Document XRxyYZqpyqXRRd0KekzB94VKx

FILE NAME: Talc (TALC) DATE: 1989 July DOC#: TALC001 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Legal - Deposition of Barry Castleman 4r 1 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 3 4 5 VS. ) NO. M-l417 ) 5 ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, ) INC., VERMONT TALC COMPANY, ) 7 et al., _ ) Defendants.) 3 ******************************* 9 VOLUME I 10 OF THE DEPOSITION OF BARRY CASTLEMAN 11 Taken on Behalf of the 12 Defendants 13 on July 5th, 6th and 7th 1989 14 in Baltimore, Maryland 15 ******************************* APPEARANCES; 16 For the Plaintiff; 17 JAMES HAYS, Attorney 127 N.W. 10th 18 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 19 For the Defendant Milwhite C o . : MICHAEL W. HINKLE, Attorney 20 One Leadership Square, 5th Floor Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 21 For the Defendant Eagle-Picher: 22 CURTIS P. CHEYNEY, II, Attorney COURTNEY S. GRAY, Attorney 23 1700 Land Title Building Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 24 25 C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 For the Defendant Owens-Corning: 2 SCOTT RHODES, Attorney 1215 Classen Drive 3 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73103 -and- 4 JAMES H. CROSBY, Attorney 2970 Cottage Hill Road, Suite 210 5 Mobile, Alabama 36606 6 For the Defendant Harwick Chemical: JAMES R. SCRIVNER, Attorney 7 P.O. Box 1373 Ada, Oklahoma 74820 8 For the Defendant A.w. Chesterton: 9 JACQUELINE O'NEIL HAGLUND, Attorney 525 South Main 10 Suite 1400 Park Centre Tulsa, Oklahoma 7 4103 11 For the Defendant Southern Talc: 12 JOHN DUNNERY, Attorney 2421 East Skelly Drive 13 Tulsa, Oklahoma 7 4105 14 For the Defendant CCR: ROBERT H. HOOD, Attorney 15 CARL E. PIERCE, Attorney ROBIN S. LEE, Paralegal 16 172 Meeting Street Charleston, South Carolina 29401 17 For the Defendant Southern Clay: 18 NANCY SIEGEL, Attorney Nine East 4th Street 19 Suite 400 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103 20 For the Defendant Vermont Talc: 21 TOM GOSS, Attorney 25 South Charles Street, Suite 1900 22 Baltimore, Maryland 21201 23 For the Defendant Georgia Talc: MICHAEL D. CARTER, Attorney 24 20th Floor, First National Center Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 25 C.S.R, ASSOCIATES 4 1 For the Defendant C.P. Hall Company: 2 DAN CRAWFORD, Attorney P.O. Box 2619 3 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74101-2619 4 For the Defendant International Talc: DAN WAGNER, Attorney 5 P.O. Box 1560 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74101-1560 6 For the Defendant Pittsburgh-Corning & Owen-Illinois: 7 WM. GREGORY JAMES, Attorney * 900 ONEOK PLAZA 8 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103 9 For the Defendant Anchor Packing: WILLIAM F. MAHONEY, Attorney 10 20 S. Clank Street, Suite 700 Chicago, Illinois 11 -and- WILLIAM D. PERRINE, Attorney 12 2800 Fourth National Bank Building Tulsa, Oklahoma 7 4119 13 For the Defendant McNeil Corporation: 14 JEFFREY J. CASTO, Attorney 75 East Market Street 15 Akron, Ohio 44308 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 CERTIFICATE 2 APPEARANCES ............................. 3 STIPULATION ............................. 4 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. CROSBY . . . . 5 CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. HINKLE . . . . 6 CONFERENCE WITH THE MAGISTRATE ......... 7 FURTHER CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. HINKLE 8 CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. WAGNER . . . . 9 VOLUME II ............................... 10 CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. GOSS ......... 11 CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. HOOD ......... 12 FURTHER DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. CROSBY 13 CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. PERRINE . . . . 14 CROSS EXAMINATION BY MS. HAGLUND . . . . 15 FURTHER CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. HOOD . 16 JURAT ................................... 17 CERTIFICATE ............................. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 C.S.R. ASSOCIATES . 1-3 . 5 .6 . 125 .176 . 200 . 336 . 339 . 340 . 351 .438 .536 .537 . 539 . 565 . 566 4 1 STIPULATIONS 2 It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the 3 parties hereto, through their respective attorneys, that the 4 deposition of BARRY I. CASTLEMAN may be taken on behalf of the 5 Defendants, on this, the 5th, 6th 7th day of July, 1989, in the 6 City of Baltimore, Maryland, by Marjorie Parker Miller, 7 Certified Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public within and for 8 the State of Oklahoma; taken by notice and subpoena. 9 It is further stipulated and agreed by and between the 10 parties hereto, through their respective attorneys, that all 11 objections to questions propounded and answers thereto made, 12 except as to the form of the question or the responsiveness of 13 the witness' answer, may be made at the time of the trial when 14 said deposition is offered in evidence, with the same force and 15 effect as if said objections were made at the time of the 16 taking of this deposition. 17 It is further stipulated and agreed by and between the 18 parties hereto, through their respective attorneys, that the 19 time of filing is waived. 20 21 22 23 24 25 C.S.R. ASSOCIATES  1 Thereupon, the witness was produced by the defendants: 2 BARRY I. CASTLEHAN 3 the witness hereinbefore named, being first duly cautioned and 4 sworn to testify the truth, testified as follows: 5 CROSS EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. CROSBY: 7 Q. Would you give us your full name, please? 3 A. Barry Ira Castleman. 9 BY fIR. CHEYNEY: Usual stipulations? 10 MR. HAYS: Yes. 11 MR. CROSBY: Can we also agree that if there 12 is an objection by one defendant, that that objection 13 is adopted by all defendants, unless a defendant 14 opts out? 15 MR. HAYS: No. I won't agree to that. I want 16 them to stay awake for this deposition and not read 17 papers, like they did at the last one. 18 MR. PIERCE: That's going to make a horrible 19 transcript. 20 MR. HAYS: We will see how it goes. If it gets 21 too garbled, we'll discuss it later. 22 MR. CROSBY: Let me caution everybody, in case 23 you all didn't hear it, the plaintiffs are refusing to 24 allow the objection by one defendant to be deemed 25 adopted by all defendants. Therefore, if anyone has C.S.R. ASSOCIATES --------------------------------- -- ---------------------- ------- * 1 an objection, you should state your objection in full, 2 and each defendant that wishes to join that objection 3 should adopted that objection, and maybe state it in 4 full, and restate any additional objections. And then 5 if anyone wishes to adopt any additional objections, 6 you should state that on the record also. 7 MR. HAYS: Let the record reflect that we have 8 agreed to reserve all objections except as to form. 9 MR. RHODES: I might also state at this time, 10 Jim, that the Northern District of Oklahoma has set 11 forth a certain asbestos trial protocol which has been 12 adopted in the in re; Asbestos Cases, insofar as they 13 pertain to Mark I d a 's plumbers and pipe fitters. 14 That protocol I anticipate will in large be adopted 15 in the tire worker litigation with a specific provision 16 being in that protocol that an objection by one 17 defendant is deemed to be an objection by all. 18 I think that it is something that is sensible 19 here, and will take up a lot less time if we go ahead 20 and adopt it. 21 MR. HAYS: Because of the lack of attention 22 during past depositions and repetitive question asking, 23 not to a great degree, but some, I think it will help 24 the defendants pay a little more attention to the 25 deposition. If it gets to be a little out of control. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES a 1 then we will discuss it at a later time. 2 MR. CROSBY: I do not agree with the comments 3 nor observations of counsel, and move that they be 4 stricken. 5 MR. PIERCE: I join in that, and move that they be 6 stricken. 7 MR. JAMES: I also join in that. 8 MS. HAGLUND: I also join in that. 9 MR. PERRINE: I also join in that. 10 MR. SCRIVNER: I also join in that. 11 MR. CHEYNEY: I'll join. 12 MR. GOSS: I join in that too. 13 MR. CROSBY: Mr. Hays, do you and your witness 14 need to step outside to finish your conference, or can 15 we continue? 16 MR. HAYS: Which conference? 17 MR. CROSBY: Well, I just saw you whispering to 18 him something, and I didn't know if needed to -- 19 MR. HAYS: You hadn't started asking him 20 questions. 21 MR. CROSBY: Yes, sir, I had asked him, we had 22 proceeded with the deposition. 23 MR. HAYS: Has the deposition started? 24 MR. CROSBY: Yes. 25 MR. HAYS: All right. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 4 1 HR. CROSBY: He has been sworn, and I had 2 asked him to state his name, and he had stated it 3 on the record. 4 MR. HAYS: I didn't realize we were that 5 far into it. 6 MR. JAMES: Pay attention. 7 Q. (By Mr. Crosby) Could you tell me what counsel 8 just whispered in your ear? 9 A. He made some kind of a wisecrack about you all. I 10 don't even remember what he said. 11 Q. Do you have a preference as to how you are 12 addressed, as to whether it's Mister, or Barry, or Doctor, or 13 what? 14 MR. HAYS: Counsel, you've deposed the man 15 several times, you ought to know what he prefers. 16 MR. CROSBY: No, sir, I don't. 17 MR. HAYS: You don't remember? 18 MR. CROSBY: No, sir, I don't. 19 THE WITNESS: Mr. Crosby, you can call me 20 whatever you feel comfortable calling me. It doesn't 21 matter to me one bit. 22 MR. CROSBY: All right. 23 THE WITNESS: At least not in the deposition. 24 Q. (By Mr. Crosby) Sir, I have taken your deposition 25 previously, and I understand you have been deposed on other C.S.R. ASSOCIATES XQ 1 occasions. Could you tell me approximately how many times you 2 have been deposed? 3 A. I have been deposed over 60 times since March of 4 1979 in asbestos litigation. 5 Q. And how many times have you been deposed in other 6 litigation? 7 A. _I don't think I have been deposed in any other 8 litigation but asbestos. There was an asbestos case in 9 Delaware that also involved DuPont and chemical hazards, and I 10 think I talked a little bit about chemical hazards as well. 11 Q. And approximately how many times have you 12 testified in a court of law? 13 A. About 85 times. 14 Q. Approximately what percentage of those is asbestos 15 related? 16 A. All of it. 17 Q.Even though you're apparently familiar with the 18 procedure, if I askyou a question and you do notunderstand a 19 portion of the question or the entire question, please let me 20 know, because if you answer the question it will be assumed by 21 me that you have understood the question, all portions of the 22 question, and have given your best complete answer under oath. 23 Is that all right with you? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Were you served with a subpoena with respect to C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 41 1 this deposition? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Did you bring that with you? 4 A. I think so. I think it's in here. 5 MR. CROSBY: We will mark as Exhibit 1 the 6 deposition subpoena with the attached Exhibit "A". And 7 as Exhibit 2 the notice to take deposition stamp 8 filed June 23, 1989, Jack C. Silver, U.S. District 9 Court. 10 MR. HAYS: For the record, we filed an 11 objection to the subpoena served on Dr. Castleman, 12 provided him with a copy, and I forwarded a copy to 13 Mr. Hinkle as lead counsel. And soon as I get copies 14 I will give the rest of the counsel copies. 15 MR. CROSBY: Exhibit 3 is apparently the 16 coversheet that apparently accompanied the subpoena. 17 And Exhibit 4 is a copy of plaintiff's objection on 18 behalf of Barry I. Castleman. 19 Q* (By Hr. Crosby) Sir, have you filed personally or 20 has any attorney on your behalf filed any objection to the 21 subpoena and the request for documents to be produced? 22 A. I haven't been represented by counsel on this 23 matter, nor have I filed any documents on ny own. 24 Q. Did you bring any documents with you to this 25 deposition? C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 12 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Could I have the materials that you brought with 3 you, please? 4 A. (Witness produces documents.) 5 Q. When were you first contacted by the attorneys 6 involved in these cases in connection to consulting with them 7 or testifying? 8 A. Sometime within the past year. I don't know 9 exactly when. 10 Q. Do you recall who first contacted you? 11 A. Yes. I am pretty sure it was Hr. Hays, although I 12 spoke with Mr. Norman as well within a short time after the 13 initial contact. 14 Q. What was your understanding of your role in 15 connection with these cases? 16 A. My understanding was that in addition to -- well, 17 that these attorneys represented rubber workers, and that the 18 rubber workers they represented had allegedly developed 19 asbestos-related diseases, as well as pulmonary problems 20 attributable to talc. That I was to basically testify as I 21 have done many times before about the history of knowledge 22 about the hazards of asbestos and the foreseeability of harm to 23 people using asbestos products. And also to similarly 24 investigate the history of literature relating to the hazards 25 of talc so that, so as to develop a basis for opinions about C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 13. 1 the availability of knowledge to sellers of talc used 2 industrially as in rubber plants. 3 HR. CROSBY: For the record, and on behalf 4 of my client, let me state that we are proceeding 5 with this deposition in the nature of a discovery 6 deposition to determine this witnesses' opinions or 7 purported opinions relating to the matters that he 8 has just revealed to us. By going forward in this 9 manner, we do not in any way wish to waive any 10 objections that we have to this witness offering any 11 quote, "expert opinions", close quote, in areas 12 relating to health aspects of any substance, 13 particularly asbestos with respect to my clients. 14 Nor do we wish to in any way waive any objections 15 that we may have with respect to this witness testifying 16 in any respect as an expert, including as an expert with 17 respect to the development of the scientific and medical 18 literature relating to the alleged health aspects or 19 hazards of asbestos, talc, soapstone and clay. 20 MR. CHEYNEY: Join in that objection. 21 MR. HOOD: I am Bobby Hood, on behalf of 22 CCR we join in that. 23 MR. JAMES: Greg James, on behalf of 24 Owens-Illinois and Pittsburgh-Corning, we also join in 25 that. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 14. 1 MS. HAGLUND: I'm Jacqui Haglund, on behalf of 2 A.w. Chesterton we would also join in that objection 3 in statement of non-waiver position. 4 MR. PERRINE: Anchor Packing also joins. 5 MR. SCRIVNER: We join also on that statement. 6 MR. GOSS: Tom Goss, on behalf of Vermont Talc, 7 we join. 8 MR. DUNNERY: John Dunnery, on behalf of Southern 9 Talc, we also join. 10 MR. CROSBY: And I guess as a precaution, I will 11 make that objection on behalf of those defendants that 12 are not present, it was my understanding, and I think 13 it may have been some other's understanding that this 14 witness was going to be deposed in another matter first 15 thing this morning, and that these proceedings would not 16 begin first thing. So some individuals may not be here 17 at this time since the matter was rescheduled when the 18 other deposition became moot. If they don't want to 19 adopt it, they can certainly unadopt my statement, but 20 I think in light of Counsel not allowing all defendants 21 to adopt automatically, I will do that on their behalf 22 for whatever good that may do them. 23 Q. (By Mr. Crosby) sir, let me begin with Exhibit 5, 24 which is a letter, appears to be a letter of May 19, 1979 to 25 Mr. Hinkle from Mr. Norman with the copy to you relating to C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 this deposition. Do you recall receiving that document? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Let me show a document that I will mark as Exhibit 4 No. 6 which is a letter to you or to Mr. Barry Castleman, and 5 its salutation is: "Dear Dr. Castleman". But it encloses or 6 purports to enclose a check in the amount of $1,000 as payment 7 to you as a retainer of your services as an expert in all tire 8 worker cases, an additional payment of $300 made payable to 9 Paul Edholm, E-d-h-o-l-m for his services in researching and 10 providing us with articles dealing with the substance of "State 11 of the Art" in talc. Do you recall receiving that letter, and 12 did you in fact receive those funds? 13 A. Right, yes. 14 Q. Have you provided us with the copy of the articles 15 of Mr. Elholm's research with respect to "State of the Art" of 16 talc? 17 A. You have materials fromEdholmthere. You have 18 additional materials as well. 19 Q. All right, sir. I will show you what I have 20 marked as Exhibit 7 which purports to be a letter from Mr. Flays 21 to you. By the way, in one document your name is spelled 22 B-e-r-r-y, and some others it's B-a-r-r-y. Which is the 23 correct? 24 A. B-a-r-r-y. 25 Q. All right, sir.Advising you of this case or some C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 1 cases being scheduled for trial and requesting that you block 2 some time out on your calendar. Did you receive that document? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Have you blocked the time out? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Do you anticipate presentingtestimony in the 7 trial of this case live? 3 A. If the case goes to trial I do, yes. 9 Q. Next which is number -- Defendant's 3 is a letter 10 or purports to be a letter to you from Ms. Conn, C-o-n-n, 11 forwarding two articles, one entitled "Respiratory Morbidity in 12 Rubber Workers", and another one, "Mortality P-a-t-t-e-r-s-n 13 Among miners and Millers of Non-abestiform Talc", d o you 14 recall receiving Exhibit No. 8 and the articles referred to? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. A letter dated June 29th, I think of this year? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. It was FederalExpressed, so youshould have 19 received it on or about June 30th. 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Are those articlesincluded in this stack of 22 documents that you have sent me, given to me? 23 A. I don't know if they are or not. 24 Q. Did yourequest those articles? 25 A. no. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES ----------- -- -------------------------------- --------------------------- 1 Q. Had you -- 2 A. I didn't request any articles from Mr. Norman or 3 his associates, although some articles were sent to me partly 4 because Mr. Edholm had misunderstood some of my instructions, 5 and not made me copies of some of the articles which he also 6 sent to the law firm. And so when the law firm realized this 7 they did send me some copies of some articles just to make sure 8 that I got them. 9 Q. Who is Mr. Edholm? 10 A. Mr. Edholm is a researcher I use in Washington DC. 11 Q. Does he work for you exclusively? 12 A. No. 13 Q. How long have you used Mr. Edholm? 14 A. About a year or two. 15 Q. Do you have a CV of Mr. Edholm, or do you know 16 anything about his background? 17 A. I don't have a CV from Mr. Edholm. His 18 background -- I used to use another researcher in Washington, 19 and when she left Washington DC she found Mr. Edholm for me. 20 Mr. Edholm does research. There are occupations in 21 Washington DC that do not exist in most parts of the country, 22 and there are apparently people who make a living just digging 23 things up for people. 24 Q. I agree with that. 25 A. And in Washington this isprobably a thriving C.S.R. ASSOCIATES xa 1 industry. In any event, Mr. Elholm does this. He has done, in 2 fact, checking I think for News Week and Times, or other kinds 3 of national publications, I forget exactly what they were, but 4 he's told me a little bit about other work that he's done. And 5 so he is basically an individual who is familiar with how to 6 use a library, whether it be a medical library, library of 7 congress or more typical common type of library, or a library 8 in a government agency. He's familiar with how to walk into 9 government offices and ask for access to government files. So 10 I have used him for those kinds of purposes for research in 11 Washington. 12 Q. Do you know what his educational background is? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Do you know if he graduated from high school? 15 A. I don't know. I have never asked him about his 16 educational background. He does very competent work, that's 17 all I can tell you, based on -- he does competent work. Some 18 of it has been very competent, some of it has been competent. 19 Q. Is just competent the same as mediocre? 20 A. No. But, you know, in some cases he's -- Well, 21 there is a certain -- there are certain kinds of individuals 22 who are sharp enough so that once they understand what it is 23 you want they are capable of interpreting that in a way that 24 sometimes goes beyond the letter of the instruction that you 25 may have actually given them in order to be more inclusive in C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 the material that they bring back. 2 Q. What did Mr. Edholm -- 3 A. I am finished. 4 Q. I am sorry, what did Mr. Edholm charge for 5 performing whatever it is he does? 6 A. Well, this type of work I pay him $25 an hour, 7 plus expenses. 8 Q. What other type of work does he do? 9 A. Well, I don't really know what he does for other 10 people. You mean for me, aside from legal work? 11 Q. Just anything that you know about. Because you 12 have indicated for this type of work you paid him $25 an hour, 13 which indicates to me that for some other type of work you may 14 pay him more or less. 15 A. That's correct. There is other kinds of work that 16 I do for which I pay a lower rate because it's work that I do 17 at my own initiative for which I am not reimbursed by anybody, 18 but work that I feel is interesting and needs to be done, my 19 own research, if you will. And Mr. Edholm is willing to do 20 work of that kind for 15 or $20 an hour, plus expenses. 21 Q. So he may be performing the same services, it's 22 just that since it's for you individually rather than for a law 23 firm or other entities that may have retained you, he gives you 24 a break on his fee? 25 A. Yes, you could put it that way. And it's C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 basically ---- the rates were determined by me and accepted by 2 him. 3 Q. Approximately how many hours per month, or 4 whatever time increment is best suited for your response, does 5 Mr. Edholm perform services for you either at the 25 or 10 or 6 15 or any rate? 7 A. It's very sporadic. Sometimes some months go by I 8 don't talk to Mr. Edholm at all. And then there might be other 9 months where I might have him working on two or three projects 10 at the same time. 11 Q. Do you know anyone else or any other entity for 12 whom Mr. Edholm performs these services? 13 A. Well, as I said, he mentioned some kind of a 14 national publication like Time Magazine or whatever it was, I 15 forget. I don't know who all his other clients are. I have 16 never asked him about his other. 17 Q. Who was the person that he replaced? 18 A. I can't remember her name at this point. 19 Q. Other than the name, other than the person that he 20 replaced, do you know anyone else or have you checked with 21 anyone else with respect to Mr. Edholm's qualifications? 22 A. No. I mean I am satisfied by -- My way of 23 finding out how qualified somebody is is by giving them 24 something to do and seeing how well they do it. That's the 25 only thing that matters to me. I have done that with C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 2i 1 Hr. Edholra to my own satisfaction. I mean, they could have a 2 PhD, and if they do lousy research, I don't want them for $10 3 an hour. 4 Q. Did you write Hr. Edholm a letter with respect to 5 what you requested him to do in this situation? 6 A. i think I just told him by phone. 7 Q. Can you recall what you told Mr. Edholm? 8 A. I told him -- I did have a list of references from 9 sometime or another. I had put together a list of old 10 references on talc that I had come across long before I got 11 involved in this litigation, and I sent him those articles. 12 I had also noticed that George Peters in his book, 13 source book on asbestos diseases had references to articles on 14 talc as well. And so I told Mr. Edholm to go through the 15 articles, to first get all the articles on the list that I had 16 on my handwritten list, to then go to the library, locate a 17 copy of George Peters's source book, go through the 18 bibliography in George Peters's book and pull out everything 19 that had talc in the title of the article. And then to go 20 through the articles that he had thus accumulated and look at 21 bibliographies of those articles for references cited by them 22 dealing with health hazards of talc. And this what he did. 23 Q. So if there are articles out there about about 24 talc that don't have the word talc in the title, you may not 25 have it? C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 22 1 A. That is right. I don't believe that I have a 2 complete file. I know I didn't have a complete file of every 3 single article that has been written about the health hazards 4 of talc. I have mainly confined my research to the period 5 prior to the 1970s. Although there are articles that are 6 included that go into the 1970s as well. 7 Q. And the materials that you have provided to me are 8 your handwritten notes, is your handwritten list amongst them? 9 A. I don't think so. 10 Q. Do you still have a copy of that handwritten list? 11 I mean there are a couple of handwritten lists here. Are 12 either one of these -- 13 A. I don't know if I have that. I probably do. I 14 probably photocopied the handwritten list and sent it to 15 Edholm. 16 Q. Let me mark as Exhibit Ho. 9 this document that 17 has a title or appears to be a title "Talc in Rubber 18 Industry-- " and then insert "-- Respiratory Hazards." The word 19 "Respiratory* appears to replace "Health". Could you tell me 20 what Exhibit No. 9 is? 21 A. Exhibit 9 are notes that I made regarding articles 22 that were published that made reference to pulmonary problems 23 attributed to the use of talc in industry, in particular in the 24 rubber industry. The texts are texts that for the most part 25 happen to be texts that I personally own. I have a few dozen C.S.R. ASSOCIATES S3. 1 old boxs on occupational diseases. But this is by no means a 2 complete review of everything that appears in any textbooks on 3 occupational diseases. This is just a quick look through a 4 sampling of such texts. 5 The journal reports are journal articles relating to 6 chest disease, or abnormal x-ray findings, or normal pulmonary 7 function and so on, in people who worked with talc in rubber 8 plants, rubber plants of various kinds. And these articles 9 were published starting in 1931, and I think the latest one 10 included in this list is 1959. I think at that point I just 11 stopped keeping a list. 12 Q. Did you prepare that Exhibit 9 before or after you 13 had talked to Mr. Edholm? 14 A. Well, I talked to Mr. Edholm on a number of 15 occasions. 16 Q. About this particular project? 17 A. This is after I had gathered up the materials that 18 Mr. Edholm was able to provide me. 19 Q. So did that list on Exhibit 9 include some of the 20 articles that Mr. Edholm located as well as something from some 21 of the journals or texts in your own custody? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Let me show you what I have marked as Exhibit 10. 24 Could you identify that for me, please, as to just what the 25 document is, not what it contains? C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 2A 1 A. This is a summary which I have put together 2 reviewing the literature on talc as a respiratory disease 3 agent. 4 Q. Is that in your handwriting? 5 A. That is my handwriting. 6 Q. Has there been a typed version of that? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Do you use a word processor or any kind of 9 computer in your research or writings? 10 A. I do,but I didn't in this case. 11 Q. Since we are going to resume tomorrow, will you be 12 able to provide us tomorrow the handwritten list that you 13 provided Mr. Edholm tomorrow morning? 14 A. Sure, if I can find it. 15 Q. Have you ever testified in a caseinvolving tire 16 workers or rubber workers? 17 A. No. 18 Q. Never in deposition or in court? 19 A. No. 20 Q. These articles that I have before me that I am 21 going to go through, are these your only copies of these, or 22 are these extra copies? 23 A. These are my only copies. I mean there might be 24 some of these articles I might have other copies of some place. 25 But for the purposes of talc litigation, these are my only C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 35- 1 copies, this is ray only set of such documents assembled for 2 this purpose. 3 Q* W will undertake to label each one since they are 4 clipped and not stapled, then the chance of them getting messed 5 up during the copying process will be reduced, we will label 6 each one with its own exhibit number, and try to get copies 7 made either this afternoon or this evening at a copy service 3 and return the copies or the originals to you so that you will 9 be able to go through and see that you have everything back, we 10 hope. 11 MR. CROSBY: I am assuming that's is agreeable to 12 all the other defendants? 13 Q. (By Mr. Crosby) Do I understand, so that I don't 14 have to guess, tell me, please, sir, if there is a general 15 category buy which this stack of documents can be identified, 16 what this is? 17 A. It's literature on health effects or adverse 18 health effects from breathing talc. There might be one article 19 in there that relates to suspected ovarian cancer in women who 20 were exposed to talc generally. This was published in the 21 1970s. 22 There is also a letter of mine to the Food and Drug 23 Administration in 1972 asking for certain restrictions on use 24 of talc based on that article. But otherwise, the articles are 25 about the hazards, or at least investigations relating to the C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 26- 1 inhalation of talc. 2 Q. Prior to this deposition, have you testified in 3 any form with respect to health aspects of talc? 4 A. I don't think so. 5 Q. Let me rephrase it, because I don't want it to 6 sound any way other than it's meant. Are you a medical doctor? 7 A. Uo. 8 Q. Are you taking any courses currently to become a 9 medical doctor? 10 A. No. I have a Doctor of Science Degree from 11 Johns-Hopkins Hygiene and Public Health. 12 Q. I am marking Defendant's Exhibit Ho. ll, a 13 document -- sir, you always try to stump me with the first one, 14 entitled apparently, and I will butcher some language and I 15 don't mean to, I think its "La Medicina del Lavoro"; is that 16 right? Would you help me with that? 17 A. That was excellent. Of course, I don't speak 18 Italian either. Actually I speak a little Italian when it 19 comes to reading articles on asbestos and talc. 20 Q. Does this article deal -- Let me show you No. 11. 21 Does that deal solely with the subject of talc, if you know? 22 Or is there any other substance that is referred to in that 23 article? 24 A. Well, that is kind of a tricky question, because 25 talc itself is kind of a -- very often a combination of things. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 3^ 1 But this article is called "Pneumoconiosis from Talc". It's an 2 article by a Dr. zanelli, Z-a-n-e-- 1-- 1-- i. in Zanelli's case, 3 worked in a factory making tires for automobiles, according to 4 Page 7 where I have underlined the occupational history and 5 involved exposure to quantities of talc powder according to 6 that. 7 Q. Was this plant inItaly? 8 A. I believe so. 9 Q. Have you everbeen to a tire worker plant? 10 A. NO. 11 Q. Do you know if the working conditions at the plant 12 made the subject of the article written as No. ll in any way 13 resemble the plant conditions made the subject of the lawsuit 14 about which we are visiting today? 15 A. Resembles it in the sense that talc is used in 16 rubber processing for similar purposes as an agent to keep, you 17 know, the rubber products from sticking. And I am operating 18 correctly or incorrectly under the assumption that that is the 19 purpose of the talc in the bicycle tire plant, and that is at 20 least similar, if not identical to the use of talc in the tire 21 plant in Oklahoma. But I am stating all my assumptions so that 22 it's very clear what I know and what I don't know, and what I 23 am making assumptions about. 24 Q. Do you know if the talc utilized in the Italian 25 plant was similar or substantially the same as the talc C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 2a 1 utilized in the Oklahoma plant? 2 A. I don't know about the -- let me take a look at 3 the article again. I don't see a mineralogical analysis of the 4 talc as I look through this article very quickly. I think at 5 this early stage of the literature on talc people weren't 6 focusing in that carefully on the mineralogical constituants of 7 the individual talcs involved in the various plants where 8 adverse effects were reported. But again, it's possible that 9 somewhere in here there is some kind of a description of the 10 mineralogy of the talc involved. 11 Q. What's the date of that article, please? 12 A. 1931. 13 Q Have you reviewed any of the medical records of 14 any of the individuals in this particular lawsuit? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Have you reviewed any documents or materials of 17 any type with respect to the B.F. Goodrich plant in Miami, 18 Oklahoma? 19 A. No. I think I looked briefly at some kind of a 20 NIOSH survey that was done sometime in the 1970s or the '80s 21 maybe. '80s, I believe. 22 Q. Do you have thatwith you? 23 A. No, I don't. 24 Q. Do you know if you still have that back at your 25 office or your home? C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 29- 1 A* I don't know if I have it or if I threw it out. 2 If I have it I will bring it in. I assumed that that was known 3 to you all. 4 Q. Do you know of any of the individuals who were 5 employed at the tire worker plant in Miami, Oklahoma have any 6 disease that is related to their occupation? 7 A. Well, that goes beyond the scope of my area of 8 expertise. I am not here as a physician. I would have to rely 9 on reports of other expects to give you an answer on that. I 10 don't think that legally speaking that is worth much. 11 Q. All right, sir. Let me show you what has been 12 stickered as No. 12. Is that an article entitled "Talc" 13 promulgated or published by the International Labor Office? 14 A. Yes. This is from the International Labor Office 15 Encyclopedia called "Occupation and Health". 16 Q. And the date of that publication? 17 A. 1934 is when the second volume of that 18 encyclopedia was published. 19 Q. So far No. 11 and 12, were both of those provided 20 by Mr. Edholm? 21 A. Yes, I believe that Mr. Edholm came up with these 22 two. 23 Q. Have you conducted an independent survey or 24 undertaken any independent research to determine the accuracy 25 of Mr. Edholm's efforts? C.S.R. ASSOCIATES -30- 1 A. Well, i have in the sense that I have looked at 2 the articles themselves, and I have found that there are some 3 articles that they cite that are not included. Now, I know 4 what some of those articles say because of secondary references 5 to them in the articles that I have seen. But I am at this 6 time endeavoring to procure those articles, and they will be 7 provided as soon as I get them. So I would say that 8 El holm's work was in this particular case good, but not 9 great. There were things that I would have hoped he v/ould have 10 picked up that he didn't pick up, including articles published 11 in the British Medical Journal and British Journal of 12 Industrial Medicine, as well as articles published in foreign 13 language journals. 14 I think I have a good picture of how the literature 15 developed on talc based on what I have here before me, and I 16 can't imagine that anything that is still outstanding would 17 significantly alter opinions that I have developed regarding 18 the foreseeability of harm to workers using talc industrially, 19 particularly in rubber plants. 20 Q. Do you have a list of the articles or references 21 that Mr. Edholm did not provide? 22 A. I don't have it here now. 23 Q. Do you have it back at your office or at your 24 home? 25 A. Well, I have handed it to somebody who's going to C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 get me the references as soon as they can. And I may have it 2 this afternoon. I will give you the list and the articles that 3 I get at that time, either this afternoon or tomorrow. 4 Hopefully this afternoon. 5 Q. To whom did you give that list? 6 A. An attorney with the office of Mr. John Sutter in 7 Baltimore. 8 Q. And when did you deliver that to him? 9 A. I gave that to him this morning just before this 10 deposition started. 11 Q. Was that the handwritten list that you had while 12 you were sitting over there that I seemed to notice before we 13 started? 14 A. I don't know what you noticed. There is a lot of 15 handwritten stuff. But there was one list of articles* 16 references to articles* you may have noticed it* you may have 17 been looking at something else* and it's a list of about* I 18 guess about 15 references* handwritten references* and I have 19 asked Mister ~ I am sorry, I don't even know the guy's name* 20 to simply go to the libraries here in Baltimore* medical 21 libraries* and make photocopies of those references. I have 22 given him the citations* and I am sure that he sufficiently 23 qualified* having gone through law school* to go and obtain the 24 medical articles* photocopy them at the library. 25 Q. Based on some of your early comments* I am amazed C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 32- 1 that you have that degree of confidence in attorneys. Have you 2 done anything to ascertain what his qualifications are, if any, 3 with respect to retrieving medical articles? 4 A No. But with all due respect to attorneys, I 5 think any idiot could get these articles. If they could talk 6 their way into the medical library they could get the articles 7 off the stacks. The journals are in alphabetical order within 8 each journal series, they are in chronological order. When you 9 hand somebody a list and you give them the journal name, volume 10 number, page numbers and the year, well, I think that even a 11 rather incompetent attorney could probably manage to come back 12 with the article. 13 Q. Do I understand that you prepared this list by 14 reviewing these articles that we have begun going through that 15 Mr. Edholm retrieved for you? 16 A. That's right. 17 Q. So your list was made from other lists? 18 A. My list was made from my review of otherarticles, 19 and from the articles themselves I see references to earlier 20 work that the authors of those articles cited, and I am simply 21 going back and getting those articles. 22 Q. Were those articles cited in a bibliography of 23 articles? 24 A. Right. 