 20 statistical package, difference found there was no 21 between the control and Coalinga. 22 Q. Who put the data into that 23 statistical package? 24 A. Kent Pinkerton. 25 we look Q. But be that as it may, when 918 1 Ilgren 2 every at these columns virtually -- in virtually 3 instance, the Coalinga cell volume and cell number 4 volume 5 it is is largely increased and the UICC/B cell and cell number is largely increased, but 6 about the same as the Coalinga, it is not 7 dramatically different, is it? 8 tired, just A. Sorry, I am getting a bit 9 ask me again. 10 you say Q. Well, as we look at table 4, 11 about 12 larger that this shows that Coalinga controls are the same and UICC/B, to quote the text, as 13 cell yet when you look at both cell volume and 14 like numbers put in table 4, it looks to me 15 Coalinga and UICC/B are increased and in about the 16 17 what I same amount, isn't that correct? A. Well, all I can tell you is 18 said before. differences There are statistical 19 here. There is trends here. The overall 20 the difference between control and Coalinga on 21 basis of the statistical analysis and in 22 consideration of the size and in consideration of 23 there is the confidence interval suggests that 24 and little or no difference between control 25 the Coalinga. It is unfortunate we don't have 919 1 2 to 3 Ilgren Jeffrey data to compare, but with respect control and Coalinga, that's what I would 4 competent Q. So you are saying that if a 5 table 4 statistician looked at data set out in 6 Coalinga that he would conclude that control and 7 greater? are about the same and UICC/B is much 8 degree of A. It would be greater to the 9 significance as indicated in the superscripts 10 using the various tests. 11 Q. Turning to page 25 -- 12 A. Yes. 13 injection Q. -- you talk about various 14 studies which in your mind "have convincingly 15 demonstrated Coalinga's lack of carcinogenicity," 16 correct? 17 A. Yes. 18 criticize Q. Now, you then, however, 19 of injection studies by Maltoni for a numb' 20 to be 21 grounds, correct? You don' t find that persuasive ? 22 A. On a number of grounds. 23 don't agree Q. Right , and of course you 24 that with the results either because he found 25 Coalinga was injection, did cause tumors on 920 1 Ilgren 2 didn't he, published in his studies which were 3 twice, by the way, correct? 4 A. Correct. 5 asking? MR. GERSON: What are you 6 published twice Is it correct that they are 7 8 Minardi or -- A. Maltoni et al. in 1982, and 9 1984. 10 Maltoni Q. You are not saying that Dr. 11 is not a competent experimental animal researcher 12 are you? 13 what is A. I am not saying anything, but 14 15 16 course in the text is indicated by these specific criticisms . Q. And one of your criticism of 17 18 with is you are not sure if this asbestos that Coalinga - - that Maltoni injected his rats 19 was Coalinga or not, right? 20 A. That's right. 21 that, of Q. And putting aside the fact 22 have course it was Coalinga, you state it could 23 come from one of the many serpentine ore bodies in 24 California? 25 when -- I A. We don't agree to the fact 921 1 Ilgren 2 Maltoni, mean I wrote to Maltoni and I called and 3 source I never received a response as to what the 4 5 verbal was . Dr. Langer has given you some 6 but I information which I find very interesting, 7 who did find it interesting also that the very man 8 the studies wouldn't respond to my requests for 9 information. 10 busy. I Q. Maybe it is because he is 11 mean you don't know why he didn't respond? 12 careful MR. WILL: You mean the 13 paper? reader couldn't learn that from his 14 15 this way. 16 about THE WITNESS: No. Q. Well, let me put it to you When you wrote this paper in 17 1998, you wondered if this California chrysotile 18 Coalinga that Maltoni injected his rats with was 19 or not, didn't you? 20 A. Yes. 21 in the Q. And yousaid, and youquoted 22 have text of your paper,part2, that it could 23 come from any of the many serpentine ore bodies in 24 California, right? 25 A. Right. 922 1 Ilgren 2 only one Q. You know, Doctor, there is 3 State of commercial serpentine ore body in the 4 California, and that's Coalinga? 