25 Q. So a bibliography is a form of a list? C.S.R. ASSOCIATES -33- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Oh, yes, in the sense that they are listed at the end of the articles that I was reviewing. Q. So your list is made from several lists that are contained in these articles? A. in the sense that the bibliographies of the articles can be described as a list, yes. Q. Do you know anything about the nineralogical components of any of the talc used at the Miami, Oklahoma plant? A. No. Q. Do you consider yourself to be an expert in the field of mineralogy? A. No. I understand Dr. Langer is involved in the case. well. He can answer your questions about that probably quite Q. Which Dr. Wagner? Dr. Chris Wagner? A. I'm sorry. I said Langer. Q. Oh, Langer, Dr. Art Langer? A. Yes. Q. mineralogy? So you would defer to him with respect to A. Certainly. Q. Do you find him to be a competent mineralogist? A. As far as I am able to judge mineralogists, yes, not being one myself. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 2A 1 Q. Do you know if the talc or talcs referred to in 2 any of these articles that I have before me, which we will 3 eventually mark as exhibits, are the same or substantially the 4 same as any of the talcs utilized at the Miami, Oklahoma plant? 5 A. All I know is that they are referred to as 6 industrial grade talcs. In some cases there are mineralogical 7 type of analyses provided, in other cases there are not. And 8 so as I say, I haven't focused on the mineralogy of the talc 9 used in the Miami, Oklahoma plant mainly because I really 10 haven't had the time to look at these kind of collateral 11 aspects of the case which are interesting, although not 12 essential to my testimony. And so for that reason, I can't 13 really render the kind of comparisons you're asking me about. 14 Q. With respect to the articles that you do not have 15 and that the lawyer is attempting to obtain, are you going to 16 defer rendering opinions with respect to scientific development 17 of knowledge relating to talc, soapstone and clay until you 18 have reviewed those articles? Or are you prepared to provide 19 your opinions in those categories without the benefit of those 20 articles? 21 A. Let's just say that I will offer tentative 22 opinions about talc with the proviso that I consider it 23 extremely unlikely that such opinion would be altered in light 24 of the documents that I have sought to obtain and expect to 25 obtain later today. You can either deal with it that way, or C.S.R. ASSOCIATES -35- 1 yoii can wait until the documents come in. But I really do n 't 2 expect that these documents contain any great surprises. I 3 know what a number of them say, because I have seen them 4 referenced in other articles and described in substance in 5 literature. And taking as a whole the literature on talc forms 6 I think a fairly clear picture to the extent that we know what 7 we know forms a very clear picture. I don't believe that we 8 know everything about the hazards of talc today. 9 Q. Have you personally gone to the library and 10 conducted any research with respect to the health aspects of 11 talc? 12 A Yes. I have included articles in here that came 13 out of ny own files which I got out of the library at various 14 times. As I said, I have been interested in talc as a health 15 problem particularly since I started reading about asbestos in 16 1970, '71. 17 Q. Did you have articles in your own -- as a result 18 of your own research that Hr. Edholm did not obtain? 19 A Yes. Generally they were more recent articles, 20 but I have a few of those, and I believe they are included 21 here. 22 Q. Let me show you what is No. 13, it's the annual 23 report of Chief Inspector of Factories and workshops for the 24 year 1933. Does this relate to talc? Or asbestos? Or both? 25 Or neither? C.S.R. ASSOCIATES -------------- --------------------------------------- ------------------- 1 A. Relates to both. Talc is also described here as 2 French chalk. Starting on Page 63 Dr. Merewether describes 3 examinations of workers that he had conducted, continues onto 4 64 and 65. 5 Q. Are those individuals that were engaged in the 6 tire and rubber industry? 7 A. Yes, I believe so. 8 Q. What was the nature of those individual's exposure 9 to asbestos in that particular report? 10 A. I don't believe there is any reference to asbestos 11 exposure in connection with these talc cases. The asbestos, 12 it's part of an annual report of the chief inspector. Asbestos 13 is described in another part of the report. 14 Q. So this is the non-asbestos section of the report? 15 A. This is the talc section of the report. It's got 16 a headline, it's italic title is "French Chalk". And I believe 17 there is a similar entry somewhere for asbestos. In any event, 18 I see tables in which asbestos is described. Yes, asbestos is 19 described under heading "Silicosis and Asbestosis". 20 Q. But insofar as you are able to determine from 21 reading that particular document, was the talc or French chalk 22 asbestos free? Or is one able to determine from that article? 23 A. That is what I am trying to find out. I don't 24 think that there is any comment on -- no. Asbestos is only 25 used by way of comparison to talc or French chalk, and it's C.S.R. ASSOCIATES zz 1 stated asbestos is more dangerous, has a greater fibrosis 2 producing power. 3 Q. What is your understanding, if you have an 4 understanding, as to the nature of any asbestos exposure that 5 may have occurred at the Miami, Oklahoma plant? 6 A. Well, the plant contained thermal insulation, 7 which at least in part may be asbestos. And the deterioration 8 installation, maintenance and removal of this thermal 9 insulation was a cause of exposure to asbestos dust in the air 10 in the plant, particularly for workers whose jobs involved 11 maintaining the insulation in the plant or piping. 12 Q. Was that a matter brought out in that Merewether 13 report? 14 A. Merewether doesn't talk about asbestos in rubber 15 plants. He's just talking about workers exposed to talc and 16 what he found regarding it. 17 Q. In your review of the literature, when was the 18 publication addressing asbestos -- excuse me. Let me 19 start all over. First report, please, sir, addressing health 20 aspects of asbestos exposure from thermal insulation products 21 in a tire worker or rubber plant? 22 A. Dozens and dozens of reports on asbestos disease 23 from exposure to asbestos insulation dust going back to 1932, 24 but I can't off the top of my head recall the specific 25 reference that describes an individual whose exposure to such C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 3_a 1 dust was confined to working in a rubber plant. There may not 2 be any such article in print today. I just don't know. 3 Q. Were you asking Mr. Hays? 4 A. i was just asking Mr. Hays if he knew of any such 5 articles. off the top of my head -- 6 MR. HAYS: He won't let me talk to you during 7 the deposition. 8 MR. CROSBY: Sir, if you wish to talk to the 9 witness, all I ask is that you let us know that you 10 wish to talk with him, and let us know that you want 11 to take a recess to have a discussion, and if it's 12 appropriate, then I don't have any trouble with that. 13 MR. HAYS: Thank you. 14 MR. CROSBY: We may break down on what is 15 appropriate. 16 Q. (By Mr. Crosby) Would you defer to Mr. Hays on 17 that matter? 18 A. All I was asking is whether Mr. Hays knew of such 19 an article. If there are articles, I would expect that it 20 would have been published in recent years. 21 Q. And even lawyer may know about that? 22 A. Especially a lawyer might know about that where it 23 relates to his own clients, yes. 24 Q. What is your hourly rate nowadays? 25 A. For research, or for deposition and trial C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 3^ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 testimony? Q. pi ease? Any of your various hourly rates, what are they, A. I charge $150 an hour for research, and $200 an hour for deposition testimony or trial testimony. Q. And about what percent of your time is spent in depo trial testimony? A. it varies. Up until September of last year I had a much more diverse life. Since September of last year I have been involved in I think an average of about three trials a month, and probably one deposition, would be my best guess, in the asbestos litigation. Q. Three trials per month, and about how many depositions? I'm sorry. I was writing. A. I think probably about one deposition a month. But up until last September things were a lot more managable in terms of my time to do other things. things. I still do work on other Q. :oming up? Are you subpoenaed to appear at these three trails A. Not usually, i go by agreement. Q So you voluntarily go? A. I haven't recognized a distinction between a subpoena appearance and an appearance that I make without a subpoena. I usually agree to go or I don't go. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES AQ. 1 Q. I understand you might not make a distinction, but 2 my question here is: Do you voluntarily go when you appear at 3 trial? 4 A. Yes. My involvement in the asbestos litigation is 5 voluntarily. 6 Q. So about what percent of your time since September 7 of *88 has been involved in the asbestos litigation? 8 A It's probably been more than half of my time for 9 the first time in ten years, probably slightly more than half 10 of my time. 11 Q. And approximately what percent of your income is 12 derived from asbestos litigation? 13 A. The last time I looked it was, let me see, it was 14 over 90 percent. Most of my other work is work with public 15 interest groups, environmental groups, labor unions in other 16 countries, health activists in other countries. Generally work 17 that pays little or nothing. 18 Q. Do you have any other consulting or research 19 activities that pay you $150 per hour other than 20 asbestos-related? 21 A. Well, i have done legal work of other kinds and 22 charged the same rate. 23 Q. What other legal work have you done and charged 24 the same rate? 25 A. I was contacted by some other lawyers at one point C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 41 1 that were interested in the history of threshold limit values, 2 and had some chemical cases. 3 Q. What lawyers were they? 4 A. I don't remember their names. 5 Q. How long ago was that? 6 A. About a year ago. 7 Q. Was it before or after you authored the article 8 that appeared in the -- 9 A. It was after my article that appeared in the 10 industrial journal. 11 Q. Do you recall if those lawyers represented 12 plaintiffs or defendants? 13 A. They said they represented plaintiffs. 14 Q. And how much time did you spend on that project? 15 A. I don't remember. 16 Q. Well, are we talking ten hours or 100 hours? 17 A. Something in between. 18 Q. Closer to 50, or closer to ten? 19 A. I think my charges to them were something like 20 $2500. 21 Q. What was the result of that endeavor? 22 A. I don't know. 23 Q. I mean what did you find? 24 A. I don't know what they did with the information. 25 Q. What did you find? C.S.R. ASSOCIATES A2 1 A. I don't even remember exactly what I did for them 2 now. My life has been something of a blur with the amount of 3 asbestos litigation that has gone to trial since last 4 September. 5 Q. Do you recall what chemicals were involved? 6 A. There was a long list of chemicals. Some of them 7 I recognized,_some of them were trade name chemicals I didn't 8 recognize. 9 Q. Do you know if it involved asbestos, talc, 10 soapstone or clay? 11 A. It didn't involve any of those. 12 Q. Let me show you what has been marked as No. 14, 13 which appears to be a copy of a portion of the 1934 Annual 14 Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops. Does 15 that deal with talc? Or asbestos? Or both? Or neither? 16 A. It deals with both. Talc is covered under the 17 heading "French Chalk" on Page 65. 18 Q. With respect to your opinions relating to talc, do 19 you make any distinction as to the mineralogical make-up of 20 talc, or the form, be it fibrous or non-fibrous? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Do those distinctions play any role in the 23 formation of the opinions that you have made respecting the 24 development of knowledge relating to alleged health aspects of 25 talc? C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 4-3 1 A. Yes and no. My current view, and this is 2 something that started to gain more discussion as the 3 literature on talc itself started to grow and people started 4 wondering why some people were finding so much more severe 5 affects than other people looking at talc workers. 6 My current view is that the presence of silica and 7 asbestiform fibers came to be identified as the types of agents 8 that would exacerbate or add to respiratory hazards associated 9 with so-called pure talc as a mineral. And that these kinds of 10 contaminants, if you want to call them that, were frequently 11 found mixed with talcs that were sold as industrial talcs, 12 which were therefore, mineralogically speaking, mixtures, not 13 pure substances. 14 Q. Have you formed any opinions as to whether or 15 not -- Let me strike that and start again. 16 Do your opinions with respect to health aspects of quote 17 "talc" close quote, vary with respect to the development of 18 knowledge depending on whether or not the talc is quote 19 "contaminated" close quote, with asbestos or silica? 20 A. it depends on the time frame. If a manufacturer, 21 for example, of -- or a seller of industrial grade talc was 22 concerned about the possibility that his product might be 23 harmful, it would certainly be necessary for such a 24 manufacturer to conduct certain types of analyses on the 25 product at a minimum to gain some insight into whether the talc C.S.R. ASSOCIATES AA 1 that he was selling was of the more or less notorious kind. 2 But the literature on talc? and here we really are 3 getting into what my opinions are, the literature on talc 4 reflect a considerable amount of confusion about just what it 5 is that was causing some talc workers to develop a disabling or 6 even fatal pneumoconiosis, and other talc workers to suffer far 7 less severe effects, even though they had evidently been 8 exposed to substantial concentrations of talc for a number of 9 years. 10 So it's not as if the literature here on talc is clear 11 cut. There are various mineralogical constituants which varied 12 with the different types of talcs that were being used. At 13 least by the 1940s some of the writers appeared to be picking 14 up on that fact, and saying, you know, maybe there is something 15 about this talc that is worse than that talc, and starting to 16 compare their findings with the findings of their predecessors. 17 And so this is the way the knowledge evolved. But at the same 18 time there was -- there were no clear cut findings that there 19 is one bad factor that is present in industrial grade talcs 20 that is causing all the disease that is associated with talc 21 workers. No one ever seems to come up with a single cause or a 22 single agent. 23 There have been certainly some agents that had been 24 recognized, or very similar to agents that had been recognized 25 as health hazards, principally silica and asbestiform fibers. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 4S 1 But the talcs, the talc itself as distinct from those 2 ingredients that were mixed in with the number of industrial 3 talcs was also indicted in a number of articles as a cause of 4 lung disease. 5 I am sorry to give you such a long-winded answer, but 6 we were eventually going to get into this anyway. Seems to me 7 sometime in the 1940s they started taking a closer look at what 8 was in these industrial talcs and trying to figure out what 9 were at least the principal causes of adverse health effects 10 attributed to inhaling such talcs. 11 Q. You used the word "indicted" in your answer. Was 12 there ever any -- was there continuing literature relating to 13 quote "talc" close quote, and its quote "contaminents" close 14 quote, after the '40s? 15 A. Sure. 16 Q. Is it within your area of expertise to opine as to 17 whether or not quote "talc" close quote, contaminated with 18 quote "asbestos" close quote, causes an asbestos-related 19 condition or disease as opposed to asbestos from some other 20 source? 21 A. Well, I guess I would have to answer that by 22 referring to the literature itself which makes frequent 23 comparisons between the scarring, the lung scarring caused by 24 the industrial talcs, and the lung scarring caused by asbestos. 25 And this is commented on both radiologically and pathologically C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 in the literature that I am referring to here. The findings of 2 asbestos bodies in the lung tissues, or asbestoslike bodies in 3 lung tissues, the finding of other appearances that at least 4 resemble the picture of asbestosis. And this is commented on I 5 think starting in the 1940s by some of the authors writing 6 about talc exposed workers. 7 So there are similarities at least between the types of 8 damage between asbestos which were kind of separately 9 established in the case of asbestos workers, and types of 10 damage observed in talc workers. The similarities were noted 11 in the literature I think starting in the 1940s. 12 MR. CROSBY: I move to strike that as 13 nonresponsive. 14 Q. (By Mr. Crosby) My question is: Is it within 15 your area of expertise? 16 A. It's within my area of expertise to relate what 17 was expressed in the literature which was available to 18 manufacturers and sellers of industrial talc, yes. 19 Q. So you're not saying that you personally have 20 formed an opinion based upon what you have read from that 21 literature, you are telling me that within your area of 22 expertise you can relate to me your understanding of what the 23 literature imparts? 24 A. I'm not sure I understand your question. I am 25 doing the same kind of thing with talc that I have done with C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 42 1 asbestos, and that is at a minimum relating what the literature 2 itself says, and relating the availability of that literature 3 in the United States as evidenced by the literature itself. 4 Q. All right, sir. And I think you are familiar with 5 my prior objections, and my probably continuing objection with 6 respect to that testimony on your behalf. 7 But I am just trying to find out that with respect to 8 this particular issue, your area of purported expertise is that 9 you can relate what the literature imparted to you or to others 10 who may have read it, but you do not form an independent 11 scientific opinion with respect to, for example, causation in a 12 case where an individual has been exposed to quote "pure talc" 13 close quote, quote "talc contaminated with asbestos" close 14 quote, or exposure to quote "asbestos" close quote, from some 15 other source? 16 A. Okay, i think I understand what you're asking 17 better now. I am not involved in diagnosing anybody's 18 condition medically. I don't testify about causation in these 19 cases either individually, either in terms of individual cases 20 or epidemiologically speaking as individuals as members of a 21 group. I don't say that this person got his disease from that 22 cause. That's never been included in the area of testimony 23 that I give. 24 Q. In these particular cases, assuming that you are 25 presented with a hypothetical to assume that an individual has C.S.R. ASSOCIATES AR 1 what has been from time to time referred to as quote "an 2 asbestos-related disease or condition", close quote, if you are 3 presented with the facts that that individual or groups of 4 individuals were exposed to quote "pure talc" close quote, 5 quote "talc contaminated with asbestos or asbestiform fibers" 6 close quote, and/or exposed to quote "asbestos" close quote, 7 from other sources such as thermal insulation, is it within 8 your area of expertise and will you proffer testimony as to 9 what was the cause of the particular disease entities in that 10 person with those multiple exposures? 11 A. I would be very loathe to offer such kinds of 12 opinions. I would probably refuse to offer an opinion on such 13 a thing, simply because there are other people who are better 14 suited to deal with that onerous job, and I leave it to them. 15 That's -- what you're asking is really much more a subject for 16 a treating physician's testimony than it would be for someone 17 like me, if I understand your question correctly in terms of 18 analyzing an individual case and, you know, how much of this 19 person's exposure came from the talc, and how much of this 20 person's exposure came from the thermal insulation. In terms 21 of sorting out liability or whatever, I mean, that's not 22 something I even want to go near. 23 Q. My question did not go to sorting liability. I 24 believe that's something suited for juries in court. Mine was 25 sorting out or attempting to sort out causation. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 49- 1 A. It amounts to the same thing. 2 Q. Fortunately you are not the judge in this case, 3 because it may not. So I 'm trying to find out if you do 4 endeavor to opine generally or specifically as to causation in 5 a case of multiple exposure? 6 A. I don't expect to do anything of the kind. I am 7 not that familiar with the details of these individual's 8 exposures, and it's not the kind of testimony I have ever 9 given. It's not the kind of testimony I look forward to giving 10 in this case either. 11 Q. Would you give it if asked? 12 A. I can't imagine circumstances underwhich I would 13 give it if asked. I mean the circumstances would have to be so 14 clear cut as to make the question not even worth asking. In 15 other words, a single type exposure and no other exposures. 16 Q. So multiple causations or multiple exposures to 17 multiple types of talcs, be they contaminated or not 18 contaminated, be they fibrous or non-fibrous, in conjunction 19 with exposure to asbestos from other sources would preclude 20 your testimony in that area? 21 A. Again, your question is not that clear. But if I 22 can just restate what I won't expect to be doing in this case, 23 and that is trying to weigh the -- quantitatively weighs the 24 contributions that multiple exposures may have made in 25 producing disease in any individual. Is that clear enough? C.S.R. ASSOCIATES sa 1 Q. I think your answer -- 2 A. I will to the best of ray ability avoid offering 3 such testimony. I don't think it's really appropriate for me. 4 I am not especially expert in that sort of thing. Not that 5 doctors necessarily are much more expert in it, but it's more 6 appropriate, at least, for the doctors to answer those kinds 7 of physicians, I should say, to answer those kinds of 8 questions. So I leave that pleasant task to them. 9 Q. Did you bring with you any medical or scientific 10 articles relating to your opinions of the development of 11 scientific and medical knowledge relating to health aspects or 12 alleged health hazards of asbestos? 13 A. No. We have gone over all that many times. And 14 as you know, I have left behind 150 transcripts and a 700 page 15 book on that subject. 16 Q. Have you -- 17 THE WITNESS: Can we take about a ten minute 18 break? 19 MR. CROSBY: Anybody got a problem with a ten 20 minute break? Go ahead. It's fine with me. 21 (Whereupon, a short recess was taken.) 22 Q. (By Mr. Crosby) I have provided you with exhibits 23 that have been marked numbered 15 through 75. Would you please 24 look through those, and at this time I would like to just mark 25 them as exhibits to this deposition, we will go through them in C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 51 1 detail later, but are those the articles in conjunction with 2 No. li through 14 that v/e have already reviewed that you 3 reviewed with respect to the development of medical and 4 scientific knowledge relating to talc, soapstone and clay and 5 upon which you in part base your opinion regarding the 6 development of knowledge? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And in addition to those, as I understand it, 9 there are a few other articles which some other lawyer is in 10 the process of obtaining today? 11 A. That a lawyer who has been given a list of 12 references by me has gone to the library to obtain photocopies 13 of, yes. 14 With respect to -- Let me make sure I have my 15 numbers right. With respect to Exhibits No. 12 through 14, are 16 you aware of any evidence or information that Owens-Corning 17 Fiberglass, my client in this matter, in any way attempted to 18 alter, delay, suppress or in any other way influence or attempt 19 to have an impact on medical and scientific literature 20 reflected in those exhibits? 21 A. No. 22 ?4R. HAYS: Talking about specifically 12 through 23 14? 24 MR. CROSBY: Yes, sir. 25 THE WITNESS: No, is the answer. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 2 1 Q* (By Hr. Crosby) Are you aware of any evidence 2 that Owens-Corning Fiberglass in any way attempted to alter, 3 delay, supress or in any way influence or have any impact on 4 the medical and scientific literature or the development of 5 such knowledge insofar as it relates to talc, soapstone or 6 clay? 7 A. No. 8 Q. I can repeat that question, or if you can hold it 9 in your mind I will not. But let me go at it one more time. 10 Do you have any evidence that Eagle-Picher in any way attempted 11 to alter, delay, suppress or in any manner influence or have 12 any impact on publication or development of medical and 13 scientific literature relating to talc, soapstone or clay? 14 A. No. 15 Q. If you can hold thatquestion inyour mind, I will 16 not repeat it. If not, please let me know. I will ask you 17 that same question with respect to Owens-Illinois? 18 A. The answer would be no. 19 Q. Same question with respect to Keene? 20 A. The answer is no. 21 Q. The same questionwith respect to Celotex or 22 Phillip-Carey? 23 A. The answer is no. 24 Q. The same question with respect to Armstrong World 25 Industries or Armstrong Industries? C.S.R. ASSOCIATES iui. 1 A. The answer is no. 2 Q. Same question with respect to GAF Corporation? 3 A. No. 4 Q. Same question with respect to Baldwin? 5 A. MO. 6 Q. Same question with respect to Pittsburgh-Corning? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Same question with respect to Fibreboard? 9 A. No. 10 Q. It may be that we can shorten it. Do you have any 11 information -- or excuse me, do you have any evidence that any 12 corporate entity in any way attempted to influence, delay, 13 alter, suppress or have an impact on the development or 14 publication of medical and the scientific literature relating 15 to talc, soapstone or clay? 16 A. I have seen something to the effect that some 17 company was in contact with Ken Lynch in 1950. I have received 18 a copy of this from the offices of Casey and Gerry in southern 19 California, San Diego. I don't think that company is involved 20 in this case though. 21 Q. Do you recall the name of that company? 22 A. No, but I imagine Mr. Hays does. 23 Q. Do you have a copy of the documents to which you 24 are referring? 25 A. Yes. I will bring them tomorrow. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES -- ------------ -------------------------------------------------- -- ---------------------------------------------------------54- 1 Q. Is it your position or opinion that contacting a 2 person who conducts research by a corporate entity indicates 3 that they are in some way trying to influence the medical and 4 scientific literature? 5 A. Well, no, not contact, per se. Contact itself is 6 the way people learn about these things. But it's the nature 7 of the contact that raised some question about the role of the 3 company. But since I haven't -- I got this information over 9 the weekend, I opened it up at about 11:00 last night, and I 10 looked at it very briefly yesterday. And I haven't brought it 11 because I understood that the company involved was not involved 12 in this case as a defendant, and I had enough to deal with 13 without bringing it along. I didn't really see that it was 14 terribly relevant to this case. But you are certainly welcome 15 to examine it, and if you want to ask me what my opinions are 16 on it, I will take a closer look at what it actually says 17 before I accuse any company of doing anything the least bit 18 improper in the area of occupational health. 19 MR. CROSBY: Mr. Kays, if you have it here 20 with you, it might shorten matters. 21 HR. HAYS: I don't. 22 MR. CROSBY: Do you know what it involves? 23 HR. HAYS: Generally. I would have to review 24 it myself though. 25 HR. CROSBY: If you would bring that with you C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 tomorrow, please. 2 Q. (By Mr. Crosby) But other than that, are you 3 aware of any person or entity ~ 4 MR. HAYS: You are addressing Dr. Castleman; 5 right? 6 MR. CROSBY: Dr. Castleman, yes. 7 Q (By Mr. Crosby) -- other than the correspondence 8 to Dr. Lynch, are you aware of any entity that in any way 9 attempted to alter, delay, suppress or otherwise have an impact 10 or influence on the medical and scientific literature relating 11 to talc, soapstone or clay? 12 A. Not at this time. As far as I know, there have 13 been virtually no legal discovery conducted in that area. And 14 since one does not find out about what has been suppressed from 15 the medical literature by going to medical libraries I wait the 16 development of additional information before closing the door 17 on that subject. 18 Q. Do I take it from that that your opinions relating 19 to any efforts that in your opinion purport to demonstraight 20 attempts to alter, suppress or have an impact on medical and 21 scientific literature is based upon information obtained from 22 discovery only? 23 A. No. But discovery has rendered the literature a 24 lot more readable in some cases in terms of truly understanding 25 what was going on in terms of understanding what was published, C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 as well as what was withheld or distorted. 2 Q. It'smy understanding that tomorrow you desire 3 that we adjourn at 1:00 for some purpose? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Could you relate to me what that is? 6 A. Yes. The United States EnvironmentalProtection 7 Agency proposed in January of 1986 to ban asbestos in the 8 United States, ban the continuing use of asbestos, to ban some 9 products immediately, and others over a period of time. I have 10 received a call from the Environmental Protection Agency owing 11 to my continual contact with the EPA over that rule as a 12 consultant to the Natural Resources Defense Counsel. The EPA 13 is going to hold a public announcement briefing at 3:30 14 tomorrow afternoon. It's public, so any of you who want to 15 come can come too. And at that time the EPA will announce what 16 its final rule is going to be on the subject of the asbestos 17 bans or phase down rulings. That is why I am leaving early. 18 The meeting at the EPA is going to be tomorrow afternoon. 19 Q. Are you the one making the announcement? Or do 20 you just wish to be present when the announcement is made? 21 A. I will be present when the announcement is made. 22 The announcement is being made by someone in the Environmental 23 Protection Agency. Either the administrator or one of the 24 assistant administrators. 25 Q. Do you serve in any official capacity with the EPA C.S.R. ASSOCIATES ----------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- a-i-- 1 at this time? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Do you with respect to the asbestos ban or 4 proposed ban? 5 A. I did in the early stages that led to the proposal 6 ten years ago. 7 Q. What is your understanding as to what the 8 announcement will be tomorrow? 9 A. I haven't any idea what they are going to do. I 10 know what the proposed rule was, and I would guess that the 11 final rule isn't going to be a whole lot different than the 12 proposed rule, but it's speculation on my part to say what they 13 finally came down with. 14 There were extensive hearings held after the proposed 15 rule was published in the federal register, and the EPA has a 16 duty to consider all the information that it obtained during in 17 the course of those hearings from all interested parties. And 18 I have really -- Since then there has been a change of 19 administration, so I really don't know quite what to expect. I 20 would only be guessing if I tried to answer the question today. 21 Q. Do you have any opinion -- Well, let me strike 22 that and start again. 23 Do you have any evidence that any entity that 24 manufactured soap or produced in any way asbestos-containing 25 products at any time or in any way attempted to alter, delay, C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 5.R 1 suppress or otherwise have an impact on the development of or 2 publication of medical and scientific literature relating to 3 asbestos? That just goes for a yes or no. 4 A. DO I have information to the effect that asbestos 5 manufacturers did that? 6 Q* Not information, mine is evidence. If evidence 7 and information are synonymous do you -- 8 A. I have what I consider evidence of that, yes. 9 Q. Did you bring that with you today? 10 A. No, that has been the subject of about 60 other 11 depositions, and the subject of a book, and as well as 85 -- 12 well, not trial testimonies, but a number of trial testimonies 13 in which corporate knowledge was covered. 14 Q. I understand that. And as you understand and know 15 from our previous depositions, I frequently ask questions that 16 I have not thought of to ask before, and the way that I do that 17 is to look at what you contend is evidence, and see if there 18 are additional questions that I may wish to ask. Or if looking 19 at the evidence that I have and the questions that I have 20 previously asked deem that it's appropriate to ask a question 21 in a different way, bearing in mind that particular information 22 or evidence that you have, and ask that question. So my 23 question remains, although you may feel that you have addressed 24 this issue adequately, I personally do not, and so I ask again 25 if you have brought that material with you? C.S.R. ASSOCIATES ---------- ------------------- ---- ------------------ -------------------- 59- 1 A. No, I have not. 2 Q. Is it available in your office or your home? 3 A. Most of it i s r yes, from various files, numerous 4 files, it's all been produced before in prior depositions that 5 I've given, including depositions for you, I believe. 6 Q* ^ cannot recall my last deposition of you in this 7 area, but as I recall it, we went for two days, we did not 8 complete the deposition, it was adjourned, the cases were 9 resolved, the deposition was never completed, and it has been 10 several years since then. And I was hoping to update it to see 11 if you had anything new. 12 A. That was 1986, I remember the occasion well. I 13 produced boxes and boxes of documents for you at the time. 14 Q. Do you also recall that the deposition was 15 adjourned and not completed? 16 A. Well, i mean, I consider that a formality, not 17 being a lawyer. 18 Q. We lawyers consider it more than that. 19 A. i understand that. It's like if I were the 20 witness, and I were able to ask you at the end of any 21 deposition that I have ever been involved in, if I were able to 22 ask the defense lawyers, Are you satisfied now? I am sure the 23 answer would be no. So in that sense, it's a continuing 24 exercise. And when someone deposes me for two days -- 25 MR. CROSBY: Mr. Hays, do you want to break? C.S.R. ASSnrTATFVC Ra 1 MR. HAYS: Yes. Did you want to take a 2 lunch break now? 3 THE WITNESS: Let me just finish what I am saying. 4 Q. (By Mr. Crosby) My question to you was simply: 5 Doctor, do you recall that that deposition was adjourned? 6 A. All I recall is that it lasted two days, and I 7 produced an enormous amount of information. I don't recall the 8 details of whether I signed the deposition or whether it was 9 considered adjourned or still left open. 10 Q. Do you recall that we had not gone through all of 11 the various boxes and documents that you produced? 12 A. At the time I believe we did. I don't recall. I 13 mean maybe we went through part of it and not all of it. 14 Q. Do you still have those materials in the same 15 files and in the same position so that you can obtain them and 16 bring them here tomorrow so that v/e can continue where we left 17 off? 18 A. I have no idea what I produced then. I understood 19 this was a deposition related to the history and knowledge 20 about the hazards of talc. I would like to __ 21 Q. Let me see if that is your understanding, and if 22 it is, we may be able to shorten this matter. Is it your 23 understanding that you will not be providing testimony in this 24 case relating to the development of scientific and medical 25 cnowledge relating to health aspects of asbestos? c d iC C A P T Time? 44 1 It's just that asbestos has been covered at 2 nauseam in prior depositions and trials. Talc is a new issue. 3 It is even in my opinion a legitimate area for a discovery 4 deposition to be held. I think that on the basis of the fact 5 that there have been so many depositions and so on over 6 asbestos, that the people who want to ask about talc should be 7 given priority, and then if you want me to rent a trailer and 8 bring all my files in here about asbestos and talk about that 9 all over again, we can deal with that later, Mr. Crosby. 10 Q. Well, i would request that if it's necessary for 11 you to rent a trailer to bring the materials relating to 12 asbestos that you do so. 13 A. Oh, I am sure you would. 14 Q. And I would also ask you to bring those materials 15 that were requested with the subpoena, and the request for 16 production attached thereto, which relates to all documents 17 that you have reviewed or prepared, and upon which you rely in 18 support of any opinions or conclusions which you have now or 19 testify to at the time of trial concerning development of 20 scientific knowledge relating to the alleged hazards of 21 asbestos, talc, soapstone and clay. 22 MR. HAYS: We have objected to that. You have a 23 copy of our objection. 24 MR. CROSBY: I am aware, I was served with a copy 25 of your objection this morning. C.S.R- A sso rtA TES 2 1 MR HAYS: Mr Hinkle was also served earlier. 2 MR. CROSBY: It's an exhibit, it speaks for 3 itself. The witness has stated that he did not file 4 any objection. So I renew that request, and ask you or 5 remind you that you should comply with that request, 6 and that I will in light of the fact that you don't 7 have it here now, we're about to adjourn for lunch, 8 you can bring it back with you after lunch. If that's 9 not sufficient time, you can bring it with you tomorrow 10 morning. 11 MR. HAYS: What did you do with the boxes of stuff 12 you got earlier? Did you ever ship that back to him? 13 MR. CROSBY: He insisted on maintaining custody of 14 it, Counsel. 15 MR. HAYS: Who, the attorney? 16 MR. CROSBY: I don't know. Maybe Lisa Blue did. 17 She was there for the plaintiffs. 18 THE WITNESS: You mean to tell me you don't 19 have copies of the stuff I gave you in '86? 20 MR. CROSBY: I think that we have some portions 21 of those documents, but I don't think that we have all 22 of those documents. 23 THE WITNESS: It's not my fault. 24 MR. HAYS: Were they copied? 25 MR. CROSBY: If you recall, you were reluctant C.S.R. ASSOCIATES -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ------------------------------------63. 1 to let them out of your custody, and some of them were 2 unable to be copied. 3 THE WITNESS: I was willing to let them all 4 be copied, as I recall. I didn't have any objection to 5 producing them. 6 Q. (By Hr. Crosby) In any event, the issue is an 7 opportunity to ask you questions about what some of the 8 documents say, and what your opinions are from them. If I can 9 get them here another way, I will do it. If you have them here 10 and have the originals, plus the fact that I don't know if you 11 have something in addition to what we had in 1986. 