5 A. That's wrong. 6 Q. What are the others? 7 one. A. There is Copperopolis, number 8 There is two or three others for sure. 9 Q. What are they? 10 A. I don't recall. 11 don't know Q. So there are many, but you 12 what they are? 13 others. 14 the 15 state MR. WILL: Well, there are A. There are others, and it is state -- se rpentine happens to be the 16 mineral. 17 still Q. Well, assuming it was, you 18 would have other criticisms, don't you ? 19 A. Yes . 20 criticisms , for Q. You don't level any 21 I can example, at Muhle's injection studies that 22 read here, do you? 23 A. No . 24 criticisms at Q. And you don't level any 25 Pott's injection studies? 923 1 Ilgren 2 you are A. As laid out in the studies 3 referring to in table 5? 4 Q. Right. 5 A. No . 6 Ilgren, Q. You would agree with me, Dr. 7 Coalinga that animal injection studies with 8 chrysotile, some show some show lack of tumors and 9 10 11 here is tumors, right? A. Correct. Q. O.K. And what you have done 12 accept criticize those that show tumors and you 13 those that do not, haven't you? 14 A. Will you say that again. 15 paper is Q. What you have done in this 16 criticize those injection studies that show tumors 17 tumors? but you accept those that do not show 18 studies. Because I see no criticism of those 19 find A. I didn't find any -- I didn' 20 any major problems with these particular injection 21 studies. 22 criticized the Q. Well, for example, you 23 Suzuki studies on a number of grounds? 24 A. Yes. 25 example, as Q. You described that, for 924 1 2 Ilgren New York/Japanese collaborative group? 3 A. That's right. 4 Q. Where do you get that from? 5 and A. Suzuki is based in New York 6 7 they Kohyama is based in Tokyo. Q. But when that study was done, 8 were both in Mt. Sinai in New York, weren ' t they? 9 10 that is A. I don't know. Q. Shouldn't you have checked if 11 something you put in your text? 12 and A. Correspondence with Kohyama 13 Tokyo, I assume he is based in Tokyo. 14 published in Q. Of course that study was 15 '83, wasn' t it? 16 rightly or A. Well, I have just assumed 17 otherwise that he was in Tokyo. 18 is Q. Then you also say that study 19 confounded , among other things, by 20 "supra--maximum-tolerated-dose effects"? 21 A. Correct. 22 cite Q. And for that proposition, you 23 paper I reference 29 which is the Oberdorster 24 referred to earlier, correct? 25 A. Right. 925 1 Ilgren 2 Ilgren, Q. Would you agree with me, Dr. 3 that you can read the Oberdorster paper from front 4 term? to end and you will never see that scary 5 it in 6 accept A. I don't know. I haven't read some time, but if you say so, then I would 7 that. 8 you mean MR. WILL: By "scary term, 9 effects"? "supra-maximum tolerated dose 10 MR. BROWNSON: Right. 11 appendix on Q. Now, I am looking at the 12 simple. page 29, and my first question is very 13 Why is this here? 14 A. Why is this here? 15 figure Q. Right. What is it? I can't 16 out what it is . 17 A. O.K. In 1981, a panel of 18 pathologists was convened in Wales to review the 19 same slides from a part of the collaborative 20 study. 21 I say Do you know what I mean when 22 where, the collaborative study? It is the study 23 UICC/B for example, the MRC dusted animals with 24 them and the NEIHS dusted animals, and they did 25 modified concurrently. And this table is a 926 1 Ilgren 2 from version of a table I got from Chris Wagner 3 archive, his, and I guess, document repository or 4 some I just wanted to indicate that there was 5 difference in opinion when certain pathologists 6 looked at the same slide in some cases. 7 the text Q. But I guess my question is is, 8 so of this paper doesn't talk about what this 9 I was confused because it just kind of sits there 10 11 12 that 13 at the end? A. All right. Q. Is there anything in the text explains anything about this appendix? 14 MR. GERSON: Other than the 15 notations on the appendix. 16 paper and A. I have to go through the 17 check. 18 column 2. It Yeah, it is on page 26, 19 if you 20 Wagner starts at the top of the page. Actually, look at the bottom of column 1, it says," 21 et al. also examined untreated and UICC/B-treated 22 to those animals maintained in a manner identical 23 yields of McConnell et al. and observed tumors 24 similar to ours." 25 discrepancies in Then I have, "Small 927 1 Ilgren 2 those of tumor yields between our own analysis and 3 McConnell et al. and Wagner are potentially 4 This is attributable to interobserver variation. 5 well supported by the findings of 13 independent 6 pathologists from 9 institutions who reviewed 20 7 tumor cases from the comparative study. M 8 Q. Just so we are clear, the comparative 9 1995 study was not this review of the slides in 10 11 12 over in through 1998, that was the -- A. Original 1984, right. Q. And it also included that one 13 England? England, the one here and the one in 14 A. Yes, it did. 15 of the MR. WILL: The next sentence 16 was article says, "Diagnostic variation 17 That's particularly notable (Appendix)." 18 the reference. 19 appendix, we Q. Then if we look at the 20 note that apparently after a meeting between these 21 many eminent pathologists, many diagnoses 22 so once reclassified after the meeting were BAH, 23 again that term appears, correct? 24 direction A. Yes. Particularly in the 25 BAH. of tumors being reclassified from tumor to 928 1 2 Ilgren That seems to have been the major trend. 3 have Q. Dr. Ilgren, you obviously literature as 5 long and apparent from your references. In your 6 you ever extensive review of the literature, have 7 paper seen a drinking parable in your scientific 8 other than this one you threw in here? 9 A. A drinking parable? 10 Q. You talk about the man drinks 11 that's whiskey, and then he is drinking gin, and 12 at page 29 of part 2? 13 happen A. You don't like it? You don't 14 to like that? 15 not, I am Q. Well, whether I like it or 16 drinking just curious because I have never seen a 17 paper. parable in a peerAnd 18 I can ask that as a serious question. 19 Have you ever seen a drinking 20 paper? question in a peer-reviewed scientific 21 seen a A. I don't think I have ever 22 drinking parable in a scientific paper. 23 want to Q. And now I want to turn -- I 2 4 follow up one final thing on part number 2. 25 before Did you proofread the galleys 929 1 Ilgren 2 this was published? 3 A. Yes. 4 part number Q. And is the same true with 5 1? 6 7 attention to A. Yes. Q. I now want to turn my 8 9 break. part 3 -- MR. WILL: Let's take a 10 Fibre-A 11 Part 1" 12 13 14 Fibre-A 15 Part 2" 16 17 18 (Document entitled "Coalinga Short, Amphibole-Free Chrysotile marked Defendant's Exhibit 36 for identification, as of this date.) (Document entitled "Coalinga Short, Amphibole-Free Chrysotile marked Defendant's Exhibit 37 for identification, as of this date.) (Continued on the next page) 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 930 1 2 Fibre-A 3 Part 3" 4 5 6 7 8 Ilgren (Document entitled "Coalinga Short, Amphibole-Free Chrysotile marked Defendant's Exhibit 38 for identification, as of this date.) (Time noted: 5:15 p.m.) 9 Subscribed and sworn to before me 10 this day of , 1998. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 931 1 2 C E RT I F I CAT E 3 4 STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss.: 5 COUNTY OF NEW YORK ) 6 Shorthand 7 and for 8 certify: 9 the 10 the within 11 12 13 not 14 any of 15 I, NANCY R. SULLIVAN, a Reporter and Notary Public within the State of New York, do hereby I reported the proceedings in within-entitled matter, and that transcript is a true record of such proceedings. I further certify that I am related, by blood or marriage, to the parties in this matter and that I am 16 of this 17 18 hereunto 19 20 21 22 SULLIVAN 23 24 25 in no way interested in the outcome matter. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand this day of 1998 . NANCY R 932 1 2 August 13, 1998 3 INDEX 4 WITNESS PAGE 5 Ilgren 6 7 8 Edward 704 EXH I B IT S 9 FOR IDENTIFICATION Page 10 Coalinga 11 12 Coalinga 13 14 Coalinga 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 36 929 37 929 38 930 Document entitled Fibre-A Short, Amphibole-Free Chrysotile Part 1 Document entitled Fibre-A Short, Amphibole-Free Chrysotile Part 2 Document entitled Fibre-A Short, Amphibole-Free Chrysotile Part 3