12 A. Well, I think that would be easier to cover if you 13 just wanted to go company by company and say, "What is new 14 since 1986?" I could at least attempt to give you answers to a 15 question like that. I mean everything that is known up to 16 1986? almost everything of significance in this litigation is 17 recorded in my book, and it's also a matter of discussion and 18 production that took place as of around the time that you 19 deposed me in 1986. There hasn't been a whole lot of research 20 or new material discovered relating to corporate knowledge on 21 asbestos or published literature on asbestos disease 22 historically speaking since 1986. 23 I would be happy to try and answer questions of that 24 nature, which would accomplish I think the same objective for 25 you as a more burdensome approach of asking me to bring C.S.R. ASSOCIATES ------------------------------------------------------------ SJL 1 everything that I've got in ray house that has got the word 2 asbestos written on it. 3 Q. Doctor, I understand that you may not appreciate 4 the obligation that I have as an attorney to represent my 5 client. 6 A. I appreciate that that obligation is sometimes 7 invoked in cases where it gets stretched beyond its 8 legitimation, too. 9 Q. Are you able to testify here under oath today all 10 matters upon you which you base your opinion or positions with 11 respect to what efforts were attempted or that took place with 12 respect to what you contend resulted in an alteration, delay, 13 suppression or otherwise impact on the development of or 14 publication of medical and scientific literature relating to 15 asbestos? 16 A. I can certainly take a crack at it. And basically 17 I would be relying on my own book as a source of information 18 which is neatly arranged in Chapter 9 and appendix four of the 19 second printing of the second edition, which has been available 20 for well over a year now. 21 But if you want me to go through that exercise and 22 basically tell you what is in my book about corporate knowledge 23 and particular manipulations of scientific literature and so 24 forth, we can take the time to do it. I am just saying that I 25 would rather deal with issues related to talc first, because if C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 we start talking about asbestos in the manner that you seem to 2 be laying out, there is no end in sight in terms of the time it 3 could potentially take to go over all this old ground. And so 4 I think the people who have an interest in talc have a 5 legitimate priority to ask their questions first. 6 As you were asking before about talc, those questions 7 are the kinds^ of questions that I think should come first. And 8 if we want to talk about asbestos, all the rest of it, we can 9 do that later. 10 Q. I understand your preferences, but I am here to 11 ask those questions among -- I mean certain questions, among 12 those questions are questions relating to opinions or matters 13 that you contend relate to asbestos since you are proffered as 14 an expert in that area and you have volunteered to do so. So I 15 would ask that you produce those documents tomorrow. 16 I will make an effort to obtain from my office copies of 17 what I can from prior depositions, and we will proceed with 18 areas of inquiry along those lines when the documents have 19 arrived. If you prefer, we can adjourn to -- where is your 20 office? 21 A. My office is in my home, and I prefer that we do 22 not adjourn to my office. 23 Q. Will you bring the materials -- can you bring them 24 after lunch? 25 A No. I mean it would extend the time taken for C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 lunch and reduce the time available for the deposition. I 2 would rather bring them tomorrow if necessary, and perhaps you 3 can communicate to the court and find out whether it's 4 necessary. 5 HR. HAYS: If you would like for me to do so, 6 I will. And are you adopting that portion of the 7 subpoena that objects to an over broad request for 8 production? 9 THE WITNESS: Sure. 10 MR. CROSBY: We object to the attempted adoption. 11 MR. HAYS: It's timely. You just served the 12 subpoena a few days ago. Do you know when you served 13 that subpoena? Since you're relying on it, I'm sure you 14 do. Do you know when that subpoena was served, Counsel? 15 HR. CROSBY: I will ask the witness. 16 Q. (By Hr. Crosby) When were you served? 17 A. Either Friday or Monday. Ho, hold it. I suppose 18 it was Friday. 19 Q. What efforts, if any, did you take to comply with 20 the subpoena other than the collection of the materials that 21 have been marked as exhibits to this deposition? 22 A. That was all I had time for. 23 Q. Those materials weren't in one place? 24 HR. HAYS: Most of them are in the book you 25 have got sitting over there in front of you, C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 47 1 Counselor. 2 MR. CROSBY: Well, let's ask that. 3 Q* (By Mr. Crosby) Sir, how many of those articles 4 referred to that have been attached -- 5 MR. HAYS: We're talking about asbestos articles, 6 the box that you had in your office. He's also referred 7 to a book. 8 MR. CROSBY: It's not in my office, Counselor. 9 MR. HAYS: You don't have those documents in your 10 office? 11 MR. CROSBY: I do not believe that I do. 12 I said I'm going to check, and whatever I do have, 13 I will have sent. My recollection is that that 14 deposition is among other things, we've got copies of 15 his second edition hot off the press, which I have paid 16 for, and Ms. Blue took her copy, and I have yet to be 17 compensated for that. 18 Q. (By Mr. Crosby) So what I am trying to find out 19 is of the exhibits marked here through 75, how many of them are 20 referenced in your book? 21 A. These talc articles contain only a few which are 22 referenced in my book. Those articles tend to be of the 23 general nature on the subject of pneumoconiosis or they are 24 textbooks on occupational diseases, which are referenced in my 25 book. So I would say maybe 10 of these articles, maybe 15 at C.S.R. ASSOCIATES  1 the most, are referenced in the book of asbestos because they 2 also cover asbestos as well as talc. 3 Q. Of the exhibits that we have attached to this 4 deposition being No. 11 or 12 through 75 which are references 5 or articles, weren't those all collected in one place prior to 6 this deposition? 7 A. The talc articles? 8 Q. Yes. 9 A. No. I mean before I got involved in this 10 litigation, I didn't do this kind of a historical review of 11 literature on talc. I was familiar with the fact that talc 12 literature v/ent way back. 13 Q. Excuse me, Doctor. Let me see if I can rephrase 14 my question in more artful manner. Are those articles that 15 number through 75 as exhibits, are those the ones that were 16 accumulated by Hr. Edholm? 17 A. Some of them are, some of them are articles that I 18 had in my possession either because an interest, prior interest 19 in talc, or because of my interest in asbestos. 20 Q. Did you keep those talc articles in a single place 21 as they accumulated? 22 A. Yes. You mean the ones that I had from years 23 before? 24 Q. Yes, sir. 25 A. Yes. 3. 1 Q. Did you then gather the ones that Mr. Edholm gave 2 you and put them with them? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. So when you were served with a subpoena you had a 5 single file that contained those articles; correct? 6 A. The talc articles, yes. And that is what you have 7 got. 8 Q. What else did it take you the rest of the time 9 since being served with a subpoena until now to gather up to be 10 prepared? 11 A. Just one other thing I had to do. 12 Q. What's that? 13 A. Read the articles. 14 Q. So prior to the subpoena you had not reviewed the 15 articles? 16 A. I had gathered the articles, but I had not had 17 time to sit down in a methodical way and read them all. 18 Q. So prior to receipt of the deposition notice and 19 subpoena, had you favored the attorneys for the plaintiffs and 20 these or any rubber and tire worker cases with your opinions 21 concerning the development of the state of the knowledge or 22 excuse me, development of the knowledge relating to health 23 aspects of talc, soapstone and clay? 24 A. No. I think I understand your question. I have 25 never ventured such opinions, and I haven't really done the c.S-R- A.qsnriATE? ifl 1 literature review on the basis of which such opinions could be 2 safely ventured. 3 Q. And at what point did you reveal to counsel for 4 the plaintiffs your opinions concerning development of 5 knowledge on talc, soapstone and clay? 6 A. Last night, to the extent that I have some 7 opinions on that. 8 MR. CROSBY: How long do you want to take for 9 lunch, Mr. Hays? 10 MR. HAYS: How long do you want, Doctor? 11 THE WITNESS: Three quarters of an hour ought to 12 do it. 13 MR. HAYS: Let's just make it an hour. 14 MR. CROSBY: Is an hour all right for lunch 15 everybody? 16 THE WITNESS: 2:00. 17 MR. CROSBY: Just so we will know, we are 18 going to do what we can to accommodate your schedule 19 concerning the conference that you wish to attend in 20 Washington. There has been an objection filed to 21 these proceedings today going beyond 5:00. I don't 22 know if that objection was filed at your request or not. 23 We have also subpoenaed this deposition to go from 24 day-to-day until concluded. We will accommodate you 25 where we can, but we have information that we need to C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 34 1 know and need to discover. If you can think about 2 whether you can go beyond 5:00, and consult Mr. Hays in 3 that matter, we would appreciate it. We would also, if 4 we are able to adjourn tomorrow at 1:00, we would ask 5 that you review your schedule of events to see if you 6 can be here on Friday so that we may go forward if 7 necessary. 8 THE WITNESS; Okay. 9 MR. HAYS: Off the record. 10 (Whereupon, a lunch break was taken.) 11 MR. HAYS: Back on the record now? 12 MR. CROSBY: Yes. 13 MR. HAYS: Did you make a decision about what you 14 wanted to do? 15 MR. CROSBY: Yes. I am going to try to put it 16 in here right now so that we can hopefully move forward. 17 I am going to mark as Exhibit 80 the list of what 18 appears to be articles or references that were produced 19 to me a minute ago by you and the witness pertaining to 20 apparently articles dealing with asbestos exposure. And 21 on the back of the last page of No. 80 are four articles 22 numbered 346, 347, 348 and 349 which are marked as 23 Exhibits 76, 77, 78 and 79 to this deposition. 24 It`s also my further understanding that the 25 documents or the articles referred to in Exhibit No. 80, C.S.R- ASSnrTATF!; 32 1 which is the Plaintiff's Exhibit Index, are matters or 2 materials that are available here in Baltimore at 3 an attorney's office, and were anticipated to be used in 4 the other deposition or videotape deposition that was 5 canceled this morning that was to precede this 6 deposition. And that in addition to those exhibits 7 there are documents and things that relate to so-called 8 knowledge, close quote, of particular persons or 9 entities. 10 My understanding is that if requested the articles 11 listed in Exhibit 80 will be provided. I have been 12 advised by some of the parties to these proceedings that 13 have not been involved in these proceedings previously, 14 that they would like copies of these articles that are 15 listed on Exhibit 80. And as you have requested or 16 volunteered, we would like for him to bring tomorrow 17 the materials that this witness contends relates to 18 entities or individual's knowledge, and that he relies 19 upon in forming any opinions with respect to asbestos. 20 Now, have I got that part of it right? 21 MR. HAYS: For clarification purposes, we suggest 22 this: That the documents be taken to an entity for 23 copying, perhaps Kinko's, we're having some copying 24 done today, but they not leave the custody of the 25 attorneys who's exhibits they actually are. They will C.S.R. ASSOCIATES ....................... ......................... .... 73 1 deliver them to Kinko's, you instruct Kinko's what you 2 want to do with them as far as number of copies are 3 concerned, insofar as delivery to you, and take care of 4 payment for them, and then he will pick up the original 5 documents and return them to Sutter's office. 6 MR. CROSBY: That is fine. Were on the same 7 thing there, we're in agreement there. So if you 8 will have that lawyer take them to Kinko's. 9 MR. HAYS: I will call him during the break and 10 ask him to do that. Maybe get them over there today, 11 what's the address of the Kinko's where you're having 12 your copying done? 13 MR. RHODES: 221 Charles Street. 14 MR. HAYS: Is there someone that can go over 15 there for the defendants and make the arrangements 16 for payment and so forth? 17 MR. RHODES: They are going to be delivering 18 them here, Jim, probably in the next half hour. We 19 can just ask and make arrangements at that time. 20 MR. CROSBY; What about the non-article 21 references that he relies on with respect to state 22 of the knowledge? 23 MR. HAYS: He will just have to put those 24 together tonight and have them here tomorrow, I 25 suppose. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES --------- ---------------------------- --- ----- ------------- 2A. 1 THE WITNESS: I will bring my traveling corporate 2 files on which I base opinions relating to the corporate 3 defendants in the asbestos litigation. 4 HR. CROSBY: Will those documents be all of the 5 documents upon which you base those opinions? 6 THE WITNESS: Yes. 7 HR. CROSBY: The entities that are related or 8 involved, or have been involved in the past, in 9 production of asbestos-containing products, we would ask 10 there be one copy of the articles listed on No. 80, and 11 then we will make other copies for any other people at 12 some other time. 13 MR. HAYS: So my understanding is you are asking 14 for one copy. But I am going to ask you to take care 15 of all that. I don't want to get involved in the 16 copying. 17 MR. CROSBY: Is there anybody beside an asbestos 18 producer who would like a copy of the articles on 19 Exhibit 80 which are this witnesses' bibliography of 20 asbestos-related publications? Is that a fair 21 characterization of it? 22 THE WITNESS: Let's just say that it's a 23 sufficient bibliography on which I would base any 24 opinions I would give about what was available to 25 manufacturers of asbestos-containing products who C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 05 1 troubled themselves to go to a medical library. 2 MR. CROSBY: So does anybody want copies of the 3 articles? Or do you just want a copy of the 4 bibliography? 5 So just the one copy, and I will see it 6 gets to the appropriate people who want them. 7 MR. HAYS: So there will be one copy made? 8 MR. CROSBY: Yes. 9 MR. HAYS: All right. 10 THE WITNESS: How are we going to handle the 11 traveling corporate files? I would like to be sure 12 that they are going to be handled in a careful manner. 13 MR. CROSBY: I t 's all right with me, I don't know 14 how long it will take you to put together the quote, 15 "traveling corporate files" close quote, but if you 16 can get together, or you're in such a position that you 17 can get them to somebody today in whom you have 18 confidence, and have them taken to the same copy place 19 and have those copies made so that we will have your 20 file back to you and copies here at the same time to 21 make sure they match up, it's suitable to start that 22 this afternoon, or if the process will have to start in 23 the morning, it will have to start in the morning. 24 THE WITNESS: If we go until 5:00 today, it will 25 have to start in the morning. I have got someone from C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 2 1 out of the country coming and spending the evening with 2 me today, and I am not going to have time after about 3 6:00 to do any of this stuff. If we knock off at 5:00 4 I can probably get the files together and bring them in 5 tomorrow. As far as copying the stuff, Mr. Crosby, none 6 of this stuff is going to be new to you. So I don't 7 think it should take you very long to question me about 8 them. 9 HR. CROSBY: As you know, sir, I often have 10 objections as to your areas of expertise, and one of 11 them is not only that you may know what I know, but 12 your ability to know what a piece of paper meant when 13 somebody wrote it that's now dead. So I will have 14 to see the documents to see if there is something I 've 15 seen there before, and if upon reading it it prompts a 16 question I haven't thought of before. 17 THE WITNESS: Ready to talk talc? 18 MR. CROSBY: Well, I have been requested that I 19 proceed with respect to the articles that we are waiting 20 to get back from the copy place, which will involve 21 talking, as you say, talking talc. The parties here 22 have asked that we proceed in that manner. That is sort 23 of how we had it outlined, and I don't know how long it 24 will take for them to get back. 25 Does anybody have an estimate as to how long it will n c n AC C A rT AfTT?C 1 take to get them back? 2 MR. RHODES: Approximately 3:30. --1 3 HR. CROSBY: So that is 40 minutes, 4 approximately. if you want we can take a break now so 5 you can call that lawyer and he can get things over to 6 that copy shop. That is one of the things I think we 7 probably need to get underway. 8 MR. HAYS: I don't have a problem with that. 9 THE WITNESS: We can also mark some more 10 documents, if you like. That is always a great way to 11 spend time. These are in chronological order. 12 MR. CROSBY: Number 81 will be a copy entitled 13 "Effects of Certain Silicate Dust on the Lungs", 14 appearing in the Journal of Industrial of Medicine -- 15 it just says the Journal of Industrial Hygiene, I am 16 sorry, volume -- Roman Numeral 15. 17 THE WITNESS Got an author? 18 MR. CROSBY: Dreessen, D-r-e-- e-s-e-n. Appears 19 to be an author. 20 Number 82 is from the British Medical Journal, 21 Volume Roman Numeral I, 1948. There's an article 22 inside, there are two. One's entitled "Dangerous Talc". 23 THE WITNESS: That is the only one. 24 MR. CROSBY: Number 83 is British Journal of 25 Industrial Medicine, Volume 12, 1955 entitled "Talcosis 1 of Unusually Rapid Development" by A-l-i-v-i-s-a-1 2 P-o-n-t-i-- k-a-k-i-s, and T-e-r-z-i-s. 3 And then Number 84 is Industrial Hygiene Review, 4 Volume 4, Hay, 1961, No. l, Division of Industrial 5 Hygiene Department of Labor, State of New York. Article 6 appears to be entitled "Problem Areas in 7 Pneumoconiosis". Authors appear to be Morris Kleinfeld, 8 K-l-e-i-n-f-e-l-d, and Jack Messite, M-e-s-s-i-t-e. 9 And since Hr. Hays has withdrawn apparently to 10 call the other attorney, I suppose we will defer 11 the questioning until his return. At least that is 12 the practice where I am from. 13 (Whereupon, a short recess was taken.) 14 Q. (By Mr. Crosby) Number 81, let me show this to 15 you, please, and would you tell me, is this one of the articles 16 that you asked the attorney to retrieve? 17 A. Yes, it is. 18 Q. Did he bring the list, by the way, with him? 19 A. Yes, he did. 20 Q. Do you have that with you? 21 A. Yes, I do. 22 Q. Yes, that is the one I noticed this morning. 23 A. It's kind of a mess. Written on the back of 24 >f scrap paper. 25 Q. Let me -- C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 99 1 A. The thing is, I would like to get it back so I can 2 try and retrieve the ones I haven't gotten yet. 3 MR. HAYS: Can we have someone run a copy of 4 that so we could have that today? 5 MR. CROSBY: Sure. 6 MR. HAYS: We have got a copy service here in 7 the motel. 8 MR. CROSBY: We will mark that as Exhibit No. 85. 9 Q* (By Mr. Crosby) Would you tell tell us what No. 10 85 is, please? 11 HR. HAYS: By the way, there is certain material 12 on the back of this that is marked out that is not 13 pertaining to this litigation. Let's take a look and 14 see what that says. 15 THE WITNESS: It says something about Mr. Crosby. 16 Q. (By Mr. Crosby) I hope you spelled it right. 17 A. This is a list of articles that I have not 18 collected as of last evening, or at least it was a list that 19 was intended to be the list of articles I still needed to get 20 from the library. Some of them I in fact did find last 21 evening, and I scratched them out at that time. Others I have 22 since obtained, and I have scratched them out today. And there 23 still looks like about nine or ten articles to go. 24 And I also wanted to eventually review the abstracts 25 published in the Journal of Industrial Hygiene and Bulletin of C.S.R. ASSOCIATES n 1 Hygiene. Although the abstracts would simply be secondary 2 references to primary articles, which I believe I substantially 3 have or will have with the completion of what is on this list. 4 Some of these are here just for color, if you will. 5 Article in 1896 published in a German journal, and it is the 6 first report of Talcosis, cited by many subsequent authors, so 7 I thought it would be interesting to see it, although from the 8 standpoint of notice to subsequent articles starting in the 9 1930s would seem to be quite ample since many of them appear in 10 the English language anyway, and review what Thorel had said. 11 Q. Is Thorel one that you've obtained or one you are 12 still trying to obtain? 13 A. It's the latter category. The ones that are not 14 crossed out are still articles outstanding that I would hope to 15 obtain in the near future. 16 Q. Exhibits 81, 82, 83 and 84 are articles that the 17 attorney obtained for you? 18 A. They are articles that the attorney was able to 19 find in the University of Maryland Medical Library, and that is 20 so indicated on some of the articles. One of these, The 21 Department of Labor Report, I don't recall being on there, but 22 maybe it was. 23 Q. Let me give you 85, and you can tell me if it is 24 on there, please. 25 A. I am at a loss to say how the attorney managed to C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 come up with this one. It's not on my list of the articles 2 that I wanted to obtain. Somehow he found it. I really -- I 3 don't know the story there. It's just one of many articles by 4 Morris Kleinfeld and his co-worker Jacqueline Messite on the 5 New York State talc workers. 6 Q. Can we assume, given your previous glowing reports 7 as to the attributes of the attorney to locate articles, that 3 if he was unable to locate certain of those articles as a 9 result of his search and did not bring them back here that they 10 must not be in the library? 11 A. No. Unfortunately -- 12 MR. HAYS: I think we now even have a lowering 13 opinion of the capabilities of lawyers in general for 14 research. 15 THE WITNESS: This fellow managed to bring back 16 a cover page from the British Journal of Industrial 17 Medicine from 1949. I wanted two articles from 1949 18 and 1950. Stapled to the cover page of the 1949 are the 19 1950 articles. The 1949 article is still sitting in the 20 medical library. 21 Q. Assuming that it's there? 22 A. Assuming that the volume attached to that cover 23 page is in the medical library, which would seem to be a safe 24 assumption. He also neglected to find an article by Leroy 25 Gardener in a journal described here as JAMA. He evidently C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 2 1 didn't understand that I was referring to the Journal of the 2 American Medical Association, or simply overlooked it looking 3 down this very sloppy list of articles. I am pretty sure that 4 the medical library over there does have JAMA from 1938 on it's 5 shelf and not in storage, but I am not positive of that fact. 6 But I asked him about that, and he didn't really say I looked 7 for it and didn't find it. So much for attorneys as research 8 assistants. 9 Q. So based on your experience with this one, you are 10 willing to categorize us all, I take it? 11 No* * 3111 just a little more circumspect in what I 12 think that people whose skill in life, one would think would be 13 the assimilation and compilation of written knowledge, that 14 such skills are not often as finely honed as one might expect. 15 Q. Do we know which law school he went to? 16 MR. HAYS: Somewhere in the south. I don't know. 17 I was just responding to your humor, sir. 18 MR. CROSBY: You will find that those of us from 19 the south are constantly being barraged, and we have 20 become quite calm. 21 MR. HAYS: I won't argue that with you. 22 Q. (By Mr. Crosby) Mow then, looking at No. 85, the 23 document which is the list that is crossed through, that list, 24 No. Exhibit 85 is not your initial list, is it? 25 A. No. This is what is left yet to be looked up and C.S.R. ASSOCIATES ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 83- 1 possibly applied to the stack of articles that would relate to 2 what was available in terms of published knowledge on talc 3 hazards. 4 Q. And you are going to bring that initial list with 5 you tomorrow along v/ith other materials that we have discussed? 6 A. Along with all the other materials -- well, I have 7 a specific list, and v/e can go over at the end of the day what 8 I am agreeing to bring tomorrow. 9 Q. Could I see No. 80, please? It's the index to the 10 articles. 11 HR. HAYS: Have you marked it? 12 HR. CROSBY: I marked it, and I think someone's 13 taken it out to copy it. Do you have your copy? 14 HR. HAYS: I have got a copy, but I don't want 15 it to suffer the same fate. 16 HR. CROSBY: It won't. I'm going to keep it right 17 here. 18 HR. HAYS: I don't want it marked either. 19 MR. CROSBY: It won't be marked. 20 Q. (By Mr. Crosby) what I am trying to find out, do 21 you recall if your list includes the works by Vigliani in Italy 22 during the late '30s and '40s? 23 A. I don't think it does. 24 Q. Do you have those works of Vigliani. 25 A. I don't think I do. I have seen reference to C.S.R. ASSOCIATES ZA 1 V i g l i a m publishing reports of two fatal cases of asbestosis in 2 1941. And Vigliani has also written abstracts which appeared 3 in the Bulletin of Hygiene, which I cited in my book, at least 4 once. 5 Q. Have you seen any studies of Vigliani or 6 references to where Vigliani opined that a safe concentration 7 of asbestos could be accomplished at approximately 200 fibers 8 per cc? 9 A. When was this? 10 Q. In the late '30s or the '40s? 11 A. I guess you will have to find the article. The 12 article may have been in Italian for one thing. I have not 13 been able nor have I tried to translate every single article 14 that has been published on the hazards of asbestos, especially 15 if the articles related to factory workers, of which there are 16 so many published articles on asbestosis in factory workers 17 that usually there wasn't any basis in my mind for expecting to 18 find anything particularly new in such articles. 19 I would also question your description of the articles, 20 because they weren't doing fiber counts back in 1939. They 21 were doing particle counts, and so -- 22 Q. I stand corrected. Two hundred particles per cc; 23 do you recall reading anything along that line in the Italian 24 literature dealing with threshold limit values for asbestos? 25 A. Well, that wouldn't surprise me, because 170 n On TV P O A / i t m n n -as. 1 particles per cc is equivalent to five million particles per 2 cubic foot, so Vigliani may have adopted that from Dreessen and 3 just sort of rounded it up a little bit as a fitting figure 4 perhaps that Italian workers are more resistant to asbestosis 5 than American workers. 6 Q. I understand what your surmise and opinion is. My 7 question was: Do you recall reading that in the literature? 8 A. I do not recall reading that. 9 Q. Looking at No. 85, is there any method to that 10 document as to which ones are crossed out as to who obtained 11 them and from what source they were obtained? 12 A. No. 13 Q. So when it*s crossed out it could have either been 14 obtained by you by going through your library at your office or 15 home, or -- well, the only other source would be this attorney; 16 is that correct? 17 A. Or Paul Edholm. Because in some cases I had 18 listed an article as something that we needed to get only to 19 find later on that I already had it and then crossed it out. 20 So there are some like that on this list too. 21 Q. And then on the side opposite the exhibit sticker 22 are there also some articles? 23 A. You mean on the reverse side? 24 Q. Yes, sir. 25 A. On the reverse side there is reference to r.s.p. A.q.qnrTA'PEfl 1 abstracts in the Journal of Industrial Hygiene, and yes, an 2 article by Bauder, the German expert in Berlin on occupational 3 diseases writing in the German Medical Weekly, in 1950 a 4 review article on talc according to other references, is what 5 that is. 6 And also I have made a note that I would like to go 7 through the abstracts of particularly the Journal of Industrial 8 Hygiene and the Bulletin of Hygiene in order to simply, you 9 know, make sure that I have covered what was easily available 10 in this country, and at the same time come up with abstracts in 11 English of articles, the originals which may have been perhaps 12 published in other languages, and then which were abstracted in 13 the United States or Britain and English within a year or two 14 of their publication date. These are sources that were 15 available in this country and therefore relevant. 16 Q. Would you recite to us in the record just the ones 17 that you do not have, based on that? 18 A. The references that I do not have, and I am not 19 sure about the first line, I have got three references by 20 Kleinfeld and his co-workers out of the Archives of 21 Environmental Health. I think when the documents come back 22 from the copying services we may find that one or two of these 23 are actually already in our possession. These are articles 24 published in 1963, 1964 and 1965, if that's sufficient. 25 The next is an article by McLaughlin in the British C.S.R. ASSOCIATES  ax 1 Journal of Industrial Medicine in 1949. That is not in the 2 collected group so far, although we do have another article by 3 McLaughlin. And McLaughlin in this case is reporting on a case 4 of talcosis or talc pneumoconiosis in a tire manufacturing 5 plant worker according to other references that state this, so 6 that is certainly one we want to get. 7 The next is Gardener in JAMA 1938, I think a general 8 article on pneumoconioses. I don't know what it says on talc. 9 I have forgotten whatever reference there was to it in the 10 other sources. 11 Q. Is this Leroy u. Gardener? 12 A. The one and only Dr. Leroy Gardener. 13 Next is Thorel's article, which we have already 14 discussed, the article on talc pneumoconiosis published in the 15 German Journal in 1896. 16 The next one is the article by Feinberg in Archives of 17 Pathology. And I believe that the reference, I am going to put 18 question mark beside it, because I think the reference is 19 wrong. 20 The highly educated attorney who went to the library 21 went and got me Volume 24, Page 65, 1937, an article that had 22 nothing to do with talc. So apparently Feinberg's article was 23 not cited right or not copied right as far as the reference 24 goes, and it would take a little bit of poking around through 25 the index or whatever of the Archives of Pathology to get the C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 right reference and pull the article. 2 The next is an article buy Kipling in a journal called 3 Transaction of the Association of Industrial Medical Officers 4 published in 1960. 5 The next is article by Messite which we may already 6 have, Archives of Industrial Health, 1959. 7 The next article by Williams, this is not in the Medical 8 Journal. It's called "Talc Dust in the Rubber Industries" and 9 it was published in a journal called Safety Engineering in 10 1937. That should be interesting. Williams, I believe was 11 with Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and did such things as 12 petrographic analysis of silted dust on rafters in asbestos 13 plants in the 1930s. 14 The next is Carozzi in a medical weekly published in 15 1941. And I believe I have already talked about what is on the 16 other side of the page. 17 Q. Would you spell the last one? 18 A. Carozzi? 19 Q. Yes. 20 A. C-a-r-o- z-z-i. 21 Q. And that was 19 what? 22 A. 1941. 23 Q. The Williams article was 1937? 24 A. Right. 25 Q. Is that right? C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And Kipling? 3 A. 1960. 4 Q. Looking at No. 81 could you give me the title of 5 that, please? I am sorry, but my list has wandered out. 6 A. it's called "Effects of Certain Silicate Dust on 7 the Lungs". 3 Q. And that was in the Journal of Industrial Hygiene? 9 A. Right. 10 Q. 1941? 11 A. No, 1933, Dreessen. 12 Q. Does that reference mention any health effects of 13 talc or asbestos or both? 14 A. Yes. Well, it talks about talc. 15 Q. Do you recall seeing any reference to asbestos in 16 that particular article? 17 A. I don't think the word "asbestos" is used. They 18 talk about a tremolite talc. And I have to say, I haven't -- I 19 got this article and saw it for the first time about an hour 20 ago. I haven't really spent that much time looking at it. So 21 maybe somewhere in here the word "asbestos" appears. I don't 22 see it. 23 Q. Would that be true also with respect to Number 82, 24 83 and 84 with respect to how much time you have had to review 25 those? C.S.R. ASSOCIATES LQ_ 1 A. I reviewed 82 a little more carefully. I am sure 2 the word I am pretty sure the word "asbestos" doesn't appear 3 there, if that is your question. 4 Q. And 82 is that the article by -- Excuse me. 5 Mr. Hays is pointing something out to you? 6 A. Mr. Hays has astutely noted in the first 7 introductory paragraph Dreessen has generally started out about 8 talking about pneumoconiosis. Asbestos is not here, the word 9 "asbestosis" is. 10 Q. Back to No. 81 since that is what we were just 11 talking about. 12 A. Right. 13 Q. Is there any -- do your opinions, any of the 14 opinions that you express in this case regarding talc or 15 asbestos or soapstone or clay, are they based in whole or in 16 part on that article, No. 81? 17 A. Adjacent parts of that article, yes. 18 Q. What parts? 19 A. Well, the part on the article in that the author 20 Dr. Dreessen indicated people who breathe this kind of -- 21 breathe talc dust, and this is a tremolite talc in Georgia, I 22 believe it was, that these people do develop a fine diffuse 23 bilateral fibrosis of the lungs which is definitely 24 demonstrable in the X-rays. It does contain a warning that 25 these people do get this material trapped in their lungs and it C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 does produce a fibrosis of the lungs which is demonstrable on 2 X-ray. 3 Q. Does it distinguish between whether the talc or 4 tremolite is fibrous in nature or clay-like? 5 A. I don't recall. You might find something in here 6 like that. It seems to me these earlier articles don't get 7 into that very much. I don't think until the '40s did they 3 start talking about fibers, possibly because of the work of 9 Leroy Gardener that was coning to light at the end of the '30s 10 and '40s where longer fibers of asbestos were attributed to 11 causing the fibrosis that asbestos caused, and people started 12 thinking maybe more in terms of its shape of the particles and 13 not their chemical constituants as the cause of disease. 14 Chemically talc and asbestos are very similar. So I 15 think at this stage they weren't very focused so much on the 16 shape of the particles as being the key factor in the causation 17 of disease. 18 Q. Fiber type or substance type did take an issue, 19 did present itself as an issue in that particular study? 20 A. I don't know what you mean. There is no 21 discussion of fiber type, there is no discussion of fibers in 22 terms of as far as I see, and maybe there is. I mean, as I 23 say, I haven't looked at this article. 24 HR. HAYS: Would you like to take a minute and 25 look at it for your purposes? C.S.R. ASSOCIATES HI 1 THE WITNESS: I hate to delay the deposition. I 2 don't think it will serve any purpose for me to sit 3 here for half an hour with each one of these articles 4 and answer questions that aren't central to the issues 5 of whether or not some of these articles constitute 6 form of notice to talc manufacturers that their product 7 might be a problem in terms of breathing it in health 8 terms. 9 Q. (By fir. Crosby) Sir, I understand that you may 10 have formed opinions as to what may be or may not be central or 11 may be crucial in your own mind, but we here as attorneys are 12 here to develop what opinions you may have since you are 13 proffered as an expert in this case with respect to the 14 development of knowledge regarding asbestos, soapstone, talc 15 and kaolin, and you may have priority in which you wish to 16 present it. However, we have priority in which we wish to seek 17 your opinions and what you base them on. 18 You have stated you base your opinions in this case in 19 whole or in part upon that article. I am attempting to 20 determine from you what part of that opinion of the article 21 that you have in front of you, which is No. 81, and what parts 22 of the opinions you have that you rely on. If none of your 23 opinions are based upon that article in whole or in part, then 24 we can simply move on. But if you state they are, I would like 25 to make inquiry. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 2Z 1 A. Well, there is a long way and a short way of doing 2 everything. We will do it whatever way you want to do it 3 because you are asking the questions. 4 Q. I like to think there is a right way. 5 A. May I finish my answer? 6 Q. You may answer. 7 A. _It's the summary I was reading to you from which 8 appears on Page 78, is the author's summary of their findings. 9 Q* Yes, sir, I notice that it's highlighted. Did you 10 do that highlighting or did the attorney that did the research 11 do the highlighting? 12 A. That is my mark in the margin. Mow, I believe 13 your question was whether they talked about -- whether the talc 14 was a fibrous talc, whether there were fibers in the talc. Is 15 that what you wanted to know? 16 Q. I believe my question was: Was not one of the 17 matters addressed in that fiber type? 18 A I don't know what you mean by that question. 19 Q. Is tremolite a type of asbestos fiber? 20 A. Yes, it can be. But that is not, as far as I can 21 see, discussed in this article. 22 Q. You have me at a disadvantage in that you have 23 seen the articles, albeit briefly, and I have not, except to 24 put a sticker on it. You say you rely on it, therefore I am 25 asking what it says in that respect. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 2JL 1 MR. HAYS: You commented about the mark on the 2 page. Obviously you paid some attention to it. 3 MR. CROSBY: I can see it from here, Counselor, 4 on the last page, next to the last paragraph. 5 THE WITNESS: As far as I can see, this article 6 doesn't talk about tremolite in the context that you 7 frame your question, namely as a type of asbestos fiber. 8 Q* (By Mr. Crosby) The generic term quote "asbestos" 9 close quote, was not utilized when referring to "asbestiform 10 contaminant", close quote, rather the word "tremolite" was 11 used? 12 A. The word "tremolite* was used. 13 Q. Does that article, in your opinion, provide any 14 information with respect to health aspects of asbestos? 15 A. Well, it points out that the importance -- 16 Q. Mr. Hays is pointing. 17 A. He doesn't need to point. It's the only place in 18 the article asbestos is mentioned. 19 MR. HAYS: That is the part we discussed earlier 20 where it says asbestosis in the 1933 article. I think 21 I am referring to the one you are referring to. I am 22 pointing it out that you are pointing it out to him. 23 THE WITNESS: The one place in the article that 24 mentions asbestosis says this is a disease that has 25 recently been recognized. So to that extent, someone C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 could learn about asbestosis by reading this article. 2 Q. Referring to No. 82, it's an article by -- 3 A. This is an unsigned editorial in the British 4 Medical Journal called "Dangerous Talc". 5 Q. Have you since learned the author of that unsigned 6 editorial? 7 A. Mo. it stands as a statement of the editor or 8 editors of the journal, British Medical Journal. 9 Q. Back up. What year was that published? 10 A. 1948. 11 Q. In 1948 are you aware of documents that state that 12 unsigned editorials appearing in that journal are the opinions 13 of the editorial staff of that journal? 14 A. Let me just answer your question this way. There 15 are not explicit statements to that effect, but that is the way 16 journals work. These editorials are not written by carpenters, 17 they are published by professionals of the editors of the 18 journal. They may not be written by the editor of the journal, 19 but if they are unsigned, they stand as a statement of the 20 editor, because the editor bears the responsibility for having 21 published every word of this thing. That is the way it is. 22 Q. Is that true with all journals? 23 A. That is my understanding of unsigned editorials in 24 British Medical Journals. 25 Q. My question to you is: Is that the practice of C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 all journals? 2 3 sir. I don't know what the practice of all journals is, 4 Q. Was it the practice of all scientific and medical 5 journals at that time? 6 A. I think it's safe to assume that it was, but it's 7 also possible that there is some kind of exception of some 8 sort. I can't imagine what the exception would be though. The 9 editor's bear responsibility of what they publish. If they 10 publish it without anyone's name on it as an editorial, it's 11 their statement. 12 Q. What tangible evidence do you have that unsigned 13 editorials appearing in published medical and scientific 14 journals during the 1930s, '40s and '50s and '60s were the 15 official position of the editors? 16 A. I have only the -- the only actual proof in that 17 sense is my discussion with Dr. Hueper who was invited to write 18 editorials for a number of journals. He said if he published 19 an editorial in a journal, as for example in 1955 in the 20 American Journal of Clinical Pathology and the editorial 21 carried his name, that he could make statements which were his 22 own opinions and were as fully strong as his opinions were. If 23 he wrote an editorial for the, say, Journal of American Medical 24 Association, was the example he gave, and it was to be an 25 unsigned editorial, he had to write a slightly more C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 conservative appraisal than he would have written in this own 2 name, because it was written as an editorial for the editor of 3 the journal, and would be presumed to be a statement of the 4 editor. 5 Q. So are you saying then that Dr. Hueper's opinions 6 were altered or manipulated by editors of these journals when 7 they caused him to be more conservative? 8 A. I am only saying Dr. Hueper's expression was a 9 little more tempered in cases where he was writing for the 10 editor of the journal as oppose to writing in his own name. In 11 other words, at a certain point the information becomes a 12 opinion, and the opinions that he would give would be 13 a little less far reaching, not appreciably different, but 14 slightly different. 15 Q. Do I take it that the tempering of one's opinion 16 with respect to medical and scientific matters is an acceptable 17 practice when it comes to presenting unsigned editorials? 18 A. I think that when it comes to matters of style 19 this can be done without compromising one's integrity, and I 20 certainly believe that is what Dr. Hueper was able to do. 21 Q. Where could we talk with Dr. Hueper and see if 22 your recollection of your discussion is correct? 23 A. I am afraid Dr. Hueper died in December of 1978. 24 And like you, I have many questions that I have that I regret I 25 am unable to ask him now. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES jia 1 Q. Did you make any notes or have any recordings of 2 your discussions with Dr. Hueper? 3 A. I d o n 't think I retained any such documents. 4 Q. Are you saying -- did you make notes at the time? 5 MR. HAYS: You just asked him a question. He's 6 trying to respond. 7 Q. (By Mr. Crosby) My question was simply: Does he 8 have notes? 9 A. I may have made notes of one of my discussions 10 back at the time I was visiting with him. 11 Q. Do you still have those notes? 12 A. I have no idea. 13 Q. Do you know where you would be able to find them 14 if you retained them? 15 A. No. I would just have to ransack my files. 16 Q. You may have some evidence that could enlighten us 17 in this matter, but you don't know where it is? 18 A. I don't need to go through my files. Dr. Hueper's 19 bibliography is on file at the National Library of Medicine, 20 History of Medicine section, and includes a number of 21 editorials which were unsigned editorials that appeared in the 22 Journal of the American Medical Association. 23 Q. Does it provide us with the drafts or his versions 24 as he would have written it had it not been unsigned? 25 A. I don't think there were any such drafts. I mean C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 33 1 he wrote it for certain audiences with a certain understanding, 2 I suppose. I don't know what sort of iteration these things 3 went through. I gather he didn't have any problem with the 4 editor or he wouldn't have invited him to write articles in the 5 first place. 6 Q. Is that gleaned with your conversation with 7 Dr. Hueper? Or is that an assumption you are making? 8 A. It's based on Dr. Hueper's discussion with me 9 where he said up until the Journal of the American Medical 10 Association was changed he was given a number of opportunities 11 to write such articles, and after changing editorship he was no 12 longer called upon to do so. 13 Q. What, if anything, does that indicate to you? 14 A. Dr. Hueper thought it indicated that second editor 15 was substantially less concerned about occupational 16 environmental cancer than the one that he replaced, whose name 17 I am trying to recall. Morris something or another. 18 Anyway, this guy had been the editor of JAMA and retired 19 in 1950 and was replaced by someone else named Austin Smith, 20 and Dr. Smith never contacted Dr. Hueper to write any articles. 21 Q. Do you have anytangible evidence other than your 22 recollection of Dr. Hueper regarding why hewas not contacted? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Do you have any information or evidence with 25 respect to why Dr. Hueper was not contacted? C.S.R. ASSOCIATES inn 1 A. Only the information that I have* the information 2 from my discussions with Dr. Hueper, which I have related to 3 you. 4 Q. If Dr. Hueper was not contacted, he doesn't know 5 why they didn't contact him either, does he? 6 A. My conversations with Dr. Hueper were not as 7 elaborate as your questions to me, so I can't answer. 8 Q. With respect to No. 82, is this an article by 9 Hendryx? 10 A. 82 is the one we just -- 11 Q. That is the unsigned one? 12 A. Yes. What about Hendryx? 13 Q. Do you rely on this article, No. 82, in whole or 14 in part in forming any of your opinions with respect to 15 asbestos, talc, soapstone or clay? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Could you tell me, please, what it is in there 18 that you rely upon and what it tells you? 19 A. What this tells you, first it's entitled 20 "Dangerous Talc" published in one of the most prominent medical 21 journals in the English language in the world, and indicates 22 that getting talc in your body can cause adverse affects. 23 Q. Does it discuss what type of talc, if it's babies' 24 powder talc? Contaminated? Uncontaminated? Does it give you 25 anything other than that, or is just the word "talc" used? C.S.R. ASSOCIATES in i 1 A. Just the word "talc". 2 Q Does it's in any way relate to tire workers or 3 rubber workers? 4 5 workers. No, it doesn't discuss tire workers or rubber 6 MR. HAYS: Let me ask you something about that 7 last question. Do you mean dangerous talc or talc does 8 not apply to rubber workers? Or that particular 9 article does not name or name tire workers? 10 THE WITNESS: This particular article. 11 MR. HAYS: I was referring to Counsel's question, 12 because we're certainly not saying talc is not dangerous 13 to tire workers. 14 THE WITNESS: We're saying the article doesn't 15 say anything about tire workers, this particular article 16 doesn't make reference to tire workers. 17 Q (By Mr. Crosby) From that article do you form any 18 opinions with respect to the talc utilized at the Miami, 19 Oklahoma plant as opposed to the talc referred to in that 20 ar^ c^ e and circumstances underwhich it was used? 21 A. i only infer that this is one more statement in a 22 prominent place in the medical literature which very clearly 23 indicates that talc is dangerous to get in your body. 24 Q. Based on that, if I am understanding you right, 25 all talc under all situations is dangerous? C.S.R. ASSOCIATES lfl2 1 A. Well, not necessarily. But the article raises the 2 question that must be presumed, that there isn't anything in 3 here to exculpate any kind of talc from the assertion made. 4 This doesn't say the only type of talc that we consider 5 dangerous is type "A", and if you have type "B", don't worry. 6 It doesn't say that in here, it says talc is dangerous, it 7 says "Dangerous Talc" in the title of the article, and there is 8 no further elaboration about the kind of people talked about in 9 other places or later years about what about talc might be 10 dangerous. 11 Q. Is that one of the shortcomings of that article, 12 in your opinion, the fact it doesn't discuss different types of 13 talc and situations under which it may be a hazard? 14 A. it may be a shortcoming in the sense that the 15 authors don't have complete information about what was 16 dangerous about talc. But it's not a shortcoming in the sense 17 that it constitutes a form of notice to people who are in the 18 talc business. 19 Q. Was baby powder being used about the time that 20 article was published? 21 A. i assume so. I understand cornstarch was used a 22 lot before. 23 Q. What is the difference between French chalk and 24 talc as used at the Miami, Oklahoma plant? 25 A. i don't think I can answer that question. I think C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 that is for Dr. Rohl -- is it Dr. Rohl on this case, or 2 Dr. Langer? ------ 3 HR. HAYS: Dr. Rohl. 4 THE WITNESS: The mineralogist can answer 5 questions about that. I haven't made any investigation 6 about mineralogy in the Miami plant. 7 Q. (By Mr. Crosby) Would you agree a mineralogist 8 who was able to review an article as it pertained to their 9 particular product would be in a better position to opine what 10 the article said as to the product? 11 A. i think it depends on the specific article and 12 what the article conveys. 13 Q. What is No. 83, please, sir? 14 A. This is a publication of authors in Greece. 15 Q. And what year was that? 16 A. This was 1955 published in the British Journal of 17 Industrial Medicine. 18 Q. Before you go on to it can you tell me if you 19 relied on that article in whole or in part in forming your 20 opinions in this case relating to asbestos? 21 A. Yes, I do. 22 Q. What part of that article do you rely upon in 23 whole or in part with respect to asbestos? 24 A. Well, there is a paragraph on Page 48 which says, 25 "More recent research has shown there is such a clinical entity C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 as talcosis. Our observations confirm more recent work-- 2 reference Gardener in *39, Policard in '40, Parmeggiani in '48, 3 and some other authors who look like Scandinavians in '49, 4 McLaughlin in '49, Baader in 1950, and the sentence continues 5 -- and encourages us to accept the fact that talc can produce 6 fibrotic pneumoconiosis with functional disturbances." 7 They also have a summary on Page 49, "Our analysis of 8 pulmonary function studies are indicative generally of several 9 degrees of impaired pulmonary function. The results of the 10 analysis of these findings suggest that ventilatory as well 11 alveolar respiratory insufficiency was present, it's possible 12 that the fibrotic changes found in talcosis produce changes in 13 alveolar aeration and perfusion. It's evident that this is an 14 important factor in the production of pulmonary insufficiency." 15 And they go on to have a short summary mentioned they have seen 16 eight cases of talcosis in mill workers developing after and 17 unusually short exposure to talc. 18 Q. Have you completed your answer? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Now, I move to strike. My question was, Doctor -- 21 MR. HAYS: You asked him what part of that article 22 in whole or in part do you rely upon, and he responded. 23 MR. CROSBY: With respect to asbestos, and I said 24 what part do you rely on with respect to asbestos. 25 MR. HAYS: I didn't hear it. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES JL.U3 1 MR. CROSBY: Let's have the court reporter read it 2 back. 3 MR. HAYS: You changed your question, because 4 ordinarily you say asbestos, talc, soapstone, clay or 5 kaolin. Maybe you are reading the paper and 6 not reading your questions. 7 MR* CROSBY: Let me respond to that. I am not 8 reading any paper, it's just that maybe you're just 9 doz ing. 10 MR. HAYS: It's because you are pausing so long 11 between your questions, you are wasting the day with 12 your long pauses and putting us all to sleep. 13 MR. CROSBY: This is a scientific area, Counsel, 14 and it takes me a while to frame my questions and listen 15 to responses and determine what next question I should 16 ask, and the manner in which I should ask it, and this 17 v/itness has told us countless times that he has been 18 deposed, and therefore I assume that he listens to the 19 questions. 20 THE WITNESS: I answered it in that context. 21 There is nothing in here about asbestos. 22 Q. (By Mr. Crosby) The question was about asbestos. 23 A. The word "asbestos", as far as I see, doesn't 24 appear in the article. This is about talcosis. 25 Q. Doctor, turning now to No. 84. Would you tell us C.S.R. ASSOCIATES IQS 1 what that deals with? And I hope that you understand, Doctor, 2 that I don't have the articles before me, I don't know what 3 you're going to say, and I don't know what they say, so it does 4 take me a while to listen to what you say and frame ray next 5 question. So if you'll please tell me what the name of that 6 article is? 7 A. "Problem Areas in Pneumoconiosis". 8 Q. Do you base any of your opinions in this case in 9 whole or in part upon that article? 10 A. Yes, insofar as the article refers to talc. 11 Q. Do you base any of your opinions relating to 12 asbestos on that article? 13 A. I don't think so. It's peripheral at best to the 14 literature on asbestos disease. 15 Q. Does it provide you any information relating to 16 asbestos that you did not have prior to having seen that 17 article? 18 A. I don't think so, but I am familiar with the work 19 of Kleinfeld and his co-workers, and I have reviewed some of 20 these articles before I obtained this one. I mean there may be 21 some reference to asbestos, but basically it's an article on 22 other kinds of pneumoconiosis, and I found the part about talc 23 especially pertinent to this case. 24 Q. I understand what you may have found pertinent, 25 but my question is and my chore here is in part to determine if C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 anything in that article affects any of your opinions in whole 2 or in part relating to asbestos? 3 A. No. 4 Q. All right, sir. Now, withrespect to talc, 5 soapstone or clay, what is there in that article in your 6 opinion that imparts knowledge respecting health aspects of any 7 or all of those substances? 8 A. (No response.) 9 Q. Doctor, I do not mean to rush you,but if you need 10 to take a break for you to review that article, I am certainly 11 happy to do that. I understand that it takes a while to read 12 these materials and perhaps comprehend them, so if you need to 13 take a break, feel free to let us know that, and we can break 14 for a few minutes. 15 A. No, I found the part on talc. It starts on Page 16 5, talks about "Talc dust in different mills, and indicates 17 that in the plant where the worker's exposure was to fibrous 18 rather than the granular variety of talc is significantly 19 higher. Incidence of dyspnea, productive cough and chest pain 20 occurred. Similarly the chest X-ray, the X-ray findings of the 21 chest were more abnormal in this group." 22 And I am going to mark that if you don't mind. I am 23 sure you won't. 24 Q. I don't mind it being marked for purposes of the 25 deposition, we will object to any markings or lineations if at C.S.R. ASSOCIATES iu a 1 time of trial the testimony or evidence is permitted. 2 A. Anyway, so this is a further elaboration on the 3 kinds of information that is coming to the floor on talc as of 4 1961, particularly in the state of New York where they had an 5 asbestiforra talc mining area under study. 6 Q. In that article does it discuss whether or not the 7 quote "talc" close quote is quote "contaminated" close quote? 8 And if so, with what? 9 A. Well, they talk about asbestiform or fibrous talc, 10 so I think we can conclude -- well, let's just take another 11 look. 12 Q. Again, Doctor, you can certainly take your time. 13 If it would be better for us to take a break, feel free to do 14 that. 15 A. I really rather use the time as effectively as 16 possible, because there is a limited amount of my time that I 17 can make available for this proceeding. That is why I chose 18 not to ask for breaks anymore than necessary. 19 Q. Counsel complained about the time taken up for 20 asking questions, and I just wanted you to know that we would 21 extend the courtesy to let you know we would let you take the 22 time to answer them. 23 A. I appreciate your courtesy. I don't believe I can 24 add much to what it says. They say there is less serious lung 25 disease in the workers that they have looked at handling C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 fibrous talc than in workers that they have looked at handling 2 a non-fibrous talc. 3 Q. Is it -- 4 A. More serious disease in the fibrous talc workers. 5 Q* So does that article discuss whether or not there 6 are contaminants, and if there are, what they are? 7 A. i don't think they go into it. They just refer to 8 it -- 9 MR. HAYS: Could I ask you what you mean by 10 contaminants? 11 MR. CROSBY: Let me ask the Doctor since he used 12 that word earlier. 13 Q. (By Mr. Crosby) Doctor what do you mean when you 14 refer to talc or quote "talc" close quote, that is 15 contaminated? 16 A. Well, talcs have various types of mixtures. Pure 17 talc dust, the mineral called talc, is a very unusual thing. 18 The industrial grade talcs commonly contain such things as 19 silica and tremolite. The article by Schultz and Williams in 20 1942 is indicative of the range of minerals that are found in 21 industrial talcs, whether you want to call them contaminants or 22 not, they are there. 23 Q. I don't mind. I am just trying to find out if 24 that word is a word you are comfortable with. If that is what 25 it indicates to you, I will certainly use that word. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES im 1 A. I am not totally comfortable with it, but it's a 2 word you can use. They are not contaminants in the sense that 3 they were inadvertently added. They were there to begin with. 4 They were part of the mineral that was being dug out of the 5 ground by some company or another. 6 Q. So would you prefer using the term pure talc 7 versus non pure talc? 8 A. i suppose. I suppose that might be a little bit 9 more precise. 10 Q. And then is asbestiform talc in your opinion 11 opinion the same thing as a talc that contains asbestos as a 12 contaminant that occurs naturally? 13 A. That is my understanding, yes. 14 Q. All right, sir. 15 A. That is what I think it is, although the real 16 experts on that would be the mineralogists. 17 Q. If your understanding as to what an asbestiform 18 talc is is incorrect, would it alter your opinions with respect 19 to talc in any way? 20 A. Depends how it was incorrect and in what manner. 21 Q. Have you done any type of research to determine 22 what is meant by asbestiform talc? 23 A. I have read what appears in the literature on 24 talcosis. I hasn't gone to the extent of reading a great deal 25 of literature which is of a mineralogic and geologic nature, a.CRnrTa'PPC! 1 although such literature is available. What is not available 2 is time to go and do every single thing that might answer every 3 single question that I could conceivably be asked. 4 Q. With respect to Nos. 82, 83 and 84, is there any 5 information relating to the exposure levels of the workers 6 who and the opinion of the authors, who have contracted what 7 you relate to me as talc associated conditions or diseases? 8 A. I don't see any dust counts. Here there is. 83. 9 Q. Would you help me with what the title is? 10 A. The article by the Greek authors in the British 11 Journal of Industrial Medicine in 1955 does have air sampling 12 data, units of talc particles per liter of air. 13 82 doesn't have quantitative information on exposure. 14 34, I don't believe contains such information. 15 Q. Do any of those articles deal specifically with 16 individual's exposed to pure or non-pure talc in a tire worker 17 or rubber worker situation? 18 A. Ho, none of these three, 83, or 82, 83 and 84 do 19 not. 20 Q. What about 81? I have got it. I am sorry. it 21 was in front of me. 22 A. 81 doesn't either. These are mine and mill 23 workers. 24 Q. What were the exposure levels in Mo. 83? 25 A. They were in unusual units that would require some C.S.R. ASSOCIATES J_L2 1 conversion to get them into million particles per cubic foot. 2 They are given as talc particles per one thousand milliliters 3 of air, per liter of air. The information is on Table 3. 4 There are a lot of numbers here. 5 Q. Were these measurements of talc -- I know it says 6 talc particles, but can you tell from reading this article if 7 it was actually talc particles, or was it total particles and 8 all attributed to being talc? 9 A. I don't think I can tell from reading the article 10 which they mean. 11 Q. From looking at Table 3, are these ranges, is that 12 how you interpret it? 13 A. Let me see it. I read this as a separate 14 measurement, not ranges. 15 Q. Two separate measurements? 16 A. Well, some cases two, some cases three, some cases 17 four. If you will look at it more closely, I think you will 18 agree. 19 Q. And to convert this to talc particles per cc, one 20 would just divide by a thousand? 21 A. Well, yes. No, hold it. Right. And then divide 22 by another 170 particles per cc is five million particles per 23 cubic foot. 24 MR. HAYS: Counsel, am I to assume you're assuming 25 lead for the talc people as well as abestos at this C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 414 1 point? 2 MR. CROSBY: No. I am just asking questions 3 about these particular articles. I am not assuming 4 lead for anybody. 5 MR. HAYS: We're producing the asbestos articles 6 tomorrow. 7 MR. CROSBY: I know, but I don't want to go 8 back through the same articles twice, I didn't think you 9 did, so when I cover an article, I try to cover it 10 fairly completely so that we don't have to do it twice. 11 If I go through it now and ask him the title and 12 everything about it, and ask about asbestos and he says 13 nothing, go back all through it again tomorrow on talc, 14 I am certainly willing to do it that way. I don't know. 15 I am just trying to do it -- 16 MR. HAYS: We might be able to shorten this. 17 Let's take a break for a second, and I'll ask him about 18 these articles, we might be able to give you an answer 19 and you just won't have to ask any more questions from 20 your standpoint. 21 MR. CROSBY: All right, sir. 22 (Whereupon, a short recess was taken.) 23 MR. HAYS: Back on the record. We took a break 24 to see if we could expedite the deposition. And I 25 have spoken with Dr. Castleraan. He has agreed that C.S.R. ASSOCIATES i i. a 1 we will not rely-- his opinion will not be based upon 2 any of the articles that are identified as the quote, 3 unquote "talc articles" which comprise Exhibits 11 4 through 75, and four additional articles that were 5 provided after lunch which were 81 through -- 6 MR. CROSBY: 84. 7 MR. HAYS: Where is the other article? There it 8 is. 9 THE WITNESS: Let me complete your representation. 10 No opinions that I have on the hazards of asbestos 11 will be based on any of the so-called talc articles 12 except insofar as such articles also appear on the list 13 of asbestos articles numbered 1 through about 349 on a 14 separate list, which has been marked as an exhibit. 15 I think that will take care of it. 16 Q. (By Mr. Crosby) All right, sir. Do you have a 17 separate list of all of the so-called talc articles that we can 18 look at so we can compare the talc list with the asbestos list 19 and see where there is a duplication? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Are you able to go through No. 80, do you think, 22 and let us know? 23 A. i will do it during the deposition tomorrow with 24 when the documents get back here, or I will do it during the 25 deposition if the documents get back here between now and 5:00, C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 I am going home at 5:00/ or you can do it yourself. 2 HR. HAYS: That's a good idea. 3 THE WITNESS: You will have plenty of time 4 eventually before trial. There are only about three 5 or four I think. 6 Q. (By Mr. Crosby) I understand we may have plenty 7 of time before trial. But one of the purposes for this notice 8 and subpoena and gathering is to find out what your opinions 9 are and what you base it on. 10 MR. HAYS: Well, Counselor, since you are going 11 through all those articles tomorrow, when you happen 12 upon those articles, then it will be -- 13 MR. CROSBY: I am just trying to find out if there 14 is a shortcut, Mr Hays. If there's not, there's 15 not. 16 MR. HAYS: You are going to go through all those 17 articles tomorrow anyway, so what difference does it 18 make? 19 MR. CROSBY: Like I say, I don't mind doing it 20 the right way. 21 MR. HAYS: Me neither. 22 Q. (By Mr. Crosby) Just so I understand it, your 23 opinions relating to health aspects of asbestos are not based 24 upon the quote "talc articles" which are Exhibits No. 11 25 through 75 and 81 through 84; is that correct? C.S.R. ASSOCIATES US. 1 A. Correct, except insofar as such articles may also 2 appear on the list of 349 or so, which we have also marked as 3 exhibits somewhere. 4 Q. Which is exhibit No. 80. 5 MR. HAYS: In order that we be perfectly clear, 6 we're not excluding anything that has to do with talc 7 with asbestos fibers or asbestiform talc. That is we're 0 talking about asbestos as distinct from talc with 9 asbestos in it. Are we tracking on that? 10 MR. CROSBY: Let me make sure. I think we are. 11 What you're telling me is that this witness -- 12 HR. HAYS: May have opinions -- 13 MR. CROSBY: will not relate to products that 14 were manufactured, produced and sold as being products 15 that were promulgated as asbestos-containing products. 16 His opinions with that respect will not rely on 11 17 through 75 and to 84 except duplicates on the list that 18 may contain asbestos in one form or another? 19 MR. HAYS: Correct. 20 MR. CROSBY: If we can agree to do it, I will 21 yield the witness to the talc people at this time with 22 the understanding that I can resume with asbestos 23 matters at a later point, either when we begin tomorrow 24 or the talc general examination is over. If I yield the 25 witness now, I do not want to be precluded from asking C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 414 1 other questions that I nay have about asbestos. 2 MR. HAYS: We will not preclude any further 3 questions by yourself, so long as they are not 4 repetitive. And we do ask you to consider our offer 5 nade off the record, which we will make on the record, 6 to shorten the deposition by incorporating by reference 7 the depositions that have to do with background and 8 other natters as we agreed to in the Cohen deposition. 9 MR. CROSBY: And like I said, I have discussed it 10 v/ith several people here, more people have shown up 11 since then, we will try to see if we can do something. 12 If we can, we can. 13 Q. (By Mr. Crosby) Let me ask the witness, are 14 you -- have you checked about Friday? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Are you aware of any commitments that you have for 17 Friday other than to be here? 18 A. I am aware of the fact that work is piling up on 19 my desk. 20 Q. We all aresuffering from that. 21 A. Yes. Well, i suffer from it differently than you 22 do. 23 Q. Maybe not. 24 A. And I have a limited amount of my time, my life's 25 time that I am willing to make available to be questioned about C.S.R. ASSOCIATES na 1 anything in deposition this week, because I do have other 2 things I have to work on, such as the EPA's rule coining out 3 this week and whatever repercussions are going to result from 4 that, and other kinds of activities that I'm involved in that 5 don't have anything to do with litigation. 6 Q. Let me ask you something about the EPA thing 7 tomorrow. As I understand it, you are going up there to hear 0 what the announcement is, you are not to participate in any 9 offical capacity with respect to that announcement, are you? 10 A. i intend to participate. 11 Q. In an official capacity? 12 A. I will be representing the Natural Resources 13 Defense Counsel. We have taken a number of positions in papers 14 we have filed with the EPA in the course of this rule making. 15 Participated at the hearings and attended the hearings that 16 were held on the proposed rule for a week, and I intend to 17 participate in what goes on tomorrow as well. 18 Q. I understand what your intentions are. I am just 19 trying to get an understanding as to what your role is in the 20 matter tomorrow since it may deal with your qualifications. 21 And what I am trying to find out is: Is your presence there 22 necessary for the announcement to be made? 23 A. My presence isn't necessary for the administration 24 to tell the media what its view of its regulations are. 25 Q. All right. So your -- C.S.R. ASSOCIATES a 1 A. But for a more balanced picture to be gotten 2 across, and for certain questions to probably be asked of the 3 government people, which the government people might not have 4 thought to raise on their own, which might raise some critical 5 aspects about their new regulations, it probably is essential 6 that I be there, and I intend to be. 7 Q. Is it essential that you be there as an individual 8 for this group? Or is it essential that you be there as 9 someone who's a representative of the government? 10 A. As a representative of the Natural Resources 11 Defense Counsel, the leading environmental group in the United 12 States that deals with toxic substances and confronts the 13 government time after time over such things as a need to 14 regulate asbestos. 15 Q. But this -- What is it, National Resources 16 Defense Counsel? 17 A. Natural Resources Defense Counsel. 18 Q. That is not a government agency or entity, is it? 19 A. That is right, it's not. 20 Q. And you do not have any official governmental 21 capacity with respect to the EPA announcement at this time? 22 A. That's correct. 23 Q. Is the National Resources defense counsel what 24 some folks might call a lobby group? 25 A. I suppose it's been called that by people in the C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 12a 1 industry that were criticized by the NRDC. But the Natural 2 Resources Defense Counsel is a very highly regarded group in 3 the area of occupational or mainly environmental health. 4 Q. I guess it's highly regarded by some and maybe not 5 highly regarded by others? 6 A. Well, statements that they make and studies that 7 they do are reported by the leading stuffed-shirt east coast 8 newpapers as a fact, to which to my mind constitutes a very 9 high degree of recognition. These people who have been in 10 business a long time, Jacqueline Warren, with whom I worked on 11 this rule, has written more environmental legislation that 12 anybody probably now working for the Environmental Protection 13 Agency. 14 David Hawkins with the Natural Resources Defense Counsel 15 under 10 years back was the assistant administrator to the 16 director of the EPA in charge of all air pollution control 17 programs. These are the kind of people who work at the NRDC. 18 And in the field of environmental protection, the Natural 19 Resources Defense Counsel and the Environmental Defense fund 20 have an extremely good reputation for doing solid, competent 21 work, and not for going over the deep end about things that 22 aren't real problems. 23 Q. I assume that there is some disagreement with 24 respect to your assessment of the organization for which you 25 consult? C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 421 1 A. I am sure the producers of Alar would disagree 2 with that. 3 Q. Is that the apple thing? 4 A. That is the pesticide that the Environmental 5 Protection Agency said it should ban, but it wouldn't be able 6 to ban until 1991, so we should be keeping apples in our 7 refrigerators until such time as they get together on banning 8 Alar. 9 Q. Were you all instrumental in getting all the 10 grapes and everything in Chili banned? 11 A. That had nothing to do with the Natural Resources 12 Defense Counsel or any environmental group. That was action 13 taken by the Pood and Drug Administration of the United States 14 for reasons best known by the FDA. 15 Q. Did you support that action? 16 A. I didn't really know what to make of it. They 17 analyzed one grape and found some kind of a trace of cyanide in 18 it. I don't consider that in a class with the deliberate 19 application of Alar to half the red apples grown in the United 20 states consumed by adults and children. 21 Q* Let's see if I can find out who some of the quote 22 "stuffed-shirt", close quote, east coast newspapers are. Is 23 the New York Times one of those? 24 A. That was the principal one to which I referred. 25 Q. Do you find it to be a reputable and highly C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 122 1 regarded newspaper? 2 A. Yes, I do. 3 Q. And do you find it to have enjoyed that reputation 4 for over a century? 5 A. I don't know how long it's had that reputation. 6 But I read the newspapers a lot, and I consider myself very 7 astute in appraising the quality of journalism of newspapers. 8 I've dealt with the media for 20 years in the field of 9 occupational and environmental health, and I've seen how they 10 report issues with which I am intimately familiar. And based 11 on that, I would characterize the New York Times as a very 12 competent newspaper, but also kind of a stuffy newspaper in the 13 way that it reports the news. 14 Q. In your view of historical matters relating to 15 substances, did you note that the New York Times enjoyed a 16 reputation of attempting to correctly and accurately report 17 scientific matters? 18 A. Well, I think that the New York Times does that as 19 well as any city newspaper in the country. 20 Q. Is the Washington Post another stuffed-shirt 21 newspaper? 22 A. They are a little less stuffy than the New York 23 Times. 24 Q. But is it still one of them? Are we talking 25 degrees here? C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 A. We're talking degrees here, yes. 2 Q. How about the -- 3 A. We have got about -- 4 Q. How about the Wall Street Journal? 5 A. Well, the Wall street Journal does very solid 6 reporting. It's editorials are another story. But the 7 reporting of the wall street Journal is remarkably good. 8 Q. Do you find that it has enjoyed that reputation 9 for about a century or so? 10 A. I don't really know how long. I mean, I am just 11 talking about my own experience as someone who, you know, for 12 example was very much involved in the aftermath of the Bophal 13 disaster and reading the New York Times and Wall Street 14 Journal, Washington Post every day for months on end about the 15 way they were covering that development, as well as all the 16 trade magazines in the chemical industry and other publications 17 from abroad. 18 MR. HAYS: Do you think this is relevant? 19 It's 4:30 in the afternoon, and you're going through 20 a list of newspapers. 21 HR. CROSBY: Yes, sir, and I will tie it up for 22 you at trial. 23 Q. (By Mr. Crosby) Now, let me ask you this: Did 24 you go to Bophal and do an investigation of your own there? 25 A. I didn't go to India. I had become acquainted C.S.R. ASSOCIATES ----------- ------------- -- -- -------------------------------- 124. 1 with very many people who were involved in the situation both 2 in India and in the United States, one of whom I expect to meet 3 tonight. 4 MR. CROSBY: With the understanding that I will 5 be able to complete my questioning of this witness after 6 passing the witness temporarily for one of the talc 7 attorneys to make inquiry, I pass the witness and 8 reserve ray further questioning relating to asbestos in 9 general, and with respect to Owens-Corning Fiberglass in 10 particular. And I think counsel is aware that I have a 11 series of questions that will be perhaps quite lengthy, 12 and I do not want to in any way indicate that I am in 13 any way waiving my right to pursue those questions. 14 We got an agreement on that? 15 MR. HAYS: I haven't heard the questions yet. 16 MR. CROSBY: I understand. You may not like some 17 of the questions as we go along, and you may have some 18 reservations about some of the questions, or objections, 19 but if for instance -- 20 MR. HAYS: You are not waiving your right to ask 21 them, I understand that. You can about newspapers 22 tomorrow if you want to, and the funny papers in 23 particular. 24 MR. CROSBY: No. Those are the only ones I needed 25 to ask about at this time, unless I see some of them in C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 125. 1 the materials that he has tomorrow that are provided 2 that formed the basis of some of his opinions. So I 3 temporarily yield -- 4 MR. HAYS: It's 4:30, 4:30 is my time. Let's go 5 off the record for just a second. 6 (Whereupon, a discussion was held off the record.) 7 . CROSS EXAMINATION. 8 BY MR. HINKLE; 9 Q. Mr. Castleman, will there be other representatives 10 of this Natural Resource Defense Group at the hearing tomorrow? 11 A. I don't believe so. 12 Q. You are the only one that will be there? 13 A. Right. 14 Q. Are there others in the Baltimore area, other 15 members? 16 A. They may be members, but they are not people who 17 work as members of the staff or consultants. This is a group 18 who's probably got 50,000 members around the country that send 19 them annual dues, they're members. 20 Q. Are you the only one that has ever attended any 21 hearings like this on behalf of that organization? 22 A. I think so. The attorney involved in the Hew York 23 office may have come to one of the hearings just to make -- 24 yes, she did in fact come to the presentation where we 25 presented NRDC's statement. But aside from that, I have been C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 12 1 the only person. I have been the point man for NRDC dealing 2 with EPA on this ruling. 3 Q. Do you hold an office with the NRDC? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Are you paid a salary by the NRDC? 6 A. No. 7 Q. This is a voluntary service on your part? 8 A. Well, actually I made $1500 out of my work in this 9 connection since 1986, so it comes close to being volunteer 10 work, but I got paid something for it. 11 Q* Are there other organizations that have interests 12 similar to the NRDC's that will be there? 13 A. There are no organizations that will be 14 represented in the way that I can represent NRDC unless I am 15 there, because I know more than anybody else in the 16 environmental movement about the hazards of asbestos. 17 Q. As I understand it -- 18 MR. CROSBY: I move to strike the voluntary 19 assessment of the witnesses' credentials and knowledge. 20 MR. PIERCE: I disagree with him. 21 Q. (By Mr. Hinkle) You were advised some time ago 22 that we were going to need at least two days for this 23 deposition, were you not? 24 A. I was advised that you wanted two days. 25 Q. Well, you were told a minimum of two days, were C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 you not? 2 A. I believe I was told that you wanted two days. I 3 blocked out two days, and I was of course aware of the fact 4 that at the end of the two days in all likelihood at least one 5 of the dozens of attorneys would object to the fact that they 6 hadn't had more time, because this has happened many times in 7 the past. 8 But be that as it may, I have put aside as much time as 9 I could. The call from the EPA came sometime last week, and 10 there is nothing I can do to get the government to change its 11 schedule for you all or for me. 12 Q. When you got the call from the EPA did you notify 13 Mr. Hays or anyone with John Norman's law office about that? 14 A. Not immediately. The call was dropped on my 15 answering machine. Later on I did eventually get the call. I 16 Jacqui Warren at NRDC in Mew York and discussed 17 briefly -- 18 Q. I don't need to know about your discussions with 19 her. I am trying to get some timing down here. When was it 20 that you were notified that you were going to have a problem on 21 the 6th of July with regard to this deposition? 22 A. Well, I didn't think I would necessarily have a 23 problem. I was hoping we could get this all over with in time 24 for me to scoot off tomorrow afternoon and go down to 25 Washington. I wasn't assuming we would have a problem. r> a o xecn/it 12 1 I felt that the talc literature could be expeditiously 2 dealt with in the time allotted. But in any event, the 3 information from EPA came to me late last week, something like 4 Friday, Thursday or Friday. 5 0. That is when you knew about itthen? 6 A. That is when I knew that the EPA was holding this 7 proceeding. It didn't occur to me right away -- 8 Q. All I want to know is when. 9 A. -- that there was necessarily a conflict, it took 10 me a little while longer to realize that that might cause some 11 problems in connection with this deposition. 12 Q. You knew Thursday or Friday of last week that this 13 hearing was going to take place Thursday of this week, you had 14 a weeks notice? 15 A. Right. Maybe it was Friday. 16 Q. When did you notify Mr. Hays or someone at John 17 Norman's office about that? 18 A. I don't recall. 19 THE WITNESS* Did I talk to you about it this 20 weekend or after you got up here? 21 MR. HAYS: Last night. 22 Q. (By Mr. Hinkle) You notified representatives of 23 the plaintiff's firms that hired you about this conflict last 24 night? 25 MR. HAYS: Counsel, in fairness, he didn't say C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 123. 1 he was aware that it was going to be a conflict. He 2 thought it might be expedited. And to that end we have 3 agreed to incorporate depositions, we have supplied 4 lists, we have worked to get copies for you, and we have 5 answered a rather banal list of questions today. In 6 fact, very little has been accomplished, and v/e asked 7 for the talc people to go first to cover the talc 8 articles. That was not done even though the talc people 9 were here, although you were not here, and some others 10 did not arrive until late based upon the fact that we 11 were going to have a video deposition, I understand 12 that. But things didn't transpire the way we had 13 planned. 14 MR. HINKLE: Mr. Hays, we were doing all that 15 we could to accommodate you. 16 MR. HAYS: I understand that. And I am in 17 agreement with you. 18 MR. HINKLE: Please. I have been sitting back 19 there at the end of the table listening to all three 20 people talking at one time and watching this poor court 21 reporter trying to keep up with everybody, so why don't 22 we try as hard as we can to not intrude on one another 23 and make sure that there is only one person talking at a 24 time. 25 MR. HAYS: That's a very reasonable request, and C.S.R. ASSOCIATES ,130 1 I will do ray best to do that. 2 HR. HINKLE: I appreciate that. 3 Q. (By Mr. Hinkle) Do I understand that having 4 learned Thursday or Friday of last week that you were going to 5 want to shut the deposition down at 1:00 tomorrow, you didn't 6 notify anybody until last night. Is that true? 7 A. Well, it didn't happen quite that way. I got a 8 notice from the e p a on my telephone line. I eventually called 9 up Jacqui Warren to ask if she intended to go down to represent 10 NRDC. At some point it occurred to me that this deposition 11 might still be going on Thursday afternoon even though it 12 started Wednesday morning, and that probably occurred to me 13 sometime over the weekend. I didn't make the connection right 14 away. And then the next time I talked to Mr. Hays I told him 15 about it. 16 Q. That was last night? 17 A. That was last night. I hadn't been in touch with 18 Mr. Hays over the July 4th weekend. 19 Q. That was my question. You didn't tell anybody 20 about what you saw as a conflict until last night? 21 A. I didn't even know how to get in touch with 22 Mr. Hays. 23 Q. Were you served with a subpoena? 24 A. Yes, I think Friday I got a subpoena from you all. 25 Q. Do you understand what a subpoena is? C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 A. I understand that a subpoena is something that 2 gets me down at all hours of the day and night to answer the 3 front door, and very often is accompanied by an extremely 4 burdensome request. 5 Q. Do you understand that a subpoena, a response to a 6 subpoena is not optional? 7 A. I understand that I do my very best to respond to 8 subpoenas and in a way that serves the judicial system, in this 9 case by making every effort I could to provide the new 10 information related to the health hazards of talc which I have 11 developed, which I thought was going to be the subject of this 12 deposition in the first place. 13 Q. Has any attorney told you that you are free to 14 modify a subpoena whenever it suits your schedule? 15 A. No, but I have seen countless examples in my own 16 experience where I have been told to disregard subpoenas or 17 certain things that were requested in subpoenas by plaintiff's 18 attorneys, and that the plaintiff's attorneys were subsequently 19 not admonished by the courts for having given me those kinds of 20 instructions, namely owing to the time that the subpoenas 21 arrived, and the extraordinarily burdensomeness of the requests 22 that the subpoenas contained, as we as the intrusiveness of the 23 subpoena sometimes. Hot necessarily referring to yours. 24 Q. Did you consult with an attorney as to whether or 25 not you are free to rectify a scheduling problem to ignore or C.S.R. ASSOCIATES J_iZ 1 modify the subpoena in this case? 2 MR. HAYS: Counsel, excuse me. Are you saying 3 that he's sought to modified the subpoena? 4 MR. HINKLE: The subpoena does not say anything 5 about the deposition will be continued from hour to hour 6 at the discretion of the witness. 7 MR. HAYS: The subpoena, as I recall, simply 8 mentions a starting time, does not mention an ending 9 time, and is very vague and uncertain as far as the 10 first paragraph in there when it talks about a starting 11 time at 10:00# July 5th, as opposed to other subpoenas 12 where you mentioned a period from 9:00 or 10:00 to 5:00 13 or 6:00. It doesn't have that sort of specific 14 designation for some reason. Doesn't even mention the 15 two days that you refer to. 16 Q. (By Mr. Hinkle) Do you understand what the rules 17 provide with regard to subpoenas, Mr. Castleman? 18 A. I am not an attorney, and I will not represent 19 myself as understanding the kind of things that you all are so 20 well schooled in, no. I do ray best to comply with your 21 subpoenas. Understand that I have received a lot of subpoenas, 22 and I have done my best to comply with them all. 23 Q. Do you understand if you had notified us about 24 this problem that you are having that probably a lot of the 25 people that are going to be sitting around here waiting until C.S.R. ASSOCIATES ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 you finish your hearing wouldn't be here, or would have made 2 arrangements to do other things? 3 A. Well, I think if those people would have known 4 what was going to go on here today, they probably wouldn't have 5 come today either. But there wasn't any way of my anticipating 6 the fact that there would be so much redundant and superlative 7 questioning going on. I can't be responsible for everybody's 8 problem in this room. It's all I can do to cope with the 9 problems in ray own life, and I'm doing the best that I can. 10 Q. You could have called Mr. Hays though, and 11 informed him about this problem? 12 A. i don't even know his home phone number. I was 13 trying to take a little vacation this weekend. 14 Q. We've been talking a while today about talc. So 15 we will have a working definition, and so we'll all be in 16 agreement with regard to what we're talking about, what exactly 17 is talc? 18 A. Talc is used in the industry as a mixture of 19 minerals of various kinds, depending on where it is mined. 20 Q. Is that as good a definition as you can give us? 21 A. I think it's a correct definition as far as it 22 goes. 23 Q. Well, we can say a lot of things that are correct, 24 and it may not be the best we can do. what I am getting at 25 here is I would like you to give me the best definition for C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 13-4 1 talc, the substance that we're going to be discussing, as you 2 can give us. 3 A. I have given you that. 4 Q A mixture of minerals of various kinds, depending 5 upon where it's mined; right? 6 A. That is right. Depending on where it comes from, 7 different talc deposits have different constituants. 8 Q. So any concern that markets or distributes a 9 mixture of minerals of various kinds, depending on where it 10 comes from, should be on notice of the matters that you have 11 discerned in these articles that you have told us about? 12 A. if that material was marketed as talc or 13 industrial talc, then I think they should be on notice about 14 ^ ^ e r a t u r e relating to the hazards of talcs used in industry, 15 not necessarily each and every article of course, but in a 16 general sense manufacturers and sellers of products should be 17 more than dimly aware of the health hazards associated with 18 such problems. 19 Q. Have you ever heard of the term Mil-Slip? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Do you knowwhat Mil-Slip is? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Well,should the manufacturer of Mil-Slip, since 24 1il-Slip is a mixture of minerals of various kinds, depending 25 upon where it comes from, should the manufacturers and C.S.R. ASSOCIATES X3-E 1 distributors of Mil-Slip be on notice of anything with regard 2 to any of the articles that you have discussed here concerning 3 talc? 4 A. Let me just say that I am unfamiliar with the 5 technical jargon which includes the v/ord Mil-Slip. Now, if 6 Mil-Slip is a synonym used in the trade for industrial grade 7 talc, then the answer to your question would be yes. But I am 8 not hear to -- i think it's very clear that if you sell 9 something you call talc and there's a body of medical 10 literature on something called talc, that that is relevant to 11 your business. And if you also call your product Mil-Slip, or 12 if the people in some factory call it Mil-Slip, that seems to 13 me beside the point. I don't know what Mil-Slip is. 14 Q. By the way, is Jacqui Warren going to be present 15 at this hearing tomorrow? 16 A. NO. 17 Q* ^re you telling us that there is some consensus in 18 the medical community with regard to whether or not inhalation 19 of talc, as you have defined it, poses a health hazard to 20 people who breathe it? 21 A. I am saying that there is a body of scientific 22 literature that goes back to the turn of the century that says 23 that people who breathe talc can get sick from it. And that 24 that is what is relevant to the historic sale of that product 25 by the companies that marketed stuff they call talc. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 13 1 Q. My question to you, sir, was: Is there a 2 consensus in the medical field with regard to the dangers posed 3 by inhalation of talc? 4 A. i know that there is certainly controversy over 5 what it is in different types of talcs that is particularly 6 pernicious. And different people will, I am sure say, 7 different scientists today, will I am sure give somewhat 8 different, at least somewhat different opinions on the weight 9 that might be given to this or that constituant of these 10 industrial products as to which ones, which constituants 11 constitute what percent of the health hazard or which 12 constituants constitute the most serious or less serious health 13 hazard. Controversy never ends, especially where money is 14 involved. But even if there wasn't, I think there would be 15 controversy in this case because this is a complex problem. 16 Q. All I wanted to know from you, sir, is as you sit 17 here today are you prepared to testify that there is some 18 consensus in the medical community concerning the dangers posed 19 by the inhalation of talc? 20 A. I think there is a consensus in the medical 21 community that inhaling industrial grade talcs has to be 22 presumed to be hazardous to your lungs. I think no matter what 23 the constituants of it are, even if it is so-called pure talc, 24 sufficient quantities, sufficient exposures to the so-called 25 pure talc will cause lung damage. I read that in the medical C Q p jq e fli'T i l 'PC 177 1 literature. I think that is a currently held view, a majority 2 view, although I say that with some hesitancy because I am not 3 here as an expert on the current state of medical knowledge 4 about talc as a health hazard. I am here basically as someone 5 who has looked at the historical development of scientific and 6 medical knowledge as someone who might have been in the talc 7 selling business might have looked at the open scientific 8 literature at any time in the 1930s, '40s, '50s, and '60s to 9 see what was reported about this product, not necessarily what 10 the current state of medical knowledge and controversies on it 11 are. 12 Q. You mentioned the term industrial grade talc. How 13 does that differ from the definition of talc that you gave us 14 earlier? 15 A. It doesn't. But mineralogists do have something 16 that they refer to as pure talc, and this is a particular 17 mineral, which as far as I have been able to determine is 18 rather unusual to be found in a really pure state, nut they do 19 have a mineral that they call talc, and the mineralogists have 20 a distinct meaning when they use the term. 21 Q. So you are saying that the definition you gave us 22 earlier, that is a mixture of minerals of various kind 23 depending upon where it comes from, will apply equally to pure 24 talc and industrial grade talc, that definition will apply to 25 either? C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 13-E 1 A. I am not sure I understand your question. No, I 2 think that that is wrong. 3 Q. All right. 4 A. As I understand what we have been talking about, 5 the so-called pure talc of the mineralogists is a pure 6 substance, it is a particular mineral. It is a pure substance, 7 as I understand it. 8 Q. Can you give me your understanding of the working 9 definition of the pure substance talc? when you read it in 10 these articles what is it that we're talking about, what is it 11 that we will be discussing? 12 A. i would have to fan through the articles to 13 actually look up the molecular formula that they give, but 14 there is something they refer to as pure talc. And I have to 15 admit I am not sure I could tell you what pure asbestos is, for 16 that matter, without looking it up in somebody's, you know, 17 description of the mineral composition. 18 Q. So as I understand it, as you sit here today you 19 are unable to give us a working definition of the term pure 20 talc. Is that true? 21 A. Mo, it's just that we have got six minutes left 22 this afternoon. If you want to ask me the question tomorrow 23 morning, I will look it up in one of these articles and I will 24 tell you. All I am saying is that mineralogists have something 25 they call pure talc, this for practical purposes is not the C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 1 only thing present used in talcs that have been used in the 2 industry. The talcs that have been used in the industry are 3 mixtures of minerals, and various things have been written over 4 time about the types of health effects attributed to working 5 and breathing these types of materials, and that is what is in 6 medical and scientific literature that I think is relevant to 7 what we're talking about here today. 8 Q. So if I understand what you just told me, you are 9 unable to at this moment give me a working definition of the 10 term "pure talc"? 11 A. I am unable to recite to you the chemical formula 12 for the mineral that a mineralogist defines as talc. 13 Q. I don't want the chemical formula. 14 A. That is the answer to your question. 15 Q. Please. We're trying to make an agreement here 16 that both of us don't intrude on the court reporter. I will 17 try not to intrude on your answers if you will show me the same 18 courtesy. Okay? Fair enough? 19 A. Go ahead. 20 Q. Now, if you are going to make statements about a 21 substance called pure talc, I want to know what you're talking 22 about when you make those statements, so that we will be on the 23 same wavelength. And if you don't know, then you can tell me 24 that. 25 A. All right. Let me see if I can find one of these C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 140- 1 articles where they say what the mineralogists call pure talc, 2 and I will give you the chemical formula for it. 3 Q. If you don't know, sir, you can just tell me. I 4 can read the articles. 5 A. That is great, because I don't know it off the top 6 of my I do not know the chemical formula for what 7 mineralogists call pure talc off the top of my head. You can 8 find it in the articles sometime when we have more than four 9 minutes left. 10 Q. How does pure talc differ from industrial grade 11 talc that you mentioned when you use that term industrial grade 12 talc? 13 A. I thought I explained that. Industrial grade talc 14 tends to be a mixture of minerals, because the stuff that comes 15 out of the ground isn't pure. 16 Q. What minerals do you expect to find in talc for it 17 to meet your definition of industrial grade talc? 18 A. it varies. I mean the articles describe the 19 number of types of constituants that are found in the talcs, 20 these include tremolite, they include silica. Schultz and 21 Williams's article is probably a pretty good source if you want 22 a catelog of the different types of things that have been 23 looked for in industrial talcs published in 1942 in the Journal 24 of Industrial Hygiene, we have got it out at the Xerox place 25 right now. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 141 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. I would like to know as you sit here today what you can recall, and we will get the articles out tomorrow and look at them, but I would like to know in the next four minutes what you can recall. Tremolite, silica. Anything else? A. Those are the things that stand out in my memory, but there are certainly other things that have been associated. Anthophyllite_ has also been reported. And there are other kinds of things that are a little less familiar to me because my own backgound happens to include a particular emphasis on such things as quartz or silica, and fibrous minerals like tremolite and anthophyllite. But there are other things a little less familiar to me, and therefore, not so easily recalled by me which are enumerated in such articles as that of Schultz and Williams in 1942. Q If a talc product does not contain tremolite, silica or anthophyllite, does that still fall into the category of industrial grade talc in your thinking? A. Well, it does unless i mean, if it's used in industry it's industrial grade talc, unless it's mineralogically speaking absolutely pure in the sense of what a mineralogist means by talc, in which case it would also be an industrial talc, but it would be also a mineralogically pure talc as distinguished from evidently almost every form of talc that has been used in industry all over the United States and Europe. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 142 1 Q- So if i understand what you're saying, you define 2 industrial grade talc by its use as opposed to its composition. 3 If it's used in industry, it's industrial grade talc; is that 4 right? 5 A* No. I mean it mainly by its composition. 6 Q. And the composition -- 7 A. Composition is a mixture. 8 Q. You have told me about tremolite, silica and 9 anthophyllite that you are aware of? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Would you also categorize talc without tremolite, 12 silica and anthophyllite as industrial grade talc simply 13 because it's used in industry? 14 A. Well, I would if it had anything in it except what 15 the mineralogists call talc, and even there, you know, it's 16 kind of like getting hung up on the words at that point to say 17 whether or not it's industrial grade or not. If it's pure, if 18 it's pure enough to be like -- I mean, if it's the highest 19 grade of pharmaceutically pure talc or something like that, 20 then perhaps we're talking about a different animal. But 21 industrial talcs that are described in the literature are for 22 ':he most part mixtures of minerals. 23 Q. Would you agree with me that the danger, assuming 24 that there is some danger posed by the inhalation of talc, will 25 depend in a large part on the minerals that are contained in C.S.R. ASSOCIATES i4 a 1 it? 2 A. Sure. 3 Q Some types of talc may be moredangerous than 4 others? 5 A. That's true. 6 Q. Some types of talc may be safe? 7 A. I am not so sure about that, although there may be 0 some people who think so. 9 Q. Well, have you seen in your research into the 10 subject of talc any references to the fact that science has 11 been unable to connect health hazards with exposure to certain 12 types of talc? 13 A. I've seen certainly somestatements like that by a 14 couple of authors from the Firestone Rubber Company in 1950 15 talking about the use of talc in the rubber industry. 16 Q. Anyone else? 17 A. At least they said one type of talc, I think the 18 type of talc they used wasn't so bad. There is also a 19 statement in the 1941 text of Rutherford Johnstone to the 20 effect that talc produced no undue pulmonary fibrosis, which is 21 kind of a backhanded way at that of saying something is not 22 dangerous. But in his 1948 text he went ahead and reported 23 that subsequent studies had shown to the contrary that talc was 24 not innoculous. 25 Q. We will come back to that tomorrow. And let's C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1AA 1 close with this question. You said that you believe that there 2 is a majority opinion with regard to whether or not exposure to 3 talc poses a health hazard; right? 4 A. Well, i have tried to hedge on what the current 5 state of knowledge might be, but looking at all these articles 6 that have been published over time, it seems to me that there 7 has been a continuing thread, a strong thread of statements in 8 the medical literature and other scientific literature to the 9 effect that talcs used in industry are causing disease, and 10 some of them aren't causing real serious disease and some of 11 them are killing people, but they are causing lung damage, and 12 that this is evident in various ways, pulmonary function tests, 13 chest x-ray abnormalities and pathologic evidence. 14 Q. All I wanted to know was whether or not -- you had 15 told me earlier that there is a majority position with regard 16 to whether or not inhalation of talc poses a health hazard. Is 17 there in your opinion, or is there not? 18 A. I haven't taken a survey of what the current 19 status of talc is. I have seen reports by people from the 20 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and 21 others that would suggest to me that the majority opinion of 22 people who are somewhat knowledgeable about this probably is to 23 the effect that industrial talcs as have been used in this 24 country have caused disease. 25 Q. And with regard to whether -- assuming that there C.S.R. ASSOCIATES -------------- --------------------------------------------- 145- 1 is a majority opinion on that, do you have any idea when that / 2 majority opinion became a majority opinion as opposed to a 3 minority opinion? 4 Q. I think it 's always been a majority opinion since 5 people were investigating the subject. I think in the '30s and 6 '40s you were finding sometimes very little damage, sometimes 7 very grave damage. But the range has always been of people 8 finding degrees of damage attributable to breathing talc. Not 9 people saying that it doesn't cause any harm at all and other 10 people saying maybe it does. 11 Q. So if I hear what you're saying, that insofar as 12 you have been able to determine from reviewing these articles, 13 it has always been the majority opinion that inhalation of talc 14 poses a health hazard to those who inhale it? 15 A. Yes, and certainly, if inhaled in sufficient 16 quantities. 17 MR. HINKLE: I guess that is a good place to 18 take up in the morning. Anybody want to say anything at 19 this point? 20 MR. CROSBY: I think that you wanted us to go over 21 something with you, Doctor, so we would be straight 22 on -- 23 THE WITNESS: What you want me to bring? 24 MR. CROSBY: What you were to bring. 25 THE WITNESS: My list is: You want the traveling Las 1 corporate files, and I will find out who all is 2 represented here, so I don't leave anybody out. List 3 of talc references sent initially to Edholm. Okay. 4 That was my old list from my old talc file. And you 5 want the stuff from Kenneth Lynch's files that I got 6 from the California lawyers about Kaolin pneumoconiosis. 7 HR. CROSBY: Let me go through the other things 8 that I have here. The NIOSH report. 9 THE WITNESS: I don't know if I have that. I 10 know that if I don't have it that Hr. Hays can come 11 up with it. 12 HR. HAYS: We will see if we can. They may have 13 it themselves. 14 MR. CROSBY: I do not. If I did, I wouldn't ask 15 for it. 16 THE WITNESS: Who's representing talc people? 17 Do you all have this NIOSH report? There is a NIOSH 18 study of rubber workers. I will look for it. 19 What else? 20 MR. CROSBY: You had mentioned your letter 21 to the Food and Drug. Since the articles are gone, 22 I don't know if it's in there. 23 THE WITNESS: It's in there. 24 MR. CROSBY: That is fine. If you get the 25 additional talc articles, will you bring those? You C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 41 1 said you thought the ones that the sharp lawyer didn't 2 find you were going to undertake? 3 THE WITNESS: I've got another sharp lawyer. 4 MR. CROSBY: All right, sir. We should have 5 the asbestos articles here in the morning. 6 I asked you if you would please look or see if 7 you could find the Vigliani articles and Johnstone 8 1960, and looking through your articles you didn't see 9 them? 10 THE WITNESS: I will see if I have it. il MR. CROSBY: When you say you are talking about 12 the traveling company knowledge documents -- 13 THE WITNESS: It's the same old stuff. 14 MR. CROSBY: What I am getting at, that may be 15 what your traveling company documents are, I want 16 you to be sure those are the documents upon which you 17 base your opinions. 18 MR. GOSS: Doctor, one other thing. You had just 19 referred to your list of citations from your old talc 20 file. If there is anything else in that old talc file 21 we would like the entire copy of your old talc file. 22 THE WITNESS: Anything else? 23 MR. HOOD: I would like the record to reflect that 24 we have got a room full of lawyers from all over the 25 country -- C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 MR. HAYS: We went off the record, and we 2 understood that was going to be the end of the 3 questioning today you had. 4 MR. HOOD: I have got a statement for the record, 5 if you will let me make it. I am willing to sit here 6 as long as we need to to finish this witnesses' 7 deposition. I think it's a mistake to recess at 5:00. 8 We have been given no reason other than the witness 9 wanted to leave. He doesn't have any medical or health 10 reasons for leaving. I think it's going to result in 11 an inconvenience to all of the lawyers, including 12 plaintiff's counsel, anticipating he's going to try to 13 leave at 1:00. 14 I have got at least eight hours of questions 15 for this witness. There might be lots more than that 16 depending on his responses and promptness of his 17 responses and completeness of the responses. I am 18 going to move to disqualify him as a witness at the time 19 of trial if I am not allowed to -- 20 MR. HAYS: You have made your statement. I will 21 reserve my response. 22 MR. HOOD: I just want you to know where I am 23 coming from. 24 MR, HAYS: You have got plenty of depositions 25 from this gentleman. You come from a group of attorneys C.S.R. ASSOCIATES -------------------- ------------------------------- L49. 1 that I am sure have lots of information and a book on 2 him. I consider the fact that you state you have got 3 eight hours of questioning coming when you are going to 4 be following another attorney that is going to be 5 questioning on asbestos, you have got all that asbestos, 6 I think that's the rankest form of intimidation, and I 7 think you are trying to wear the witness out, and I 8 don't think you are going to disqualify anyone based on 9 that. 10 MR. HOOD: When you hear the questions and 11 answers, you may change your opinion. 12 MR. CROSBY: Just for the record, I join in the 13 comments by Mr. Hood. I don't know how long my 14 questions will be, since I have not been privy to the 15 documents we had requested with the witness, and as it 16 now turns out he had some of the articles and documents 17 for the other deposition this morning. 18 MR. HAYS: That deposition was going to be 19 incorporated into this deposition, so there you are. 20 MR. CROSBY: I don't know if it was going to be 21 incorporated. Owens-Corning didn't agree to that. 22 MR. HAYS: It was our understanding it was going 23 to be incorporated. 24 MR. HINKLE: The agreement was it would be 25 typed up and attached -- C.S.R. ASSOCIATES is a 1 MR. CROSBY: If anyone representing Owens-Corning 2 Fiberglass entered into that stipulation, it was without 3 my knowledge and without the knowledge of Owens-Corning 4 Fiberglass. 5 MR. JAMES: As regard to Pittsburgh-Corning there 6 is no agreement to that effect either. 7 MR. HAYS: We're off the record. I assume there 8 will be no further records made in my absence. 9 (Whereupon, the deposition was recessed until July 6th, 10 at 10:00 a.m.) 11 Q. (BY MR. HINKLE) Dr. Castleman, we were talking 12 yesterday about categories of talc, and we had broken it down 13 basically into two categories, pure talc and industrial grade 14 talc. Do you recall? 15 A. Yes. 16 MR. CROSBY: Could we find out what the witness 17 brought with him, so we could be looking at that while 18 you are asking your questions? 19 MR. HINKLE: I think that's just fine. 20 Q. (By Mr. Hinkle) Dr. Castleman, if you would, 21 describe for us what materials that you brought with you today. 22 A. i have brought with me what I refer to as the 23 traveling files relating to corporate knowledge under numerous 24 categories, either by company or by type of information, some 25 relating to trade associations, and some relating specifically C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 454 1 to companies. 2 MR. HAYS? We just ask that you look at them 3 right here, if you would, and not be passing the files 4 around, if that would be all right with you. 5 MR. CROSBY: Well, the problem I have is that 6 right here in front of me is the table that is occupied 7 by exhibits, and the witnesses1 coffee cup, and various 8 files. 9 MR. HAYS: Well, we will move down and make room 10 for you. 11 THE WITNESS: We will make room for you. I don't 12 want these files out of my sight right now. Maybe later 13 on. 14 MR. CROSBY: We are going to mark them as exhibits 15 to this deposition. 16 MR. HAYS: Well, after they're marked, then that's 17 a different matter. 18 THE WITNESS: I would like them to be photocopied 19 first, and you can mark whatever you want in them. 20 MR. CROSBY: I am going to have a difficult time 21 having these photocopied in the witnesses' presence 22 while he's being deposed. 23 THE WITNESS: I didn't say you had to do 24 that. 25 MR. CROSBY: You just said you didn't want them C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 152 1 out of your sight. 2 THE WITNESS: At the moment I don't want them out 3 of my sight. Hr. Hays can probably arrange to have them 4 photocopied, and he can handle the documents with the 5 photocopying place. I am sorry, but that is the nature 6 of this litigation is that sometimes things get lost 7 when you go back and forth. 8 MR. HAYS: There are so many attorneys, something 9 can be innocently misplaced, not intentionally. 10 MR. CROSBY: I find the comments by the witness 11 unfounded. 12 MR. HAYS: Well, let's not get into this. We're 13 not interested in your early morning bantering. 14 MR. CROSBY: Pine. 15 MR. HAYS: You can take a look at them, they are 16 right in front of us-- 17 MR. CROSBY: Let's mark this box as the next 18 numbered exhibit. 19 MR. HAYS: Play your little game. 20 MR. CROSBY: And then I am going to have them 21 copied as soon as I can. I'm trying to expedite 22 matters, Mr. Hays. 23 MR. HAYS: We just asked you to look at them 24 right there, and you're fighting about it. 25 MR. CROSBY: I can't copy them sitting right here. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. HAYS: You aren't copying them right now. You just asked to look at them. THE WITNESS: Why don't you pull up a chair, put them on a chair and look at the files. MR. CROSBY: I would rather do it at the table down there at the very end where there is plenty of room. MR. HAYS: The first thing you will do is find something that is not applicable to you, some one will pick up the file, the file will lay on the table and get mixed up with someone else's file. There will be a piece gone, something will be missing. MR. WAGNER: Just for the record, I don't think the witness completed his answer to your question, Mr. Hinkle. THE WITNESS: I am not trying to be difficult. MR. CROSBY: You are succeeding without trying. Go ahead, Mr. Hinkle, what else? Q (By Mr. Hinkle) Let's go ahead and catelog for us igain what else you brought, please A. This is something that I just received relating to .aolin and pneumoconiosis, Kenneth Lynch papers which were tailed to me by the Casey, Gerry Law Firm. When did you receive that particular item? Within the last few days. The cover page is dated C.S.R. ASSOCIATES -154 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 |june 29, 1989, the transmittal letter. Q. receipt? Do you not have a stamp which shows your date of A. I didn't come here prepared, you know, to show you the envelope it came in. Q* I didn't ask you that. I asked you _ A. secretary -- i don't stamp things received. I don't have a Q. Then that is the answer to the question, Dr. Castleman. A. i don't have an accountant. Q. Just a moment, Dr. Castleman. Let's try to get [off on the right foot today, shall we? And let's have the same jagreement we had yesterday, and I will not intrude on your answers if you do not intrude on the questions. And we will do this out of respect for the court reporter. A. Go ahead. All right? Q. All I askedyou waswhether |your date of receipt on that document? or not you had stamped A. I have never worked in an office where that was |done except the government offices I was employed in. Q So the answerto that question isno;correct? A. Correct. Q All right. Go on. Tell us what else you brought. A. You asked for the talc reference file. Here it C.S.R. a s s o c i a t e s : 155 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is. Many of these ace duplicated, duplicative references of things that we have already discussed, others relate to talc m their use as cosmetic powders and ovarian cancer and the controversies about that in the early .70 s, which I hadn't originally thought was all that relevant to this case. But in any event, you are welcome to look through them and come to your own conclusions. My own list of articles, early articles that I had came from a letter I had written to somebody in 1980 or part of a letter I had written. And then ! had marked a few more things Ion it. This is my initial list of old articles on talc that X knew about. Q. Stand by for a moment and let's try to make some sense out of this. we're going to mark this bo* that you brought, which I think you have told us is your traveling corporate file, is that what you called it? A. Yes. Q. We will mark that as Exhibit No. 86. The packet of documents that you received from the Gerry law office relating to Kaolin we will mark as Exhibit 87. HR. CROSBY: Let me state in the record that No. 86 is a box with the contents containing several files. I will count the files in a minute. 87 is the memo with documents relating to Kaolin. C.S.R. ASSnr Tarnpe 1 And I will affix the Exhibit number to the memo that 2 forwards it. It's about an inch thick. 3 Q. (By Mr. Hinkle) Now Exhibit No. 88 will be the 4 file that you -- the talc reference file, is that what you call 5 it? 6 A. It's marked talc references, et cetera. 7 Q. All right. 8 MR. CROSBY: I am affixing 88*s exhibit sticker 9 to the manila folder, and this contains about an inch 10 and a half of various materials, most of which appear 11 to be published. 12 Q. (By Mr. Hinkle) Next,please? 13 A. This is a file marked IHF, it's part of my 14 traveling files, so that can just go with the afore numbered 15 exhibit box. 16 Q. That would be 87? 17 MR. CROSBY: No. It will be part of 86. 18 Q. (By Mr. Hinkle) Part of Exhibit 86. All right. 19 This July 7, 1980 letter that you handed me, we will 20 mark as exhibit what, Mr. Crosby? 21 MR. CROSBY: 89. 22 Q. (By Mr. Hinkle) Exhibit No. 89. 23 MR. CROSBY: It's a letter dated July 7, 1980 24 addressed in handwriting to "Dear Ken" with what appears 25 to be Xeroxed on the front side of Barry I. Castleman, C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Industrial Environmental Consultant, down through and after mill man occupational medicine, the Xerox ceases, and handwriting begins in blue ink. That won't show on Xerox, that is why I dictated that in the record. MR. HAYS: Let me check with you, because I was getting some materials out that I had Xeroxed for you today, I Xeroxed a copy of this stuff. MR. CROSBY: Which may be a little late. MR. HAYS: Exhibit 85, can we track down through 85 through 89 and make sure we're in sine on this? MR. HINKLE: I think that Dr. Castleman had some of those exhibits. Isn't that right, Ms. Reporter? MR. RHODES: find 81 and 83. Yesterday when we left we couldn't THE WITNESS: all back. I had walked off with them. They're MR. CROSBY: Are we on the record? MR. HOOD: the record? Did you get the witnesses' comments on MR. HAYS: record? Did you get Counsel's comments on the MR. HINKLE: Guys, we're not going to get anywhere acting this way. Let's pay attention to business. Okay? MR. HAYS: I appreciate that. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 MR. HINKLE: Jim, let's go to work. 2 MR. HAYS: If we can control these other 3 attorneys, fine. I just want to deal with you. 4 MR. HINKLE: Let's go to work. 3r* MR. HAYS: 85 is what? 6 MR. CROSBY: Excuse me, please. I am trying to 7 answer your question. The exhibits that were 8 inadvertently taken yesterday have been returned, and 9 now we have a complete set, and 85 is a handwritten 10 list of the witness in black and in blue with parts of 11 articles or titles of articles Xed out that was the 12 basis of the search for the attorney. 13 86 is the box of materials that the witness has 14 referred to as his traveling documents relating to 15 corporate matters. 16 87 is a cover memo with attachments addressed to 17 the witness from a legal assistant to Mr. Greenblatt. 18 88 is a manila folder and its contents are 19 entitled "Talc References, et cetera". 20 89 -- Have you got that? 21 MR. HAYS: I have got that. 22 MR. CROSBY: Is the July 7th, 1980 letter. 23 Q. (By Mr. Hinkle) Okay. Is that all that you 24 brought with you today, Dr. Castleman? 25 A. For this deposition, yes. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Did you bring anything else with you today? A. I brought things that I am taking to Washington this afternoon to deal with the Environmental Protection Agency. MR. HAYS: I also have some materials here that he has not been able to read that were hard to collect, and I have brought those. I have a stack of those. He hasn't reviewed them yet. MR. HINKLE: Well, if he hasn't reviewed them, I am not sure they have anything to do with the case. MR. HOOD: There were two other items the Doctor was going to bring. A NIOSH report, and additional medicals articles which were to be obtained by a local law firm, d o we have either of those? THE WITNESS: This is the additional medical articles that have so far been obtained from the very crossed out list of outstanding articles, still outstanding. MR. HINKLE: Let's get them in the record then. THE WITNESS: And the NIOSH study, I have not been been able to find. MR. HOOD: Can we get that identified? MR. HAYS: that. I think Mr. Hinkle will take care of MR. CROSBY: I don't know what's the quickest way. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES ----------------- -- -- -------------------------------------- 160 1 I can just give the numbers, and identify what it is if 2 you want me to. 3 MR. HINKLE* How many articles do we have here? 4 MR. CROSBY: One, two, three, four -- there appear 5 to be 10 articles, although there is a page here that is 6 just loose that may be a portion of an article, rather 7 than-- _ 8 MR. HAYS: It's a portion of an abstract, and 9 it is a separate document. 10 MR. HINKLE: May I see that, Mr. Crosby, please? 11 We will mark this as a single exhibit comprised of 12 an article from the Journal of American Medical 13 Association, Volume 3, November-December 1938. 14 MR. CROSBY: Could we do separate numbers for 15 each one? I will do the numbers. That is 90. 16 MR. HINKLE: That will be fine. 17 Exhibit No. 91 is apparently an article in 18 German which I can't make heads or tails of. 19 Q. (By Mr. Hinkle) Do you read German, 20 Dr. Castleman? 21 A. A little bit. 22 Q. Would you be kind enough to give us the benefit of 23 your little bit of German and tell us what that is? 24 A. Yes. This is by Dr. Baader, and it's a review on 25 talcosis. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 Q. Can you give us a date? 2 A. It's in a journal dated 1950, and it's from the 3 German Medical Weekly, or the Gesuncheitsfursorge Und 4 Arbeitsmedizin. 5 Q. The court reporter will probably not be able to 6 follow that. 7 MR. CROSBY: I will hold it up for her so she can 8 transcribe it. 9 MR. HINKLE: I think that is good enough for the 10 identification purposes. That is Exhibit No. 91? 11 MR. CROSBY: 91, yes, sir. 12 MR. HINKLE: Exhibit 92 is an article from the 13 American Medical Association Archives of Industrial 14 i, Volume 20, July through December of 1959 15 MR. CROSBY: So marked. 16 MR. HINKLE: That is 92? 17 MR. CROSBY: Right. 18 MR. HINKLE: Exhibit No. 93 is an article 19 the British Journal of Industrial Medicine, 1949 20 entitled "Talc Pneumoconiosis". 21 Exhibit No. 94 appears to be, well, let me just 22 ask. 23 Q. (By Mr. Hinkle) Dr. Castleman, do you know what 24 this is? 25 A. This is a 1937 article from the Archives of * n<"iA/TmwP 1 Pathology. And we can probably get the correct citation wi 2 little bit of checking. 3 Q. Just hand it back, if you would, please. 4 A. Can I write Archives of Pathology, 1937 on it? 5 Q. Sure, if it helps us identify it. 6 MR. CROSBY: It was 1937, wasn't it? 7 Q. (By Mr. Hinkle) Dr. Castlenian, do you know? 3 A. We had a little bit of difficulty locating it 9 because of the cite I had written down didn't turn out to be 10 exactly correct, since this gentleman found it, hopefully he 11 knows what he found and what it was. 12 Q. All I would like to know is whether or not you 13 know what this is, Dr. Castleman? 14 MR. HAYS: Which article are you referring to? 15 MR. HINKLE: It's styled "Talcum Powder Granuloma 16 by Robert Feinberg, M.D. 17 MR. HAYS: I apologize. I should have gotten a 18 coversheet. I thought it would have the citation by 19 volume and page internal to the article. But it only 20 says "Archives of Pathology" on Page 38 at the top. But 21 it would have been after 1936, so the 1937 date I 22 estimate would be correct. 23 MR. CROSBY: Number 94 is an article entitled 24 "Talcum Powder Granuloma", No. 94. 25 MR. HINKLE: Exhibit No. 95 is an article from 1 the Archives of Environmental Health, Volume 10, March 2 19, '65 entitled "Effect of Talc Dust Inhalation on Lung 3 Function". 4 Exhibit No. 96 is another article from Archives 5 of Environmental Health, volume 9, November 1964, 6 entitled "Lung Function in Talc Workers". 7 Exhibit No. 97 is another article from the 3 Archives of Environmental Health, Volume 7, July 1963 9 entitled "Talc Pneumoconiosis". 10 Q. (By Mr. Hinkle) Exhibit No. 98, can you identify 11 Exhibit No. 98 for us, please, sir? 12 A. This is from the abstracts section of the Journal 13 of Industrial Hygiene, Volume 17, Page 60, May 1935, and it's 14 an abstract covering the article of Dr. Dreessen on Pages 60 15 and 61. 16 Q. (By Mr. Hinkle) And can you identify Exhibit No. 17 99 for us, please, sir? 18 A. This is also from the abstracts section of the 19 Journal of Industrial Hygiene. This is from the January 1931, 20 Page 14, and the Volume number would be four numbers down from 21 the preceding exhibit volume number, it's not indicated on the 22 face of the document. So that would be volume 13. I am 23 writing "V" 13. 24 Q. What does it deal with? 25 A. The abstract is about pneumoconiosis of sandstone, C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 164 1 silica, chalk, porcelin, granite, cement and shell lime 2 v/orker s. 3 Q. All right. 4 MR. HINKLE: Mr. Hays, did you bring anything 5 else that we need to mark as an exhibit today? 6 MR. HAYS: Mo. I did copy these documents about 7 Dr. Kenneth Lynch that were requested yesterday, so 8 everyone would have a copy. 9 MR. CROSBY: I'll pass them around. 10 THE WITNESS: This has already been narked as 11 an exhibit, and I will just keep this for ny copy. 12 MR. HINKLE: Has it already been marked as an 13 exhibit? 14 MR. HAYS: I think it was that portion of the 15 original 70 some odd -- 16 MR. CROSBY: I don't know. You all will have 17 to me help me out. 18 THE WITNESS: Yes. It's No. 87. 19 MR. CROSBY: It's in No. 87, because No. 87 is 20 considerably more bulky that what you just had. 21 Q. (By Mr. Hinkle) Dr. Castleman, as I understand 22 it, there was some discussion yesterday about a NIOSH report. 23 You have looked for that report and have been unable to locate 24 it. Is that true? 25 A. That's correct. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 4r*-3. 1 Q. Will you identify that report for us by date and 2 by subject matter? 3 A. It was an evaluation of rubber workers, rubber 4 worker plants, and I think it even I included the Miami, 5 Oklahoma plant, but I am not sure of that. And I just looked 6 at it briefly, and as soon as I saw that it was of relatively 7 recent vintage, I passed over it because I was at that time 8 more focused on the historical development of knowledge about 9 talc, and time was limited, and I d o n 't know what happened to 10 that. 11 Q. Can you give us some idea about the date of that 12 NIOSH report? 13 A. I think it was in the 1980s. 14 Q. Do you have any idea concerning the conclusions 15 reached in that report? 16 A. Mo. 17 Q. And you told us that you skipped over the more 18 recent materials that were offered to you because you are more 19 concerned with the historical development than the current 20 state of knowledge? 21 A. Right. I understood that the historical 22 development was what I was going to be asked to talk about in 23 this case, not the current state of medical knowledge on talc 24 disease. 25 Q. Now, with regard to the articles that were brought C.S.R. ASSOCIATES ------------------------------- --------------------------- ------------ 1_ 1 by Mr. Hays today, and I believe that's Exhibits 90 through 99, 2 you have not seen at all. Is that true? 3 A. Well, I haven't seen them until this morning, just 4 now, right. 5 Q. Approximately five minutes ago? 6 A. Right. 7 MR. HINKLE: Let's go off the record for a moment. 8 Okay, Jim? 9 MR. HAYS: Fine. 10 (Whereupon, a discussion was held off the record.) 11 MR. CROSBY: I want to clarify something right 12 now. With respect to Exhibit No. 87 I have marked 13 the documents contained in 87 as 87 "A" through 87 14 "J", so that each one bears its own exhibit sticker. 15 MR. HAYS: "A" through what? I didn't hear you. 16 MR. CROSBY: "J". Now, with respect to what is 17 in the box, if people want them copied, what do you 18 suggest we do? 19 MR. HAYS: Well, I suggest they give us a note 20 saying they want them copied, and we can have them sent 21 to them for the purposes of the deposition, they can 22 refer to the originals in the file. We can go through 23 the file that way, and then after the deposition we can 24 have them copied, and they can make a list of the 25 document if they want to, in order to protect C.S.R- ASSOCIATES 4&4- 1 themselves, or they can just put it on the record by 2 going through a document at a time. 3 MR. CROSBY: Let's go off for a second, if it's 4 all right. 5 (Whereupon, a discussion was held off the record.) 6 MR. CROSBY: Exhibit '86 is the box, and it 7 contains 14 to 17 files, depending on how you count 8 them. Included is -- I will read the tabs off of the 9 manila folders, and I will later mark them 86 "A" 10 through whatever letter of the alphabet. Saranac 11 Studies; Carey/Celotex; Owens-Illinois; O-C; 12 GAF-Rubberoid; Eagle-Picher; Keene NIMA, all caps 13 N-I-M-A minutes; Fibreboard; Pittsburgh-Corning; H.K. 14 Porter; Contract Unit Claims. A separate file entitled 15 Contract Unit Comp Claims. A separate file Magnesa 16 A-s-s-n. A file that is not in the box but is a part of 17 86 is entitled IHF. Another file entitled Garlock. 18 Another file entitled ATI. 19 After I have had a chance to review some of the 20 documents, I can have some indication of v/hat of these 21 materials I will want copied if it's less than all of 22 them. 23 And I understand we're getting a table down here 24 so that we can review the documents? 25 MR. HINKLE: I heard Mr. Rhodes make that request C.S.R. ASSOCIATES jlsh 1 of the some of the hotel staff, so I am assuming that 2 is being taken care of. 3 Q. (By nr. Hinkle .) Dr. Castleman, do you 4 understand that you are being offered as an expert witness in 5 the Oklahoma Tire Worker Litigation? 6 A. Yes. 1 Q. What do you see as the subject matter of your 0 expertise in the Oklahoma Tire Worker Litigation? 9 A. The subject matter as I sec it is the presentation 10 of the historical development of knowledge about the hazards of 11 asbestos and talc as reflected in the public literature. And 12 with respect to asbestos, the historical development of 13 knowledge and actions taken of the basis of such knowledge in 14 some cases on the part of the industry itself, that is mined 15 and manufactured asbestos products, mined asbestos and 16 manufactured asbestos products. 17 Q. Do you see your expertise in the Oklahoma Tire 18 Worker Litigation extending beyond what you just said in any 19 way? 20 A. I don't think so. But uhat ways -- rdo you have 'i 21 anything in mind particularly? 22 Q. Well, no. I want to know what you have in mind, Dr. Castleman. 24 A. I told you. 25 n. All right, now, with regard to your expertise in C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 4-9 1 the historical development of knowledge concerning the hazards 2 of talc, you consider yourself to be an expert in that regard? 3 A. Expert in the sense that I could aid the jury in 4 understanding the fact that there has been a number of 5 publications about talc dust as a cause of lung problems, that 6 these publications appeared in primarily medical journals 7 published in this country and Great Britain as well as in other 8 countries and other languages, and that there was obviously a 9 lot of other international exchange of information as reflected 10 in the literature. So I would be aiding the jury in that sense 11 as anexpert to tell them that this body of knowledge existed. 12 Q. So I take it then that the answer to my question 13 is yes? 14 A. it is in the sense that I have described. 15 Q. All right. Mow, at what point did you become an 16 expert in the historical develop of knowledge concerning the 17 hazards of talc? 18 A. Within the last few days. 19 Q. Okay. 20 A. I mean the process started earlier, but the actual 21 sitting down and reading of the documentation to the point 22 where I could explain it somewhat, was not until within the 23 last week anyway. 24 Q. Within the last week? 25 A. Well, within the last week I sat down in a much C.S.R. ASSOCIATES ixa 1 more detailed way than ever before and read a larger number of 2 articles on this subject than I had ever before read. 3 Q. Did you consider yourself to be an expert in the 4 historical development of knowledge concerning the hazards of 5 talc, say, six months ago? 6 A. I did not consider myself an expert on that, 7 although I was aware of the fact there was a body of knowledge 8 going pretty far back talking about talc as a respiratory 9 hazard. 10 Q. So I take it then, that the consumation of your 11 expertise occurred having reviewed the articles that were 12 identified and marked yesterday? 13 A. Yes, and today. 14 Q. And today. All right. 15 We talked yesterday about broad categories of talc, pure 16 talc and industrial grade talc. What I would like for you to 17 do today, if you would, please, as an expert in the historical 18 development of medical knowledge concerning the hazards of 19 talc, tell us what subcategories we might expect to find within 20 those broad categories. 21 A. Well, there are different minerals that are 22 present in different proportions, and the various types of 23 talcs that have been used industrially. If I could refer to 24 the Schultz and Williams article now that we have gotten them 25 back from the copying place. This is No. 22. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 474. 1 HR. HAYS: I would like to request on the record 2 that the originals of the Doctor's research, the 3 articles that he's presented at your request here today 4 be returned to him, and copies substituted. 5 MR. HOOD: I have got one comment on that. As 6 I have started to look at the copies several pages 7 have been cut off by the copier. So I wouldn't have 8 an objection to that provided the copy is complete. 9 MR. HINKLE: One other ~ 10 MR. HAYS: And I make that request as to all 11 original documents. Is there any problem with that? 12 MR. HINKLE: Well, the one thing that I would 13 be interested in having is I would like to have these 14 originals of these copies attached to the deposition 15 for this reason, because the Doctor has made sane 16 notations on them, some in red ink, some in blue 17 ink, apparently some in pencil, and he's done some 18 writing on the back. So if the Doctor would have 19 no objection, I would prefer to have these exhibit 20 with his handwriting on them attached to the deposition. 21 We can certainly see to it that he gets copies of these 22 copies for his own use. Is that all right? 23 HR. HAYS: That's fine. 24 MR. CROSBY: As long as we're doing housekeeping, 25 let me reflect on the record that Exhibits -- C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1X2 1 MR. HAYS: Let me clarify something. Do you mean 2 that as to the box of documents, too? 3 THE WITNESS: Oh, no. We are only talking about 4 the talc articles. 5 MR. HINKLE: That's all that I was referring to, 6 Dr. Castleman. But Mr. Crosby has something he needs to 7 clean up evidently. 8 MR. CROSBY: What I am trying to do is elaborate. 9 Exhibit No. 86 has now been subcategorized such that it 10 now contains 86 "A" through 86 "Q", stickers affixed to 11 each particular manila folder that has the labels that I 12 previously read into the record. And I have not yet had 13 an opportunity to sit at this table with other counsel 14 to review the documents, but these are now marked as 15 exhibits to this deposition, and after we have had a 16 chance to review them, we can determine whether or not 17 we can exchange them for copies or not. I just can't 18 say right now. 19 MR. HINKLE: I guess you will have to take those 20 up on an item-by-item basis. 21 MR. HAYS: If you want to have the entire box 22 copied, that is no problem. We're just trying to 23 resolve that. If you want to send them out of here 24 and have them copied, we can start that. But you are 25 not going to have them available to question him. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 123. 1 That's your problem really more than it is ours. 2 MR. HINKLE: I think that probably the items and 3 matters we will be discussing with Dr. Castleman this 4 morning won't be related to matters in the box anyway. 5 MR. CROSBY: Can we go ahead and send the box now 6 for copying since the consensus the witness and the 7 lawyers is we're not going to get past talc today 8 anyway? 9 HR. HAYS: I don't have any problem if Kinko's can 10 pick it up here and deliver it back here. 11 MR. HINKLE: Is that all right with everybody? 12 MR. HAYS: we will place it in the custody of the 13 reporter. 14 MR. CROSBY: And what we may do is give Kinko's 15 half of it and we can be reading the other half, and 16 when they bring that half back, give them the other 17 half. 18 THE WITNESS: I am going to be taking off in two 19 and a half hours. 20 MR. CROSBY: She has custody of them until we get 21 them all back anyway, why don't we go ahead with 22 the questions. We'll see if we can work out the 23 logistics of it. 24 MR. HAYS: Why don't we just call Kinko's and get 25 them in here, and we can give them half of them and the C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1X4 1 Doctor will take half of them with him, or I'll keep 2 them. How do you want to handle it? 3 MR. HINKLEj Let's go off the record. 4 (Whereupon, a discussion was held off the record.) 5 MR. HAYS: It's understood that the originals will 6 be returned to Dr. Castleman after they are checked 7 for-- after the copies are checked for conformance with 8 the original documents. 9 MR. CROSBY: That is true, unless there is 10 something on an original in a different color ink 11 that can't be shown on the copy. And provided the 12 witness also understands that these are now exhibits 13 to this proceeding, and even when they are returned, 14 he's to maintain them intact and in their present form 15 of integrity. 16 MR. HAYS: Well, not if we're substituting copies. 17 If we're substituting copies, we're making the copies 18 the exhibits, and the originals are his documents to do 19 what he wants to with. First of all, those are his 20 documents. They are not anybody else's property. 21 MR. CROSBY: They are now in the Court's custody. 22 MR. HAYS: They are in the Court's coustody, 23 but it's still his personal property. He's not giving 24 up that right by making it an exhibit. If we substitute 25 copies, then the copies are the record for the court, C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1ZS 1 And those are returned to him are his own documents to 2 do what he wants. 3 HR. CROSBY: I quite agree. The problem being 4 that if these are still exhibits and if there's problems 5 with legibility and colors of ink and matters such as 6 that, I want him to understand he's not to do anything 7 to interfere with the integrity until those matters are 8 revolved. 9 HR. HAYS: That's fine. We don't have any 10 problem with that. 11 THE WITNESS: 3ut that is within a reasonably 12 short time of the copying. Because these documents 13 travel around the country, and I have no way of assuring 14 that any of these files are going to be maintained like 15 it was in a bank vault. 16 HR. CROSBY: I think we have made whatever 17 position we have clear. 18 MR. HINKLE: Dr. Castleman, you just a moment 19 ago announced once again your intention to leave us 20 at -- what time did you say? 21 THE WITNESS: Between 1:00 and 1:30. I understand 22 there is a train that I can get to Washington on that 23 leaves at a little before 2:00. 24 MR. HINKLE: In that connection, Mr. Hays, 25 arrangements have been made for a telephone conference C.S.R. ASSOCIATES ---------------------------------------------------- 1X6- 1 with the magistrate on this matter now. I think that 2 they are expecting a call from us. And so who is in 3 charge of getting the magistrate on the line? 4 5 (The following is a telephone conversation with the 6 Honorable Judge Wagner, taken on July 6th, 1989 during 7 the depositon of Barry Castleman.) 8 9 THE MAGISTRATE: This is John Wagner. 10 MS. SIEGEL: This is Nancy Siegel, and we are here 11 with Mr. Hays in the asbestos litigation. Can you 12 hear us? 13 THE MAGISTRATE: Yes. 14 MS. SIEGEL: We have got a dinky speaker phone and 15 a bunch of lawyers. 16 THE MAGISTRATE: What seems to be the problem? 17 MS. SIEGEL: Vie* re here taking the deposition of 18 Dr. Castleman. This was arragned with the plaintiff 19 some time ago. I would think about a month ago the date 20 was arragned. Notice went out to commence on the 5th of 21 July. I think the file stamp was on July 23rd, or 22 excuse me, June 23rd. Dr. Castleman was served with 23 notice, I believe, on or about July 28th. There has 24 been no objection filed to that notice, and it's my -- 25 MR. HAYS: I have filed an objection. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES JJ7 1 MS. SIEGEL: There has been no objection filed as 2 to the subpoena by an attorney on behalf of 3 Dr. Castleman. There has been an objection filed by 4 plaintiff's counsel to the parameters of the notice. 5 THE MAGISTRATE: Could you -- objection to the 6 what? 7 MS. SIEGEL: There has been an objection filed by 8 the plaintiff's counsel to the notice, but there has 9 been no objection filed as to the subpoena by a lawyer 10 on behalf of Dr. Castleman. 11 By agreement yesterday morning we were to allow 12 the plaintiff and counsel for Eagle-Picher in another 13 case pending in this jurisdiction in Maryland, I guess, 14 to have a video deposition to begin before the Oklahoma 15 litigation began their inquiry. Apparently at the last 16 minute they settled that case, and this deposition was 17 to commence at that time. However, a number of the 18 attorneys were delayed in arriving here because they 19 expected a video deposition in another case to be going 20 on. 21 Yesterday we were advised by Dr. Castleman that he 22 had received notice about an EPA hearing to be conducted 23 in Washington that he intended to appear at this 24 afternoon, and that he was going to leave this 25 deposition at 1 :00 or 1:30. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES rz_a 1 He has additionally advised us that he will be 2 available until approximately noon tomorrow. So he 3 intends to leave at 1:00 or 1:30 for the rest of the 4 day, and to return tomorrow to be present for 5 approximately a half a day. 6 Our request to you at this point is for a little 7 encouragement, I guess, to plaintiff's counsel to 8 encourage this witness to obey the subpoena that has 9 been served on him, or in the alternative to request 10 that plaintiff's counsel pay for the expenses 11 associated with all these attorneys sitting around 12 wasting time for half a day until tomorrow morning, 13 and/or that this witness be precluded from testifying at 14 the time of trial. 15 And that is what we're calling about, and the 16 request and the relief that we're seeking at this time. 17 THE MAGISTRATE: Mr. Hays? 18 MR. HAYS: Good morning, Magistrate Wagner. 19 We have entered into a general agreement as to a 20 time estimate for depositions of experts to be a matter 21 of a two day period of time, understanding that as 22 depositions go, things can be prolonged or they can be 23 shortened. 24 The subpoena that was served and the notice that 25 was served did not set forth a specific time period, it C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ------ ixa just said it was to commence July 5th, 1989 at 10:00. We filed an objection to that, the Doctor adopted our objection to that subpoena yesterday. This is the history of the matter, because of Doctor __ THE MAGISTRATE: obj ection? What's the basis for the MR. HAYS: Well, as to the third item, that it was over broad. They said they wanted "All documents which you have reviewed or prepared, or upon which you rely in support of any opinions or conclusions which you now have or will testify to at the time of trial concerning talc and it's manifestations in the chest, and/or pulmonary disease caused by talc, it has nothing -- it doesn't say anything about asbestos. But we have in the spirit of this deposition supplied a great deal of documentation, We supplied over 70 articles dealing with talc. We have provided over ---- THE MAGISTRATE: Let me interrupt you here. MR. HAYS: Yes, sir. THE MAGISTRATE: Are there any defendants of whom well, Ms. Siegel says here there was -- we're not talking really about documents at this point, that is not our fight. MR. HAYS: Let me back up then. this deposition -- We agreed to take C.S.R. ASSOCIATES mu 1 THE MAGISTRATE: You didn't object to the time? 2 MR. HAYS: No, sir. We agreed to take the 3 deposition in concurrence with another deposition by 4 Mr. Sutter, it was a video deposition for trial in 5 asbestos cases and Eagle-Picher was a defendant. 6 It was agreed that we would adopt that deposition, 7 the transcript of that deposition, incorporate it 8 by reference into our deposition, so that perhaps many 9 questions concerning asbestos would be precluded by 10 these defendants. All objections would be reserved. 11 After that deposition, then all defendants could 12 ask whatever questions they wanted to that weren't 13 repetitive concerning asbestos. We did that in order to 14 accommodate all the parties. Then the talc defendants 15 were to begin their questioning. And there is a clay 16 component that is minor that won't take very much time. 17 So that original deposition canceled because the case 18 was settled, then the deposition commenced. It 19 commenced, oh, between 10:00 and 11:00. I am not sure 20 of the exact time. And that continued all day yesterday 21 until 5:00. We commenced this morning again at 10:00. 22 Yesterday we advised them early that Dr. Castleman 23 had received this invitation just a few days before the 24 deposition to appear with the EPA. This is a matter 25 he's been involved in for some period of time, and 40 or C.S.R. ASSOCIATES ------------------ ---- ----------------- -------------LSi- 1 50 percent of his time is spent in public service, and 2 h e 's a part of this. I believe it's 40 to 50. Is that 3 correct, Dr. Castleman? 4 So this is a matter that is a very serious concern 5 because it involves a proclamation about asbestos 6 and recommendations concerning its future use in the 7 United States of America. And he's been the point man 8 for a group that has been pushing this matter for some 9 period of time. So this is the second day that we 10 generally agree on for all the experts. 11 As you understand, we have to give them an 12 estimate of time, and some of these experts in asbestos 13 cases are called all over the country, and are involved 14 in many lawsuits. So we agreed to come back in tomorrow 15 morning and give them the half a day they would be 16 losing by his taking off this afternoon. And we felt 17 that was fair. 18 And we have tried to shorten the deposition 19 by agreeing to let them adopt and incorporate certain 20 portions of depositions regarding his qualifications, 21 possible bias, income, so that they wouldn't have to ask 22 any questions concerning that. 23 The asbestos defendants have his book, many of 24 them have been involved in litigation with him before 25 and have documents. In the spirit of cooperation we C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 have even provided them today a box of over 400 2 documents to be copied, we think we have been in full 3 compliance with the subpoena. The only problem is 4 taking off the half day so he can fulfill a prior 5 obligation, something he's been involved in for some 6 period of time, which we agreed to make up tomorrow. 7 Now, I understand that they are going to say, 8 Well, we didn't agree to a two day deposition. No, they 9 didn't agree to a two day deposition, but we have agreed 10 to a two day estimate of time, and we have given that 11 information to our experts to expect to be deposed two 12 days. That is our understanding from our conversations 13 with Hr. Hinkle, who's been appointed, as I understand, 14 as lead counsel to set up and schedule and coordinate 15 all the depositions of these experts. 16 MR. HINKLE: Your Honor, this is Mike Hinkle. 17 Part of the problem here is that, you know, that 18 Dr. Castleman, of course, if he's got to be there at 19 this deal, nobody told us about it until yesterday, so 20 now all of our clients are going to be expected to pick 21 up the cost of us waiting another day, and another night 22 of expense here for us. And we understand that Dr. 23 Castleman learned about this last Thursday or Friday, 24 and we didn't know a thing about it until we arrived 25 here yesterday morning. So it really isn't fair, and C.S.R. ASSOCIATES --------------------- ------------------------------------ LB3_ 1 we're not unsympathetic to his desire to be elsewhere, 2 but it's really not fair for our clients to have to pick 3 up the cost in order for him to make this hearing. 4 Also, let me just respond to a couple of things. 5 I have never told anyone that we would limit these 6 depositions to two days. 7 HR. HAYS: And I never stated that. 8 HR. HINKLE: I know, but I want it very clear 9 that Hr. Norman attempted to get us to agree to a 10 limitation on expert depositions, and I was not willing 11 to do that, and I never intended to suggest to anybody 12 that we were going to limit these to two days. And so 13 for a counsel to come in and say that we, you know, you 14 have got no complaint because we're going to give you 15 two days is not really fair, because that was not our 16 deal. 17 MR. HAYS: Your Honor, let me respond to that. 18 This subpoena, as I read it, has nothing to do with 19 asbestos. It says, "Documents relating to talc" in that 20 paragraph three that I have objected to, except as to -- 21 Well, there is something in the last paragraph, and I 22 will have to retract that. He stuck in "asbestos, talc, 23 soapstone and clay". So I will retract that. The first 24 paragraph taketh away, the fourth -- fifth paragraph on 25 the last page giveth back. I apologize for that. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1M 1 But the point is, they have deposed this gentleman 2 many, many times. They have his book sitting on the 3 table. They have a multitude of documents that they 4 have accumulated over the past. In fact, at one time it 5 was discussed that the asbestos people might not even 6 appear because he's not changing his testimony in regard 7 to anything over the asbestos so far as I know, except 8 maybe some recent articles in the past few years, and 9 they can ask him about that. But they haven't asked 10 that. 11 They spent a lot of time just talking about a 12 Mr. Edholm who was a researcher that collected their 13 articles for him. I don't think the time has been 14 efficiently utilized. They haven't gone into the 15 substance of the matter, as I see it, and I think the 16 continuation of the deposition over until tomorrow, I 17 doubt that they will even complete it when they are 18 given their half day. I doubt that they will ever say 19 they have completed this deposition the way they are 20 approaching it at this point. 21 MS. SIEGEL: Your Honor, I have a couple of points 22 in response to Mr. Hays. 23 First of all, Mr. Hays feels that we are 24 conducting this deposition in an oppressive way, or 25 under any of the parts of the federal rules which would C.S.R. ASSOCIATES iS 1 allow him to come in and terminate the deposition and 2 seek relief from the Court, he may do so. Thus far, 3 there has been no requests to do that. 4 Dr. Castleman, with regard to this EPA hearing, is 5 not serving in any official capacity, has not been 6 ordered to be present there, he desires to be present 7 there. 8 Well, somebody pointed out it's not a hearing. I 9 don't know exactly what the nature of this announcement 10 is that the EPA intends to make. In other words, he 11 just simply desires to be present there. 12 The subpoena and the notice that was served says 13 that this deposition will continue from day-to-day, the 14 notice says from day-to-day until completed. There has 15 been no agreement that this would only take place for a 16 period of two days. 17 In an effort to work out an agreement with the 18 plaintiff, we agreed to allow this other deposition to 19 go forward yesterday morning which ended up eating up 20 several hours of time because it did not occur. And 21 there was never any agreement that we would adopt the 22 videotape as part of this deposition to my knowledge. 23 HR. HAYS: Not the videotape, the transcript of 24 that deposition. 25 MS. SIEGEL: Either one. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 1 MR. HAYS: Yes, there was an agreement, as I 2 understood it. 3 MR. HItIKLE: well, that is immaterial, because 4 that didn't happen. Okay. So that is not an issue 5 here. 6 The thing about it is, Judge -- 7 THE MAGISTRATE: Who have I got here? 8 MR. HINKLE: This is Mike Hinkle. 9 THE MAGISTRATE: You have had Mr. Castleman, 10 or Dr. Castleman for a day? 11 MR. HINKLE: Yes. 12 TIIE MAGISTRATE: And you are going to have him for 13 the remainder of today until 1:30 or so? 14 MR. HINKLE: Or thereabouts, yes. 15 THE MAGISTRATE: And he is willing to come back 16 tomorrow? 17 MS. SIEGEL: For half a day. 18 THE MAGISTRATE: Which half are we talking about? 19 MS. SIEGEL: In the morning, for two hours, from 20 10:00 to 12:00, for three hours. 21 MR. HAYS: 9:00 til 12:00. 22 MS. SIEGEL: I was cut off, and there is one other 23 thing I think is very important for you to consider, and 24 that is that Dr. Castleman has never testified with 25 regard to talc before. And while he may have C.S.R. ASSOCIATES iW 1 publications that relate to asbestos, the area of 2 inquiry regarding his knowledge of talc and the 3 scientific development of the hazards associated with 4 talc is yet defined. And it may take us several days to 5 get through that area, as did the first deposition 6 relating to asbestos. Now, he's given depositions in 7 that regard numerous times, and the lawyers that 8 represent asbestos defendants here may want to inquire 0 further, but the area of inhalation of talc is yet 10 untapped. 11 HR. HAYS: Hay it please the Court, yesterday we 12 requested the talc defendants to go forward early in the 13 deposition. Some of them weren't here, we knew, but 14 some of them were here. And in fact, the lead counsel 15 yesterday did go into the talc articles for 16 identification, but also extended that to things like I 17 believe definitions of talc. So there has been 18 some deposition concerning talc. They could have 19 continued that, and at our request they did do some, 20 I suppose, but they could have been doing talc all 21 along. 22 And we had one -- we had one defendant yesterday 23 say, "I am not going to be precluded in my examination. 24 Hy examination alone will take eight hours." So the 25 fact that we continue this a half a day isn't really C.S.R. ASSOCIATES ----------- ------------------------------------------------ IBB. 1 going to affect their being over here one other night, 2 because one of the attorneys said he was going to depose 3 him for eight hours, and that is after the lead counsel 4 on asbestos resumes his questioning. 5 So they are planning on doing a marathon 6 deposition here, and I bet you that if we would give 7 them two more days even, they would end up -- which we 8 cannot do, but they would ask for a contiuance and 9 not complete the deposition based upon what they're 10 saying. 11 HR. CROSBY: Your Honor, I am Jim Crosby. I 12 represent one of the asbestos producers. 13 Just for purposes of letting Your Honor know, 14 the witness brought today some items that we had 15 requested dealing with particular companies, and some 16 opinions that he has relating to asbestos. I have 17 deposed this witness in the past and cross-examined him 18 in the past in courtrooms. I have reviewed briefly that 19 box of materials, and in that box of materials now are 20 a considerable number of documents and articles and 21 memorandum that I had not seen or heard this witness 22 testify about at any time prior to today. So the scope 23 of the deposition is pretty broad, and what they 24 tendered this witness for is a broad subject that 25 requires a great deal of discovery. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES ---------- ----------------------------- ------------------Laa. 1 We allowed the talc people to go in between our 2 examination, and plaintiff's counsel has agreed that we 3 can come back. But it's an involved and tedious process 4 with lots of documents and lots of medical and 5 scientific literature that takes quite a while to 6 explore. 7 HR. HAYS: Hay it please the Court, this S gentleman -- Dr. Castleman has been deposed over 60 9 times since 1979, and there are transcripts on 10 over 80 trials, and his testimony concerns 11 history of knowledge concerning asbestos and talc, and 12 to a small degree clay. You know, they have got the 13 book on the man, they have had it for a long time, and I 14 just think this is an exercise in using time that should 15 be used otherwise. 16 MR. HINKLE: Your Honor, this is Hike Hinkle 17 again. I am just going to make one other statement 18 here. That this doctor has brought with him 80 or 19 approximately 80 or more articles dealing with talc. 20 We have never seen the bulk of these, we did not get 21 copies of those until last night about 7:00, and so we 22 have never had an opportunity to review these documents 23 and question this witness about it in the history. 24 He's never testified in a talc case. So this is 25 the first time that he's ever been placed under oath C.S.R. ASSOCIATES -- ---------------------------------- --------- -------------------------- L2fl. 1 and questioned concerning his expertise in talc, and we 2 want to make sure that we get it done this time. 3 We have told counsel for the plaintiff that we're 4 going to try to fix it where we don't have to keep 5 running back here and taking additional depositions for 6 every plaintiff. So what we're trying to do here is in 7 the talc context, and I am not going to speak to 8 asbestos, I don't know what all they need to ask him, 9 but I do know that we have got an awful lot of articles 10 about talc that nobody here has ever seen before. 11 With that, I think that it's unfair for the 12 witness to say that I am only going to allot you so much 13 time, and then to just break it off, even though he's 14 got a subpoena served on him. And there was no 15 objection and no notice to us that he was going to 16 bellyache about the amount of time that he was spending. 17 MR. HAYS: Your Honor, I sent a letter to 18 Hr. Hinkle telling him we were going to object to the 19 subpoena before we left town, and I also filed 20 objections to the subpoena. And Dr. Castleman said he 21 didn't have an attorney representing him, and then later 22 I asked him if he adopted what I filed in that subpoena, 23 and he said yes. And I think that subpoena is 24 over broad. But we have responded, we have given them 25 tons of documents, now they are using that as a basis -LSI 1 for extending the deposition. 2 MR. HINKLE: We're not bellyaching about the items 3 presented, what were talking here is about the 4 time, that is the issue here. 5 HR. HAYS: So the more we give them the longer it 6 takes. And we need some guidance. 7 THE MAGISTRATE: Why are we cutting this off at 8 half a day tomorrow? 9 MR. HAYS: Sir? 10 THE MAGISTRATE: why are we cutting this off 11 at half a day tomorrow? 12 MS. SIEGEL: The testimony from the witness 13 yesterday was that he has other important things to take 14 care of in his life, and that is pretty much the reason 15 why. 16 THE ilAGISTRATE: Mr. Hays, can you enlighten me 17 any on that? 18 MR. HAYS: I can just -- No, sir. He just had 19 business plans, as I understand it. 20 Dr. Castleman, can you help me on that? 21 THE WITNESS: Yes. Good morning, Your Honor. 22 MR. HAYS: Can you hear Dr. Castleman from there, 23 Your Honor? 24 THE MAGISTRATE: Yes, I can. 25 MR. HAYS: Is it all right if he speaks to you? C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 132 1 THE MAGISTRATE: Yes. 2 MR. HAYS: Excuse us. There Is a squad car going 3 by or ambulance. It's making a lot of noise here. 4 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I am going to be going 5 out of the country later next week. I have other 6 obligations in other work I am doing. I am involved in 7 international work in the field of occupational and 8 environmental health. I am also involved in this 9 federal rule making regarding the EPA's proposed band of 10 asbestos consumation of which they plan to announce at 11 this time. And I need some time in my life co be able 12 to take care of these and other personal matters as 13 well as business matters before I go away. 14 I am going to be out of the country for about 15 four weeks. And I really do see that if I -- I made 16 myself available for deposition between now and the time 17 that I am leaving the United States, in all likelihood 18 I think that these folks would still be here asking me 19 questions straight through next week about the various 20 documents, boxes of documents, about 50 pounds worth, I 21 think, that I have so far brought in, most of which has 22 been the subject of repeated discussion in the asbestos 23 litigation over the past ten years. 24 The talc stuff is new, and I have attempted to 25 respond to questions on that. If we can't finish as of r* n r O A /^ T u m B ^ ------------------------------------- ------------------------------------m 1 mid-day tomorrow, I supposed if you consider it 2 necessary, the deposition will just have to be resumed 3 when I get back in the United States in August or in 4 September sometime. 5 THE MAGISTRATE; Well, these cases are set for 6 trial in August, and they will go in August. 7 MR. HAYS: No, sir. These are the January trials. 8 THE MAGISTRATE: January cases? 9 MR. HAYS: Yes, they are the January cases. 10 MS. SIEGEL: But that does put us into our 11 discovery cutoff, however. 12 MR. HINKLE: And nobody told us this, Judge. 13 This is the problem we're having. We come in here after 14 all these lawyers traveling a thousand miles and 15 believing that we have got a subpoena that will be 16 binding on the witness, and an agreement with 17 plaintiff's counsel that he will be here, and after 18 doing all this we find out that we're not going to be 19 able to finish. 20 MR. HAYS: Your Honor, as far as that one days 21 time, the attorneys did not show up until maybe 12:00, 22 some of the talc attorneys, so they did not -- because 23 the video deposition was going to take place. 24 MR. HINKLE: Jim, that is not fair. 25 MR. HAYS: So really there is really no loss on --- -- ------------------------------- -- ------------- -- .- 194 1 that from that standpoint. 2 HR. HINKLE: That is not fair. I agreed to that 3 as an accommodation to y o u r and it's not fair now for 4 you to use that as some kind of an argument as to why 5 this witness ought to be able to leave. 6 HR. HAYS: No. I am just talking about your extra 7 day, extra half day you're talking about. 8 Well, Your Honor we're sorry to take up your time 9 with this matter, but it is something of concern. I 10 think we need to have your guidance on it. 11 THE MAGISTRATE: Well, I can go one or two ways 12 here, and of course my concern is trying to be fair to 13 all the parties. We have Dr. Castleman here who's been 14 listed as an expert witness in this case or in these 15 cases. And of course, we have a new area as to talc 16 here. I think these defendants are entitled to fully 17 examine Dr. Castleman as to the talc area. 18 MR. HAYS: Yes, sir. 19 THE MAGISTRATE: How many lawyers do I have there 20 right now? 21 MS. SIEGEL: Eighteen to 20. 22 THE MAGISTRATE: Having served a subpoena having 23 20 people travel to -- where are we, New York? 24 MS. SIEGEL: Baltimore, Maryland. 25 THE MAGISTRATE: Baltimore, and then have the C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 135 1 witness take off, does not sit well, certainly to 2 announce this after everyone has arrived. It's not 3 the way to proceed. 4 MR. HAYS: I had no notice of it until I got here 5 for the deposition, Your Honor, and it was reported to 6 them as soon as possible. 7 THE MAGISTRATE: On the other hand, I certainly 3 don't want to be oppressive to any witness, including 9 Dr. Castleman. 10 MR. HINKLE: Could I propose a compromise, Your 11 Honor? 12 THE MAGISTRATE: Certainly. 13 MR. HINKLE: One way that we might be able to 14 solve this is if Dr. Castleman wants to break off and 15 leave, and the Court thinks that is the way to handle 16 this, then the Court can say that he's not going to 17 testify to anything that was not covered in the 18 deposition. And if they want to limit us to the amount 19 of time that we're going to take with him and he's going 20 to limit us, then it ought to cut both ways, they need 21 to be limited too. And that seems like a fair way to 22 handle it. 23 MR. HAYS: Well, Your Honor, I think that would be 24 very fair from the defendant's standpoint, that is their 25 clients would be certainly in a wonderful position if r c d accnrT m 'p q J_9 1 they could just stop the deposition right now, walk away 2 and say he didn't testify to it, so therefore, he can't 3 present it at trial. 4 We're going to present him in trial concerning 5 those matters they are well aware of from the asbestos 6 standpoint, and should be aware of from the talc 7 standpoint. 3 It surprises me that after two years or close to 9 three years maybe now in litigation, that these talc 10 defendants haven't been down to the library to look up 11 some articles, which I was able to do last night in a 12 couple of hours, I picked up five or six of them myself. 13 So it surprises me that they don't have these talc 14 articles. I just can't buy that frankly. But I don't 15 want to be limited in what I present Dr. Castleman 16 on because they choose not to question him in an area 17 tactically. 18 THE MAGISTRATE: Well, that is fine, if they chose 19 not to question him in an area. But what we're doing 20 here, you have got 20 lawyers sitting out there, and 21 were not providing the witness for an adequate period 22 of time to be questioned. 23 MS. SIEGEL: Your Honor, I think one of the 24 important things to consider here is that this witness 25 is not being ordered to appear in some other C.S.R. ASSOCIATES iSJ. 1 jurisdiction or by court order or for any other reason 2 other than his own desire to be elsewhere. .And from 3 that perspective, I would urge you to encourage this 4 witness to obey the subpoena, to remain here, and to let 5 us continue and complete this deposition pursuant to the 6 terms of that subpoena instead of being his own judge in 7 this jurisdiction and allowing himself to come and go as 8 he sees fit. 9 MR. HAYS: Well, Your Honor, he*s not coming and 10 going. 11 THE MAGISTRATE: The deposition should proceed, 12 and the subpoena should be complied with. And the 13 deposition should proceed through today and through 14 tomorrow. 15 Certainly I would think that by the conclusion 16 of the working day tomorrow the defendants should be 17 finished with this deposition. Three days in my 18 estimation should be sufficient to depose any witness, 19 and we should terminate this deposition then as of 5:00 20 tomorrow. But certainly up through that time. 21 Dr. Castleman should remain available, and this 22 deposition should proceed and be completed. 23 MR. HAYS: Thank you, Your Honor. 24 MS. SIEGEL: Thank you, Your Honor. 25 THE MAGISTRATE: Anything further? C.S.R. ASSOCIATES iaa 1 MS. SIEGEL: No. Appreciate your time. 2 THE MAGISTRATE: Very well. 3 (Whereupon, the deposition was resumed.) 4 MR. HAYS: Dr. Castleman can't be there to 5 represent the poor people. 6 MR. HOOD: I have asked the court reporter to 7 start noting the time so we can show the Court we're 8 ready to start the deposition. According to my watch 9 it's 11:40, the judge has ruled, and I would like to 10 proceed with the deposition. 11 MR. HAYS: We haven't agreed to go back on the 12 record, but I will agree to go back on the 13 record. And I want us to have an agreement right now 14 that lead counsel and myself agree when we go on the 15 record and off the record. Is that acceptable to 16 everyone? 17 MR. HOOD: If you drop my client from the case, it 18 is. 19 MR. HINKLE: Except that there is going to be 20 times when I am not going to be here. 21 MR. HAYS: Well, whoever occupies the cat bird's 22 seat, as you call it. 23 MR. WAGNER: I think that is reasonable. 24 MR. HAYS: Thank you. 25 MR. CROSBY: Well, let me just state for the C.S.R. ASSOCIATES ------------------------- --------------------- --------------------- 149- 1 record that within certain parameters it's reasonable, 2 but there may be times when there may be descending 3 votes on when we go on and off the record, and everybody 4 here has the obligation to represent their clients. We 5 continue to try to work with you. For example, we 6 still have to make our own objections for each of our 7 clients since you would not allow an objection by one 8 defendant to stand for all. 9 MR. HAYS: Are you renewing that request now? 10 HR. CROSBY: Whatever you want to do, Mr. Hays, 11 but I mean, I don't think that I am being unreasonable 12 in light of your position with respect to certain 13 matters. 14 MR. HAYS: I don't believe that we have taken 15 up much time with objections. What are they going to 16 do, object to lead counsel's questions? 17 MR. CROSBY: I may. I certainly wish to reserve 18 that right. I am here representing a client. 19 MR. HAYS: Well, some people may not agree to do 20 that. He's not going to object to his own questions. 21 MR. CROSBY: Let's go to work. 22 MR. HAYS: So you're going to have to object, 23 aren't you? It doesn't make sense, does it? 24 MR. CROSBY: The witness has returned. If we may 25 proceed, I would think we should do that. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 2011 1 Q. (By Mr. Hinkle) Dr. Castleman, when we left off 2 the questioning, you had Exhibit 22 in front of you to help you 3 tell us what subcategories of talc we may be talking about. 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. What are they? 6 A. Well, the mineral talc is defined here by its 7 formula. 8 Q. Well, I don't want the formula. I want to know 9 what the subcategories of talc are. we have talked generally 10 about pure talc and industrial grade talc. Are there 11 recognized subcategories within the rubric of talc that we can 12 talk about? 13 A. Well, I don't know that you can say they are so 14 distinctly recognized. As the authors here say "Variations in 15 the composition of talc used in industries are extreme." 16 And they mention that the talcs involved may contain 17 minerals, the most prominent minerals they say which may 18 accompany talc as it occurs in nature are serpentine, dolomite 19 and tremolite. So those are the three listed here as minerals 20 that may accompany talc as it naturally occurs, and which would 21 be present in the talcs that are used in the industry. 22 Q. All right. Do I understand then, that those are 23 the only subcategories of talc that you as an expert recognize? 24 A. I don't say they are subcategories of talc. I 25 think that that is a misunderstanding. That there are C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 201 1 mineralogical ingredients that are found, as well as the 2 hydrous magnesium silicate that mineralogists refer to when 3 they mean pure talc. 4 Q. Listen carefully to my question, Dr. Castleman. I 5 would like to know from you, being the expert in this field, 6 what are the recognized subcategories of talc that have been 7 dealt with in the medical literature if you can tell me? 8 MR. HAYS: Assuming that there are such 9 categories. 10 Q. (By Mr. Hinkle) If you don't know or don't 11 believe there are such categories, you can so state,. 12 A. I just don't think that the question lends itself 13 to an answer. There are all kinds of talcs that are mined in 14 different places, they contain various quantities of these 15 other types of materials, as well as materials which are 16 perhaps not as prominent in talc deposits. 17 Q. Do you know whether or not talcs are 18 subcategorized according to their form, do you know? 19 A. I really don't know about the jargon of 20 mineralogists and talc vendors in this regard, although there 21 may well be different types of grades and standards that have 22 been arrived at in the industry regarding physical properties 23 and constituants of the various talcs that are sold. 24 Q. Dr. Castleman, you have told us that you are not 25 an expert in mineralogy. Is that true? C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 22 1 A. That is true. 2 Q. I am not asking you about anything that is outside 3 the area of the expertise that you have claimed in this case. 4 You have claimed to be an expert in the development of medical 5 knowledge concerning the hazards of talc; right, among others? 6 A. As reported in the scientific literature, yes. 7 Q. Now, as reported in the scientific literature, 8 Dr. Castleman, do the authors, do the scientists categorize 9 talc according to its form, or do you know? 10 A. I don't see clear cut categories emerging in the 11 scientific literature, although certainly some of the writers 12 do refer to tremolitic talc, and there are what you might call 13 categories, but it's not clear cut. It's not as clear cut, for 14 example, as the mineralogical varieties of asbestos, in the 15 literature on asbestos disease where you are dealing with, 16 relatively speaking, more pure materials, and not mixtures of 17 this kind. 18 Q. When you use the term "tremolitic talc", you are 19 talking about talc that is categorized by reason of its 20 content; correct? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. My narrow question is: Are you aware in the 23 medical literature of any catergorization of talc by virtue of 24 its form? 25 A. You mean its morphology? C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 333 1 Q. Well, morphology is a different question, but 2 let's ask that one. Are you aware of any subcategorization 3 dealt with in the medical literature concerning different 4 subcategories of talc by reason of its morphology? 5 A. in a sense that some of the authors say that 6 fibrous talcs are different in their biologic action or more 7 severe in their biologic action than non-- fibrous talcs. This 8 is generally speaking in the more recent literature, not in the 9 earliest articles. 10 Q. So you recognize a distinction in medical 11 literature between fibrous talc and none fibrous talc? 12 A. I recognize that there are different authors who 13 say various things, and some of these authors have made 14 distinctions of that kind* But it's ---- let's not speak of the 15 medical literature as a uniform, single body of things. It's a 16 diverse collection of things that were put into print over a 17 period of decades, and some of the authors made comments of 18 that type, and some of them did not. 19 Q. And all we can ask you now are the matters that 20 appear in this medical literature, and I am not asking for 21 everything that everyone says. I want to know what basically 22 we can glean from this body of literature. Okay? 23 And you tell me now that somewhere some authors deal 24 with a difference between fibrous talc and non-fibrous talc, 25 you have seen that distinction made? C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 2SU L 1 A. in some cases, yes. 2 Q. Have you seen any other distinction made with 3 regard to subcategories of talc apart from the ones you have 4 told us about? 5 A. I don't think so. 6 Q. All right. 7 A. I mean the things I told you about since you 8 started questioning me yesterday. 9 Q. Serpentine, dolomite and tremolite arecategories 10 based on content and fibrous and non-fibrous you see as 11 distinctions based on form. Would you agree with that? 12 A. Yes. Again, the minerals you have mentioned are 13 things that are present in varying quantities in different 14 types of talcs as it's reported in the literature. 15 Q. All right. 16 A. I hesitate to say that they are differenttypes of 17 talc. But they are -- there are different compositions of 18 industrial talcs that contain varying quantities of those 19 things. 20 0. Doctor, all I am asking you now, I'm not asking 21 you to take the position as to whether it's true, or not true, 22 or accurate or not accurate. I am just asking you what is in 23 the medical literature. 24 A. Fine. 25 Q. Now, do you recognize any other -- haveyou seen, C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 355- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 dealt with m the medical literature any other subcategories of talc apart from the ones you have told us? A. Nothing comes to mind. Q. All right. A. There may be other comes to mind at this time. things in here, but nothing Q. Now, are you familiar, do you see dealt with in the medical literature any epidemiological studies that relate to the effect of fibrous talc on the lungs? A. Yes. Q. When? that? You have an exhibit in front you of. what exhibit is A. I am looking at No. 15. Q. Are you telling us Exhibit No. 15 is an epidemiological study dealing with the effects of fibrous talc on the lungs? A. Well, they use the terra tremolitic talc, or they mention that talc tremolite is involved, but they talk about not just the current study, but earlier work. Q. Does Exhibit No. 15 -- and incidently, identify that for us, please. A. Report. This is a study by Dreessen, 1935 Public Health Q. Is that an epidemiological study? C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 2Q. 1 A It is an epidemiological study. 2 Q. What are Dreessen's conclusions with regard to the 3 affects of fibrous talc on the lungs? 4 A. He says that Georgia Talc appears to be more 5 injurious than tremolite talc. So this is a study that appears 6 to say that talc that doesn't have tremolite that is found in 7 Georgia appears, according to the author at this time to be 8 more harmful. 9 Q. All right. Now, are you takinga position, 10 Dr. Castleman, one way or the other as to whether or not the 11 findings in this article are correct? 12 A. No. 13 Q. All right. Now, does -- Well,let me just ask the 14 broad category. Are you taking the position that the findings 15 of any of these articles that we have talked about and have 16 made exhibits, are you taking a position as to the accuracy of 17 any of these articles? 18 A. Well, I am not here to testify as to the truth of 19 the matters reported in the articles. I am testifying as to 20 the availability of the reports themselves, and the logical 21 inferences that might be drawn by someone, say, in the talc 22 business having access to such reports. 23 Q. Now, the exhibit that you just told us about 24 indicates that the higher the tremolitic content of talc the 25 less dangerous it is. Would that be a reasonable in inference C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 203 1 from the article you just cited? 2 A. This particular article says that, "Georgia Talc 3 appears to be more injurious than treraolite talc." And they 4 say, "Georgia Talc contains only traces of free silica." So I 5 am not sure if they understand or have even a theory as to why 6 they find more problems with Georgia Talc than they found with 7 the stuff they refer to as tremolite talc. And I am also not 8 clear, and I am not sure that this article makes clear the 9 extent of fibers that were found in the tremolite talc they 10 refer to. 11 Q. So this particular article, I guess, would lead to 12 either confusing, inaccurate or incomplete conclusions. Would 13 you agree with that? 14 ^ think this article would lead to the conclusion 15 that you can develop pneumoconiosis from some types of talc, 16 and just what it is in terms of a detailed mechanism of the 17 pneumoconiosis was somewhat obscure at the time that this was 18 reported. 19 Q. Does this particular article deal with disability 20 at all? 21 A. I don't believe that they found -- Well, let me 22 see. They did find, I believe they did find disability. They 23 lad eight individuals who had pneumoconiosis grades two and 24 three. And I don't see specific discussions of it in terms of 25 disability. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES -------------------- ---- -------------------- --------------------- ?nft 1 Q. Have you followed the treatment of Dreessen's 2 article in subsequent literature? 3 A. I have seen it referred to in subsequent 4 literature. 5 Q. Do you know what the subsequent literature says in 6 regard to what Dreessen finds as to disability associated with 7 inhalation of talc? 8 A. You mean what other people inferred from reading 9 this? 10 Q. Yes. Limited to the disability question. 11 A. I think that at least one of the articles that I 12 have seen, I think one of the articles inferred that there was 13 disability, and I think there may have been other articles that 14 inferred that -- Well, I am not sure. I don't think that 15 the -- without knowing which article you are referring to, it's 16 a little hard to answer the question. 17 Q. Okay. As we sit here today you are not able to 18 tell us how Dreessen's conclusions have been dealt with by 19 subsequent authors on the question of disability? 20 A. I know that this was cited and -- but I don't have 21 a perfect recollection of what each of the subsequent authors 22 said or did not say about Dreessen's report. 23 Q. I am not asking for a perfect recollection, 24 Dr. Castleman. if you can remember in substance what was said, 25 that will do. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 2oa 1 A. Well, I seem to remember one of them saying that 2 he found that there was disability in people with grade two and 3 grade three pneumoconiosis, but I could be wrong about that. 4 That is just kind of an unusual question asking me what one 5 author had to say about another author's writing. But I think 6 that is what somebody said, and if pressed at some point today, 7 maybe we will see a little bit more about that when we go 8 through these other articles. 9 Q. Dr. Castleman, isn't that one of the ways that we 10 decide how a particular publication is received in the medical 11 community, by seeing what subsequent authors have to say about 12 that? 13 A. Yes, that's right. 14 Q. Are you able to say as you sit here today how 15 Dreessen's article was received by subsequent authors? 16 A. I would say that generally it was received as a 17 sign that talc might well cause lung damage. 18 Q. Would you agree? 19 A. And it was so cited. 20 Q. Would you agree that it also says that some talcs 21 are more dangerous than others? 22 A. It definitely say that. There is no question. 23 That is explicit, and we covered that. 24 Q. Do you know which authors have subsequently 25 accepted that point of view? C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 A. There are plenty of authors here who have said 2 that there seems to be a variability in the extent of disease 3 that is reported. I think ever since -- 4 Q. All I want to know, Dr. Castleman, is are you able 5 to say which of these authors have accepted the conclusions 6 reached by Dr. Dreessen? 7 A. Well, what conclusions? That there is variability 8 in the extent of damage that the different types of talc may 9 cause to different people. 10 Q. Let's start with this, that you say that 11 Dr. Dreessen concludes that inhalation of talc can cause 12 disability; correct? 13 A. Well, Dreessen I don't think actually uses that 14 term. He says he found grades two and three pneumoconiosis in 15 people that he examined. I don't think he characterizes it 16 using the word disability. So I am at a loss to tell you 17 something that Dreessen himself didn't say explicitly. 18 Q. Let me frame the question this way then. In 19 reviewing the article on this Exhibit 15 by Dr. Dreessen, does 20 he discuss in any terms whether or not inhalation of talc will 21 result in functional disability? 22 A. well, the way I read it he did find functional 23 disability. He said, "There were eight cases-- " on Page 138, 24 "-- showing definate symptoms of the disease, such as dyspnea, 25 cough, chest pain, rales and other abnormal chest findings, C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 2Ur 1 clubbing of the fingers, and roentgenologic manifestations of 2 nodular or nodular conglomerate types of fibrosis, and more or 3 less diaphragmatic fixation. Considering all clinical and 4 roentgenological findings together, these eight cases were 5 diagnosed pneumoconiosis two and three." 6 Q. And so your reading of this article says 7 Dr. Dreessen concludes that you can in fact suffer some 0 functional impairment by reason of inhalation of talc? 9 A. Yes. I mean I read those sentences to mean that 10 your lungs have been damaged. 11 Q. Allright. 12 A. And that those are evidence, various evidence of 13 lung damage. 14 Q. All right. Now, Dr. Dreessen makes a distinction 15 between Georgia Talc and tremolitic talc; right? 16 A. Yes, he does. 17 Q. And he says that Georgia Talc in his view is more 18 dangerous; right? 19 A. Yes, he does. 20 Q. Does he says whether or not there is any tremolite 21 in Georgia Talc? 22 A. Yes. He says there was one, referring to the 23 petrographic analysis on Page 142, he says, "Georgia Talc 24 contains only traces of free silica." And then it goes on to 25 say "The amount of tremolite, about ten percent found by C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 212 1 petrographic analysis averaged one-fourth the amount reported 2 in the previous study." And previous was a study of what he 3 calls tremolite talc. So this apparently also has tremolite in 4 it, but it has less tremolite than Georgia Talc. 5 Q. All right. So Dr. Dreessen says that a talc with 6 only traces of free silica and less tremolite is nevertheless 7 more injurious to the lungs than talc that has a higher 8 quantity of tremolite. That is what he suggests in this 9 article; true? 10 A. Yes, that's correct. 11 Q. Do you agree or disagree with that? Or do you 12 have a position on that? 13 A. All I can say is that is what he reported, and 14 this was an early stage in the development of knowledge about 15 talc. It was the first time really in the '30s that the 16 authorities in Great Britain and in the United States were 17 starting to take a look at significant numbers of talc exposed 18 workers and looking for lung disease. 19 Q. Do you remember my question, Dr. Castieman? 20 A. Well, I can't say that I -- He reports the 21 findings that he had. 22 Q. Do you remember the question that I posed to you, 23 Dr. Castieman? 24 A. I believe your question was do I agree that 25 tremolitic talc is, as Dreessen said, less harmful than the C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 212 1 other type of talc. 2 Q. Yes. Do you agree or disagree with Dr. Dreessen's 3 conclusions, or do you have a position? 4 A. I think other people have subsequently reported 5 that tremolitic talc caused more problems. Not just with 6 respect to fibrosis of the lungs, but also with respect to 7 cancer, but that was not reported for a number of years 8 afterward. So it certainly is a mixed picture of the 9 literature as people try to sort out just what it was about 10 these industrial talcs that was of greatest concern. 11 Q. Do you recall the question that I posed, 12 Dr. Castleman? 13 A. I can't disagree with Dreessen's objective report 14 of his own findings. 15 Q. Thank you. 16 A. And at the same time, I have to acknowledge that 17 it seems to be at odds with the subsequent reports that other 18 people wrote on basis of their findings. 19 Q. I am not asking about anybody else in the world 20 but Dr. Castleman. And I want to know, does Dr. Castleman 21 agree, disagree or are you neutral with regard to 22 Dr. Dreessen's findings? 23 A. I can only conclude that Dreessen is truly 24 reporting what he found and believed to be the case at the time 25 he conducted his study. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 21A 1 Q. I am asking about his conclusions, the conclusions 2 that he draws? 3 A. I think that the conclusions that he draws are not 4 consistant with modern thinking on the subject of tremolitic, 5 or particularly fibrous talcs compared to non-fibrous talcs. 6 Q. Dr. Castleman, I am not asking about anybody 7 else's thinking. I am not asking about modern thinking. I am 8 asking about Dr. Castleman's thinking. And how does Dr. 9 Castleman line up with Dr. Dreessen's conclusions? Do you 10 agree with him? Do you disagree with him? Or do you have no 11 opinion? That's all I want to know. 12 A. I just don't know how to answer that question. 13 Q. Well, I could give some suggestions. You can say, 14 yes, I agree with him; you can say, no, I don't agree with him; 15 or you can say, I don't have a position on that. 16 A. Dreessen was probably as competent as anybody who 17 worked for the U.S. Government in the area of pneumoconiosis 18 research in the 1930s. And I don't doubt that Dreessen found 19 what he reported. 20 Q. I am not asking -- 21 A. At the same time subsequent authors have written 22 different things. 23 Dreessen doesn't say anything about the percent of 24 fibers that were in what he calls tremolitic and less 25 tremolitic talc. And so there is missing information here C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 which it's easy to see in the light of more recent knowledge 2 that Dreessen hadn't quite focused in on. There are just -- 3 there is incomplete information on the basis of which for me to 4 give you a simple answer, much as I might like to give you a 5 simple answer to your question. 6 Q. Dr. Castleman, I am entitled to an answer to that 7 question. 3 A. You are entitled to the best answer I can give 9 you, and I am trying to give you that. 10 Q. Well, I think that that question can be answered 11 with yes, I do agree with Dr. Dreessen's conclusions; no, I do 12 not agree with Dr. Dreessen's conclusions? or I have no 13 position in regard to Dr. Dreessen's conclusions. I'm entitled 14 to one of those answers. 15 MR. HAYS: He can also say I don't know. 16 MR. HINKLE: He can say I don't know, I'll accept 17 that. Do you know whether you agree with him or not? 18 MR. HAYS: Or you can say I agree in part. 19 MR. HINKLE: That will be fine. And we'll go down 20 the list and find out what you agree with and don't 21 agree with. 22 MR. HAYS: Or he can give you his best answer, 23 and say that is the best I can give you. 24 Q. (By Mr. Hinkle) Well, just answer the question 25 for me, if you would, Dr. Castleman. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 21&. 1 A. I have. I really have. I am not trying to be 2 evasive. It's just that the question doesn't lend itself to a 3 simple answer. 4 Q. I am going to pose this question to you, Dr. 5 Castleman, and I'm going to expect an answer. And I want you 6 to know that if you do not answer this question, that we are 7 going to seek to get the aid of the court in regard to this, 8 because it's something that we are entitled to have. And the 9 question is this: Having now reviewed Dr. Dreessen's 10 conclusions, do you, Dr. Castleman, agree with his conclusions? 11 Do you disagree with his conclusions? Do you agree in part? 12 Or do you have no position? Where do you stand in regard to 13 Dr. Dreessen's conclusions? 14 A. Well, I agree that he found what he reported that 15 he found. And there appears to be incomplete information on 16 the basis of which one might agree or not agree with the kinds 17 of statements he made. 18 Q. So I take it then that you are saying that you are 19 in no position to agree or disagree either way; correct? 20 MR. HAYS: You are talking about with regard 21 to any statement made in there as to the notice or 22 talking about talc? 23 Q. (By Hr. Hinkle) I am just talking about the 24 conclusions. I have tried with all my heart to limit these 25 questions to the conclusions. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 211 1 A. You mean whether Georgia Talc is more injurious 2 than tremolite talc? That is the conclusion. 3 Q. All right. I'll go along with that. Would you 4 agree with that conclusion? Or not agree with it? Or you have 5 no position on it? 6 A. I am not positive, but I think subsequent events 7 have shown tremolite talc, at least of the kind that is found 8 in up state New York, is more harmful than the Georgia Talc, 9 but I am not positive about that. Again, it's because of the 10 types of terminology he uses here, it's difficult to give you a 11 simple answer. I don't know what he had in his mind when he 12 used these terms, and I don't know the extent of the fibers 13 that were found in the different types of talc that he was 14 referring to. 15 Q. Dr. Castleman, I did not ask you a word about 16 subsequent findings. 17 A. You asked me whether I agree with it. 18 Q. Right. Do you agree or not agree? 19 A. My agreement would be based on what I know, not 20 just what Dreessen reported. I can't put myself back in 1935. 21 If I did, I would agree with everything Dreessen said, because 22 I wouldn't have any basis for disagreeing. 23 Q. Dr. Castleman, whatever you need to think about to 24 tell us how you stand is fine with me. But I have been asking 25 you for the last ten or 15 minutes to take a position with C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 2 1 _a 1 regard to Dr. Dreessen's conclusions. 2 A. If I read this in 1935 I would have no reason but 3 to agree with it. 4 Q. And anyone else -- 5 A. Dreessen was an authority at this time in the 6 United States. 7 Q. Would you agree that anyone else reading Dr. 8 Dreessen's article in 1935 would have every reason in the world 9 to believe that that was true? 10 A. Sure. 11 Q. All right. How many people did Dreessen -- what 12 was the population for his study, by the way? 13 A. I believe there were 32 people that he examined in 14 this study. 15 Q. Is that sufficient to qualify as an 16 epidemiological study? 17 A. Yes, in my mind, yes. 18 Q. Are there guidelines in the medical community with 19 regard to the numbers which will qualify as an epidemiological 20 study? 21 A. Not that I am aware of. 22 Q. All right. What industry were these -- 23 A. I am sorry. Thirty-two men and four women were 24 employed at the time, and so there may have been 36 people 25 examined. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 Q. What trade were they involved in? 2 A. They worked in mines and mills. 3 Q. What kind of mines and mills? 4 A. Talc mines and mills. 5 Q. I think you told us earlier there is no discussion 6 at all with regard to the concentrations of exposure; correct? 7 A. In this study I think there were some comments on 8 the concentrations. 9 Q. What were they? 10 A. I am sorry. They at least conducted physical 11 examinations of 66 talc workers and former talc workers. Just 12 by way of correcting the numbers. 13 Q. Fine. 14 A. The exposures they have divided into three classes 15 in terms of how many millions of particles of dust per cubic 16 foot of air. 17 Q. How many millions of particles of dust per cubic 18 foot of air was the least exposure to Dr. Dreessen*s subjects? 19 A. Seventeen million. 20 Q. So all of those subjects were exposed to 17 plus 21 million particles of talc per cubic foot in their work 22 environment; right? 23 A. Well, the lowest exposed group was exposed to an 24 average of 17 million, so some of them would have been exposed 25 to less, some of them would have been exposed to more. And in C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 220. 1 the other two groups they would have all been exposed the more 2 than 17 million. 3 Q. All right. Are you aware of any industry anywhere 4 in the United States from the 1940s on where anybody was 5 exposed to talc in concentrations of 17 million plus particles 6 per cubic foot? 7 A. I think some of these other reports make reference 8 to exposures that high and higher. 9 Q. We will get to those in a minute. 10 A. That is not a real high concentration of dust. 11 Q. Seventeen million particles per cubic foot is not 12 a very high concentration? 13 A. Well, it's not an unusually high concentration 14 when one talks about industrial environments in the 1930s, and 15 dusts generally speaking. Although it would have been regarded 16 as an alarmingly high concentration for dusts such as silicas 17 and asbestos even in the 1930s, it was certainly well within 18 the range of whathas been reported as occurring even in the 19 case of asbestos and silica dusts at that time. 20 Q. Is it your testimony then that in the '30s and 21 40s concentrations of 17 million particles per cubic foot were 22 regarded as safe in talc workers? 23 A. No. I'm just saying that in industries, and your 24 question was, I think your question went to the issue, Wasn't 25 this extraordinarily high concentrations of dust for industrial C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 221 1 workers, and I am trying to put it in context. There were 2 plenty of workers exposed to concentrations of different dusts, 3 some of which were recognized as fibrogenic at the time in the 4 1930s which far exceeded 17 million particles per cubic foot. 5 Q. When is the last time that you can think of that 6 there are any documented exposures of levels that high, 17 7 million plus particles per cubic foot, when did that come to a 8 stop? 9 A. I think that sort of thing may still occur, with 10 regard to what kinds of dust are you asking the question? 11 Q. Well, we have been talking about talc. 12 A. I don't really know what kinds of exposures are 13 found in modern times in terms of exposures in workplaces where 14 talc is used. 15 Q. Is the dust in workplaces regulated now? 16 A. Some dust is. 17 Q. And is talc dust regulated? 18 A. I believe talc dust that contains asbestos fibers 19 is regulated. I don't know whether talc dust itself is 20 regulated or not. 21 Q. Do you know whether or not there are any 22 guidelines with regard to what we call nuisance dust? 23 A. Yes. It would presumably be covered under that 24 category if it's not covered under any other category. 25 Q. Well, what are the regulations with regard to C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 222. 1 concentrations of nuisance dust? 2 A. I don't know off the top of my head. I just don't 3 know. I have seen numbers like 50 million particles per cubic 4 foot. I don't know whether lower levels are accepted or agreed 5 upon in the general nuisance dust. 6 Q. As you sit here today are you aware of v/hether or 7 not there are regulations dealing with the concentrations of 8 talc dust in the work environment, do you know? 9 A. I don't know there are explicit regulations. 10 Q. When they talk about tremolitic talc in the 11 Dreessen article, give us your working definition of tremolitic 12 talc. 13 A. in Dr. Dreessen's case he said the tremolite talc, 14 the stuff he didn't call tremolitic talc, the Georgia Talc had 15 about ten percent of tremolite by petrographic analysis, and 16 the stuff he did call tremolitic talc was four times that. 17 Q. Forty percent then? 18 A. One would have to conclude about 40 percent 19 tremolite was found in the stuff that Dreessen was referring to 20 when he said tremolitic talc in this 1935 study. 21 Q. Are you aware of any subcategorization of 22 tremolitic fibers by form? 23 A. I have seen literature relating to literature and 24 other kinds of -- well, publicity relating to the controversy 25 of what is a fiber, what is a cleavage fragment, and what's C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 222 1 neither of the above with regard to tremolite. So I understand 2 that there is a range of morphology involved with the materials 3 generally classified as tremolite. 4 Q. You say that it's been classified by some as 5 fibrous versus what? 6 A. Nell, I understand that there are different types, 7 different forms, different shapes, if you will, of tremolite, 8 and that some tremolite is regarded as fiber shaped in a 9 similar way, that other asbestiform minerals are fiber shaped, 10 long thin fibers. There are other particles of tremolite which 11 are -- may have an aspect ratio of three or five to one, which 12 could be viewed as fibers under such things as the asbestos 13 standards that OSHA has, or other people might argue. And 14 certainly I think the Vanderbilt Talc Company argues that these 15 kinds of things are not asbestos, shouldn't be in any way 16 covered by any standards relating to asbestos, and that they 17 are not in the same category as far as the health hazards they 18 may pose. 19 Q. Do you have a position on that one way or the 20 other? 21 A. My position is that unless these fiber shaped 22 particles can be shown to be less harmful than comparable, or 23 unless a real strong case can be made, that there really is a 24 difference in the harmfulness or lack of harmfulness posed by 25 these materials, but they have to be presumed equally harmful. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 21A 1 Q. Do you know whether or not the tremolitic content 2 in the Georgia Talc in Dreessen's article was identical to the 3 tremolitic content in the talc he described as tremolitic? 4 A. Well, I thought I made it clear that he refers to 5 two types of talc, one of which had ten percent tremolite, and 6 one of which had about four times that, and he calls the 7 latter, he calls that tremolite talc, 8 Q. Listen carefully to my question. Do you know 9 whether or not the tremolite, the ten percent tremolite in the 10 Georgia Talc is identical to the 40 percent tremolite in the 11 talc he calls tremolitic, do you know? 12 A, No, I don't. 13 Q. All right. 14 A. In terms of the morphology, for example, the 15 amount of fibers that might be found, no, I don't know. 16 Q. What other epidemiological studies have you seen 17 that deal with the possible hazards of inhalation of fibrous 18 talc? 19 A. Fibrous talc? 20 Q. Yes, sir, that was the question. 21 MR. HAYS: Mike, we might interject here that 22 it's 12:28. Did you want to stop for lunch? 23 MR. HINKLE: Ho, we can't stop for lunch. We need 24 to press right on and do as much as we can. we will eat 25 whenever he has to leave. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 225 1 HR. HAYS: I think we're entitled to a lunch 2 break. 3 THE WITNESS: I have been instructed by the judge 4 to stay here today, so I am not going to be able to go 5 to Washington. 6 HR. HAYS: He's not going to Washington. We're 7 here for the rest of the day and tomorrow from 9:00 to 8 5:00. You didn't hear that? 9 MR. HINKLE: I possibly misunderstood. That is a 10 pleasant surprise to me, if I have. That being the 11 case, then probably, if everyone agrees -- 12 HR. HOOD: Why don't we get a sandwich brought in 13 for the witness? 14 HR. HAYS: Why don't we just take a 45 minute 15 break. 16 MR. HOOD: The problem we found yesterday, it's 17 so hard to find a place to serve us quick. The only 18 person that needs to be taken care of is the witness, 19 and if he will tell us what he wants, we'll take a 20 recess -- 21 HR. HAYS: Well, you're not going to control his 22 eating habits, I assure you. We're taking a 45 minute 23 break. If you want to call the magistrate on it because 24 you feel some how it impedes your time we'll do that, 25 but we're going to take a 45 minute break. And I C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 226. 1 am going to get some things copied for Owens-Corning, 2 so I'm going to be working during this break, you 3 understand? 4 MS. SIEGEL: Can we return at 1:00? 5 MR. HAYS: That is fine. 6 MR. CROSBY: That's a little less that 45 minutes 7 by my watch. 8 MR. HAYS: Yes, let's say 1:15 and we will start 9 exactly at 1:15. Everybody will be here, if they are 10 not here, start anyway. 11 MR. CROSBY: Are you going to copy the OCF file 12 for us? 13 MR. HAYS: That is what I am taking to be copied. 14 I don't know how long it's going to take, because I 15 haven't seen the file. 16 MR. CROSBY: Vie* re just going to use the OCF file 17 itself. And the 01 is not much, you might take both of 18 those. And Kinko's can copy the rest of them, we will 19 have enough to ask questions with today if we need them, 20 until Kinko's gets the rest of it back. 21 MR. HAYS: Just so it's understood, I am 22 anticipating a continuance because the documents aren't 23 available, and if we can use the originals for 24 questioning, we don't need to use the copies. So if 25 the copies are gone, I want to talk to the magistrate if C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 223- 1 we're going to use that as a basis for some sort of 2 continuance. 3 MR. CROSBY: Not planning on doing it. We have 4 made arrangements with a copying company they will stay 5 open tonight and copy these documents so we will have 6 them back in the morning, and if we have the 01 and the 7 OCF files, in the event we have questions this 8 afternoon, that will take us to 5:00, and as I 9 understand it we're adjourning at 5:00; is that right? 10 MR. HAYS: Adjourning at 5:00, and the magistrate 11 ordered this deposition to conclude tomorrow at 5:00. 12 MR. CROSBY: Vie will undertake to do precisely 13 that, Mr. Hays. And I appreciate your assistance. 14 (Whereupon, a lunch break was taken.) 15 MR. CROSBY: Can we let the record reflect that 16 we have just turned the documents that were Exhibits 86 17 to Kinko's Copy Service, and they will return those 18 documents to us in the morning at 9:00, original and two 19 copies. And Mr. Hays has the 01 and OCF files getting 20 them copied somewhere, and they will be back, we hope, 21 this afternoon. 22 MR. HAYS: Let the record reflect that we have 23 had some conferences concerning the copying of the 24 documents, and I have asserted that if there is a 25 question in any one's mind about having the copies back, r q o JCSfirTiTPO 222. 1 that the originals be retained for the purposes of 2 questioning the witness, and then that they be copied 3 at a later time. Vie do not want the copying to be a 4 basis of a continuance, and we asserted that before the 5 documents were delivered to Kinko's, and I have been 6 assured that is not going to be a problem. That's my 7 position. 8 MR. CROSBY: Vie have been assured by Kinko's that 9 they'll be here at 9:00, and assuming they don't have 10 problems, we will go forward at 9:00. One of the 11 attorneys, who is an officer of this court, Mr. Goss, 12 offered to have the copies made and returned here this 13 afternoon, but plaintiff refused, so we have had no 14 choice but to have Kinko's do it. And to expedite 15 matters in order to try to comply with the Court's 16 request we adjourn tomorrow at 5:00 we're going through 17 Kinko* s. 18 MR. HAYS: Just to make it absolutely clear, 19 there is no prohibition from using the original 20 documents to do your questioning. Copies are not 21 necessary for you to continue your questioning at any 22 time. And so we did not agree to have the defendant 23 Vermont Talc copy these documents, we think that is 24 probably not a good procedure, and we agreed to work 25 with you in any way to get the copying expedited, and r A.QsnrTA'TR: 222 1 Kinko's has got it, and it looks like they are going to 2 be here tomorrow and all this discussion may be moot. 3 MR. CROSBY: We hope it is. Counsel, just so 4 you'll know, several lawyers are here for several 5 companies, and often I would need some of the files to 6 question the witness that they would need so that they 7 would be prepared. And that is why the copies ate 0 necessary, and hopefully to expedite. 9 I suggest we go ahead. 10 Q. (By Mr. Hinkle) Dr. Castleman, let me ask you if 11 you would, please, to summarize the opinions that you intend to 12 In the trial of these Oklahoma Tire Worker cases. 13 A. With respect to talc? 14 Q. That would be fine. 15 A. The opinions I will offer are that there is a body 16 of literature to the effect that inhalation of talc, as well as 17 other types of exposures to talc in which people get talc 18 inside -- in their bodies, but primarily by the route of 19 inhalation, that this body of literature is extensive. That 20 this body of literature was in a large part published in the 21 English language. That a lot of this information was published 22 in the United States. And that this body of literature 23 primarily dating from the 1930s forward indicates that people 24 breathing the dust of materials generally identified as talc in 25 the industry had sustained lung damage of various kinds. r c o ICC/VTiltPO 230 1 And reports are -- have a wide range of the extent of 2 damage reported from relatively minimal damage to total 3 disability and death. And that a manufacturer or a seller of 4 industrial talcs, a seller of talc that was mined and sold in 5 the channels of commerce should in my opinion have known that 6 talc was a suspect, at least a suspect cause of lung disease if 7 not a proven cause of lung disease, certainly a very strongly 8 suspect cause of lung damage by the 1950s, if not earlier. And 9 should have taken appropriate steps, and perhaps this goes 10 beyond the type of opinion I would be called upon to render in 11 a court, but that such a manufacturer or seller should have 12 taken appropriate steps to both test and inspect the product 13 for potential hazards through animal studies for example, as 14 well as through medical monitoring of their employees, and that 15 such vendors should also have provided some warning to the 16 users of the talc that they were putting into the channels of 17 commerce where it would be used in industries such as the 18 rubber industry where cases of disease have been reported since 19 the 1930s. 20 Q. You are not an expert on warnings, I take it? 21 A. Well, I haven't made any special studies, I 22 suppose, that would qualify me as an expert on warnings, but I 23 think that when I say a warning, that the warning should be 24 based on what is known about the hazards of the product and 25 couched in language that will be understandable to people who n e Rcen/'T *wpo 234 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - 1 were using the product who don't necessarily have any advanced 2 education or training. 3 Q. I mean in terms of your qualifications, your own, 4 you are not trained in the area of warning design or warning 5 communication, are you? 6 A. No, I am not. 7 Q. _And you haven't had any experience in the design 8 of warnings? 9 A. No, I haven't. 10 Q. And -- 11 A. Although I have advocated the use of warnings on 12 various products which did not carry warnings, no, I haven't 13 been involved in the intricacies of how such warnings might be 14 designed. 15 Q. Have you done any studies or done any training or 16 had any experience in the question of efficiency or efficacy of 17 warnings? 18 A. No. 19 Q. I asked you earlier today to tell us about 20 epidemiological studies relating to the possible health hazards 21 of fibrous talc, and you referred me to Exhibit 15, 22 Dreessen's article. 23 A. Well, yes, to the extent that they talk about a 24 tremolitic talc, and with the understanding that they did not 25 use designations like fibrous in regard to the tremolite in the n e d AocnrT 222 1 talc. 2 Q. Do you read Dr. Dreessen's article as an article 3 dealing with the possible health hazards of exposure to fibrous 4 talc? 5 A. It's just hard to say. I mean, he doesn't say 6 whether it's fibrous or not. And so it's hard for me to go 7 further than the author himself does categorizing materials 3 with regard to whether or not they contain fibers. He does 9 says they contain tremolite, one can infer from this that there 10 could well and probably was some fiber in it, but Dreessen 11 himself doesn't provide that information. 12 Q. Again, I am interested in what you as a 13 bibliographer glean from a reading of this article. When I am 14 asking you whether or not you read this as an authority on 15 the -- as an authority on the possible health hazards of 16 exposure to fibrous talc, you can say that you read it that way 17 or you don't read it that way, or you have no opinion about it. 18 A. I just feel that the article itself provides 19 insufficient information on the basis of which to give you an 20 answer as to how I would read it. 21 Q. You don't know whether it does or not deal with 22 fibrous talc? 23 A. I don't know the extent to which fibers were 24 present in the talc involved, because the authors themselves do 25 not refer to it. r >3 d iccnTTSfue 2Z2. 1 Q. Do you know whether any fibers were involved? 2 A. I don't know for sure. 3 Q. Then I want you to listen carefully to the 4 question that I posed to you earlier, and I am going to pose 5 again. In the studies that you have before you or in your 6 review of any materials, have you seen any epidemiological 7 studies which indicate that there are health hazards associated 8 with exposure to fibrous talc? 9 A. Let's get to the next one. 10 Q. Well, let's get to the first one. Evidently you 11 are not satisfied that Exhibit 15 falls within that category; 12 true? 13 A. It may or may not. But it's not absolutely clear 14 from the article. The next article -- 15 Q. Just a minute, before we go on. what I want you 16 to tell me about is whether or not in the articles that you 17 have reviewed you find an epidemiological study which relates 18 to dangers allegedly occurring as a result of exposure to 19 fibrous talc. Just tell me whether there are any in there or 20 not. 21 A. Well, I know there are by the time we get to the 22 New York State studies of Kleinfeld and his co-workers. 23 Q. What I want you to do now is thumb through those 24 and find me the earliest epidemiological study there that 25 relates to the alleged hazards associated with exposure to C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 234. 1 fibrous talc. 2 A. First, this study clearly does deal with that, and 3 it is an epidemiological study. 4 Q. Which study, please? 5 A. Humber 24. 6 Q. Exhibit Ho. 24. 7 A. This is an article of Siegal and his co-workers in 8 1943. 9 Q. How, what leads you to believe that that 10 particular article deals with the alleged hazards associated 11 with exposure to fibrous talc? 12 A. Under the type of talc involved on Page 15 it says 13 that, "The type of talc produced in St. Lawrence County is of 14 the fibrous variety known as abestine. With it is found 15 tremolite, a similar appearing material occurring in a fibrous 16 or asbestiform state which in the course of time changes over 17 to talc." So the article states. 18 There is also a picture on Page 16 which Figure 1, 19 "Tremolite Talc, Bundle Like Arrangement of Fibers", is the 20 caption. And there are other pictures describing "needle-like 21 fibers" on that page. And so I think i t 's very clear here that 22 we are dealing with a fibrous talc. 23 The fact that it is an epidemiological study is derived 24 from the fact that they have examined a defined population, in 25 this case, 221 tremolite talc miners and millers. And they 2ZS 1 found disease in these people including advanced fibrosis in 32 2 raen giving an incidence of 14 and a half percent according to 3 the conclusion, No. 4 in summary on Page 28. 4 They further state that this tremolite talc is capable 5 like asbestos, they say, of causing a disabling pneumoconiosis, 6 that is under the heading "Conclusions" on Page 28. So here we 7 have an epidemiological study implicating fibrous talc as a 8 cause of very serious lung disease. 9 Q. The population was 221 workers; is that right? 10 A. That is what is discussed in Summary No. 4, yes. 11 Q. What was the level of concentration of exposure? 12 A. Dust counts are reported under No. 3 on Page 28 as 13 ranging from six to five thousand million particles per cubic 14 foot in mining and in milling from 20 to 250 million particles 15 per cubic foot. 16 Q. So the least concentrated exposure appears to be 17 20 million particles per cubic foot; correct? 18 A. Six million. 19 Q. Look at that again, if you would, please. 20 A. I am looking at it. 21 Q. Do you know whether that is six or 6,000 million? 22 A. I read it as saying six million particles per 23 cubic foot, 5,000 million particles per cubic foot or five 24 billion particles per cubic foot. 25 Q. Would you agree with me that that might also be a n k nn mnM 21& 1 six billion particles? 2 A. It reads to me as six million. The literal text 3 is "Dust counts in mining range from six to 5,000 million 4 particles per cubic foot." I think it's pretty clear. The 5 lowest count involved are six million particles per cubic foot. 6 Q. So you are pretty satisfied that that is six 7 particles per cubic foot? 8 A. No, six million particles per cubic foot. 9 Q. All right. So you are satisfied that's six 10 million particles per cubic foot? 11 A. That is right. 12 Q. Do you agree with the findings and conclusions a 13 set forth in Hr. Siegal's, Ms. Smith's and Hr. Greenburg's 14 article that we have been discussing, which is Exhibit No. 24? 15 A. I see no reason to doubt their conclusions, if 16 that is what you mean. 17 Q. And you have, I take it, reviewed their review of 18 the literature concerning talc in the body of the article? 19 A. I have looked at it, yes. 20 Q. Do you agree with their review of the literature 21 as it relates to talc which is contained in the body of the 22 article? 23 A. I don't really know in every single detail whether 24 what they are reporting as being in the literature is exactly 25 true. They make reference to articles about talc and in some n o n xoooo*r umpo --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------- 23-7- 1 cases about other things which in some cases I think I may not 2 have even seen. They make reference to an article, for 3 example, Reference 19, which appears in a German publication, 4 and it is about talc. But I haven't actually seen that 5 article, so I don't really know, and I haven't seen certainly 6 the English translation of it. So I don't really know for a 7 fact that their accounts of what that 1938 or '39 article 8 contains is correct. But generally what I do see here comports 9 with what I understand the articles they cite to say. 10 Q. Do you have any reason to quarrel with -- do you 11 have any reason to suspect that these authors would in any way 12 misstate any of the facts that they have set out in the 13 subtitle body, under the subtitle review of literature on the 14 effects of talc dust? 15 A. I don't have any reason to expect that they would 16 have shaded things one way or the other. I would assume that 17 these people approached this -- they were state and government 18 officials that the State Health Department in New York, at 19 least one of them, Greenburg I have heard of, and you know, so 20 I have no reason to question the scientific quality of the 21 report, or its reference to earlier literature. 22 Q. So the answer to my question then is no, you have 23 no reason to believe that they would have misstated anything in 24 there. Is that true? 25 A. Yes. But I mean these things can happen, but I C.S.R. ASSOCIATE? 23-8 1 have no reason to believe that it was done intentionally or 2 that it was done out of incompetence based on what I can see 3 they did write. 4 Q. What other epidemiological studies have you 5 reviewed which indicate or which deal with the possible health 6 hazards of exposure to fibrous talc? 7 A. I just put aside the report of Parmeggiani, an I 8 Italian journal, No. 33, because it would take me a little bit 9 of time to try and pour through that and see what the Italian 10 talc, whether it was a fibrous talc, et cetera. 11 Q. You are not, you wouldn't say that an Italian 12 medical journal would be something necessarily that American 13 talc manufacturers would be on notice of, would you? 14 A. Not necessarily, but possible. 15 Q. All right. Go ahead. Tell me -- 16 A. The Italian literature is cited in the U.S. 17 literature. 18 Q. Tell me, if you would, please, the next 19 epidemiological study that you can find that deals with the 20 possible health hazards of exposure to fibrous talc. 21 A. You are still asking for an epidemiological study? 22 Q. Yes, sir. We will talk about the other types of 23 studies in a little while. 24 A. I supposed the next one is Exhibit 49. This is an 25 article by Kleinfeld and his co-workers in New York State n n riiA/T*mnn 34 1 again, published in 1955 in the AHA Archives of Industrial 2 Health. 3 Q. Exhibit 49? 4 A. Yes. That is the next one. Do you have any 5 questions about it? 6 Q. Yes, I do. Did you give me the date on that 7 exhibit? 8 A. 1955. 9 Q. All right. And what was the type of talc dealt 10 with? 11 A. This is the New York State talc, the fibrous talc 12 that Siegal and co-workers had described. And this is a 13 follow-up study on some of the people that they had examined. 14 Q. How many people were involved in that study? 15 Excuse me. How many subjects were in that study? 16 A. Thirty-two patients. Nineteen had died by the 17 time of follow-up. And four of those causes of death was 18 believed to be due to pulmonary failure associated with talc 19 pneumoconiosis, according to Page 66. 20 Q. Did you tell me the type of fiber again that was 21 involved, the type of talc? 22 A. Tremolitic talc which had been described earlier 23 by Siegal and co-workers according the these authors. 24 Q. What were the conclusions in that article? 25 A. Well, they are reported -- they are called summary r .c p accnr,Ta,rPc -------------------------------------------------- --------------- 2AL 1 and conclusion, and it's more just an accounting of the 2 findings than any conclusive statements. 3 Q. Hay I see the exhibit, please? 4 A. Sure. 5 Q. Do they not observe in Exhibit No. 49 that there 6 are improvements being made in the workplace which reduce the 7 exposure to talc? 8 A. They did so report. They report that in the 1940s 9 between 1943 and 1948 the talc mines and mill operators had 10 instituted corrective measures, and the corrective measure are 11 at least in general terms enumerated on Page 66 "Measures which 12 were taken to reduce the dust concentrations in workers exposed 13 to the dust in the mining and milling of this material. 14 Q. And do they appear to be successful to some 15 degree, the efforts being made? 16 A. Yes, they do. 17 Q. What is the next epidemiological study? And 18 before we go to that, you might tell us, Dr. Castleman, what is 19 your definition of an epidemiological study? 20 A. In this context it's a study of a defined 21 population of people at risk, and the morbidity or the 22 mortality of that group sometimes with reference to a 23 controlled group, sometimes not. 24 Q. Tell us the next epidemiological study, please. 25 And with this limitation, the next epidemiological study 241 1 dealing with possible health hazards associated with exposure 2 to fibrous talc. 3 A. I think the next one would be the report in the 4 American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. 5 Q. Would you give us an exhibit number, please? 6 A. 58, this is 1959. This appears to be from the 7 ACGIH annual meeting in 1959 and the authors are the same 8 folks from the New York Department of Labor, Messite and 9 Kleinfeld and one other individual. 10 Q. All right. What type of talc were they dealing 11 with? 12 A. Same stuff. The New York State fibrous talc. 13 Q. Tremolitic talc? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. How many subjects were there in that study? 16 A. Well, the St. Lawrence County, overall in two 17 counties they looked at 97 people, and the St. Lawrence County 18 I know we were dealing with fibrous talc, at least that is my 19 recollection from the earlier reports. 20 Q. What were their conclusions in that article? 21 A. Well, at one point they say on Page 70 that "The 22 wet method of drilling may in time eliminate the problem of 23 disabling pneumoconiosis in these talc miners." They also go 24 on to say the absence of pulmonary fibrosis in miners of the 25 Lewis County where a natural form of dust suppression has been C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 242 1 provided by the wetness of the rock tends to support this 2 belief." 3 Summary and conclusions on Page 71 says, Although the 4 incidence of pulmonary talcosis in the miners has not changed 5 appreciably, the severity and the progression of the disease 6 has been diminished. The reduction in the dust exposure in the 7 mines has a lower incidence of pulmonary fibrosis among the 8 talc miners is primarily due to the institution of wet 0 drilling." 10 Q. This adds again, I take it, support to the earlier 11 conclusion that improvements in the mining and milling process 12 are reducing the dangers associated with inhalation of talc? 13 A. Well, reducing the amount inhaled, and therefore 14 extent of the hazard that workers face. 15 Q. As a matter of fact, they suggest there that with 16 the advent of wet drilling they might eliminate talc 17 pneumoconiosis all together? 18 A. I read their exact language. I am not sure that 19 that is a perfectly correct characterization. But anyway, 20 whatever they said is in the record. 21 Q. How does what they said differ from my statement? 22 A. i suppose your characterization is reasonable, 23 looking at it again. 24 Q. How, do you agree or do you disagree with the 25 conclusions reached by the authors of Exhibit No. 58? C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 3-4-3 1 A. I think that I can agree with their -- I think I 2 would agree with their conclusions. 3 Q. All right. What is the next article that you find 4 that deals with an epidemiological study related to the 5 possible health hazards associated with exposure to fibrous 6 talc? 7 A. .We have gotten a few more articles today. I 8 guess -- 9 Q. Excuse me. 3efore you go on, are these the 10 articles that we have already marked, or are these something we 11 haven't seen before? 12 A. These were marked this morning. I just wanted to 13 see if any of them -- this particular group is not a marked 14 set, but you know the ones I mean, about half a dozen of them 15 that Mr. Hays brought in. 16 Q. Let's get them in front of you. I want to make 17 sure that we cover all this. 18 A. I am trying to keep the chronology straight, 19 that's why this looks like this. The last one I said was 1959. 20 I was just about to mention one in 1964. 21 Q. Exhibit number, please? 22 A. That was No. 61. Let's go back in time to 1959, 23 if you think that would make more sense, if you agree. 24 Q. I am perfectly satisfied with a chronological 25 order, what is the next one in chronological order? C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1AA 1 A. That appears to be another study by -- 2 Q. Exhibit number, please? 3 A. 92. 4 Q. This is one that you really haven't had a chance 5 to look at until just this moment. Is that true? 6 A. That is about right. But this is another study, 7 another report, I should say, on the Hew York State of talc 8 mining mill workers in St. Lawrence County -- 9 Q. Again, this is a tremoiitic talc? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Who were the authors of that article? 12 A. Kleinfeld, Hessite and Readen. Messite is the 13 first author. 14 Q. Do the authors modify the conclusions that they 15 reached in that earlier 1959 study? 16 A. No. I think this is another report in another 17 journal about basically the same material, same data base. 18 Q. All right. So that would have been the 32 talc 19 mine workers that we discussed earlier in Exhibit 49? 20 A. Yes. And this is -- I mean it seems to me the 21 main finding here is that they are keying in on fibrous or 22 tremoiitic talc as the more pathogenic in comparison with what 23 they call a non-fibrous variety of talc in another region of 24 Mew York State. 25 Q. Do they make any statements at all about the C.S.R. ASSOCIATES -245 1 alleged danger of exposure to non-fibrous talc? 2 A. They say that the incidence and severity of the 3 talc pneumoconiosis was considerably less where the exposure 4 was to the non-fibrous variety. And I believe elsewhere in the 5 article they indicate that the concentrations of dust counts 6 were comparable. 7 Q. Do they talk about the constitution of the 8 non-fibrous variety of talc? 9 A. I don't see anything on that. The authors of this 10 article are all physicians, and I don't think that they had -- 11 they talk about microscopic appearance, the presence or absence 12 of fibers, but -- 13 Q. Do they talk about any of the mineralogical 14 components of this non-fibrous talc that they compare? 15 A. I don't think so. Not in this article I don't 16 think they do. 17 Q. What is the next epidemiological study that you 18 find that relates to the alleged or possible health hazards 19 related to the exposure to fibrous talc? 20 A. I don't think that No. 97 qualifies as an 21 epidemiological study. 22 Q. All I want to know now, you don't need to tell me 23 which ones are not, I want to know which ones are. 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Dr. Castleman, I don't mean to rush you, but as C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 2AS. 1 you know, we're on kind of a tight time schedule, and you have 2 been taking a good deal of time from article to article to look 3 through and read. So in order for us to keep with the time 4 table set up by the Court, I am going to ask you to hasten your 5 review, if you can. 6 A. I am hastening it as much as I can. And we are 7 almost through. There won't be many more. I think basically 8 dealing with the reports of Kleinfeld and co-workers again and 9 again, whether each report constitutes an epidemiological study 10 is what's problematic. If you want me to skip Kleinfeld -- 11 Q. No. I want you to tell us about every 12 epidemiological study that you have reviewed that deals with 13 the possible health hazards of exposure to fibrous talc. 14 A. I suppose this would qualify as an epidemiological 15 study also. This is from the Journal of Occupational Medicine, 16 No. 62, published in 1965 by Kleinfeld. 17 Q. What's the exhibit, please? 18 A. 62, published by Kleinfeld and co-workers. And 19 here they report on having examined 16 workers. 20 Q. What's the date, please? 21 A. 1965. 22 Q. How many workers? 23 A. Sixteen. 24 Q. What wastheir trade? 25 A. They were engaged in milling of talc for more than nconrT mupp 347 1 ten years. 2 Q. What was the talc to which they were exposed? 3 A* 1 believe this is the same stuff we have been 4 talking about, the St. Lawrence County tremolitic talc. 5 Q. Any other kinds of talc? 6 A. I don't believe so. It says on Page 15, "Talc 7 dust to which these individuals were exposed was predominately 8 talc as mixed with tremolite, anthophyllite, serpentine and 9 small amounts of free silica. All the talc workers had a 10 weighted average exposure to talc dust above 20 million 11 particles per cubic foot, the present threshold for talc dust 12 as recommend by the American Conference of Governmental 13 Industrial Hygienists. 14 Q. So anthophyllite and serpentine were also included 15 in the material inhaled? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. All right. Go ahead. 18 A. I would have to study this a little more carefully 19 to see whether technically it falls in as an epidemiological 20 study or case report. But this is No. 96, it's another study 21 by Kleinfeld and co-workers published in 1964, "Lung Function 22 in Talc Workers". And they do talk about having examined -- 23 Q. Again, is this tremolitic talc? 24 A. Talkingabout nine people exposed to fibrous talc 25 from 13 to 26 years. And also workers exposed to granular C-S.R- ASSOCIATES 2AR 1 talc, two workers. That probably wouldn't be quite an 2 epidemiological study. But again, I would have to look at it 3 more closely. 4 Q. Let me ask you a question about the nine people 5 exposed to fibrous talc were exposed to tremolitic talc; is 6 that right? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. What were the conclusions with regard to the two 9 workers exposed to quote "granular talc" close quote? 10 A. The abnormalities were more pronounced in the 11 workers exposed to fibrous talc than the workers exposed to 12 granular talc. 13 Q. What abnormalities did they find in the workers 14 exposed to granular talc? 15 A. Their words are "In the majority of instances, the 16 percentage of abnormal values for each parameter of pulmonary 17 function was appreciably greater in those exposed to fibrous 18 talc than those exposed to the granular variety." So 19 specifically the distinction made between the two types of talc 20 and the workers exposed to them is in terms of pulmonary 21 function. 22 Q. Do they say that there is any pulmonary disability 23 to workers exposed, the two workers they looked at exposed to 24 granular talc? 25 A. Let's see. They say, "Predominent symptom in the n o d TiOor\nr 2Aa 1 groups-- ", referring to both groups of talc exposed workers, 2 "-- the predominent symptom is dsypnea." So I read that as 3 meaning that there was disability. 4 Q. Does it say that either of the workers that they 5 looked at that was exposed to granular talc had any pulmonary 6 disability at all? Or is that something that you would just 7 simply infer from the article? 8 A. Well, this is one of the articles that I am seeing 9 carefully for the first time, because it was just brought here 10 this morning. This is one of the late numbered exhibits. 11 Q. By Mr. Hays, by the way; correct? 12 A. Mr. Hays was kind enough to go get it in the 13 library after I gave him the reference citation. 14 Q. When you tell us they had dyspnea, that means 15 what? 16 A. Shortness of breath. 17 Q. Does the article say that there was any pulmonary 18 disability associated with exposure to the granular talc in the 19 two workers they looked at? 20 A. They have -- 21 MR. HAYS: I'm sorry. What is dyspnea, by the 22 way? Are we saying that is shortness of breath, or 23 are we saying that is not a lung dysfunction? 24 MR. HINKLE: I didn't say anything like that. 25 THE WITNESS: L e t 's look further what the authors C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 25a 1 themselves say. On Page 565 they say, "Since there 2 were only two with symptomatic talcosis in the granular 3 group." 4 Q. (By Mr. Hinkle) How many were looked at in the 5 granular group total? 6 A. I think it was just two people, but the way that 7 sentence reads does make you wonder whether there were more 8 than two. 9 Q. You don't really know how many were in the 10 granular group. Is that true? 11 A. I am pretty sure it was just two people, and it 12 was the twist of the word in that language that makes your eye 13 brows go up and wonder are they talking about two out of a 14 larger group, or are they just talking about the same two 15 people. 16 Q. It's hard to tell, isn't it? 17 A. It's hard to tell when you are trying to read 18 these things -- 19 Q. Tell me what their conclusions are with regard to 20 exposure to granular talc. 21 MR. HAYS: Did you complete your statement? 22 You said it's hard to tell. 23 THE WITNESS: Yes. It's hard to tell when you 24 are reading these things for the first time and trying 25 to deal with time pressure, which is very reasonable. -25-1 1 I'm not saying you're being unreasonable. 2 Q. (By Mr. Hinkle) Believe me, we had every 3 expectation that you would have already done all of this before 4 you got here, and I know it's not your fault either. But tell 5 us, go ahead and answer the question about the conclusions. 6 A. I have been doing a lot of trial and deposition 7 work as well jas ray other work lately, and it does kind of keep 8 me office balance. 9 Q. Just see if you can answer the question. I would 10 appreciate it. 11 MR. HAYS: Didn't you all request these article 12 be brought to this deposition? 13 MR. HINKLE; We requested all the articles that 14 he looked at and relied upon and that served as a 15 foundation for his opinions in the case. 16 MR. HAYS: Aren't you requesting him to go 17 through them at this point? 18 MR. HINKLE: Well, we've got them in front of us, 19 we might as well. 20 MR. HAYS: It's your choice. 21 THE WITNESS: What they say is that the exposure 22 to fibrous talc dust is more hazardous than to granular 23 talc. That is the last sentence. 24 Q. (By Mr. Hinkle) Do they make statements about 25 whether or not granular talc, exposure to granular talc is or n c o aconoT 252 1 is not a hazard? 2 A. Well, I read this to say that it is, but it's less 3 of a hazard than exposure to fibrous talc based on pulmonary 4 function findings. 5 Q. Do they talk about the pulmonary function findings 6 in the individuals, the two that they looked at that were 7 exposed to granular talc, whether they were normal or abnormal, 8 does it say anything about that? 9 A. I think they indicate that they are abnormal. 10 They describe them as having had symptomatic talcosis. And 11 they indicate that -- they say "The pulmonary function data 12 show that like fibrous talc, prolonged exposure to a granular 13 type talc can produce in certain number of individuals an 14 impairment in ventilatory function and in diffusion capacity." 15 Q. what's the next epidemiological study that you 16 find that relates to the possible danger of exposure to fibrous 17 talc? 18 A. That v/ould be -- 19 Q. By the way, before we go on, what is granular 20 talc, do you know? 21 A. I am not real clear on that. 22 Q. Does it deal, does it say what granular talc is in 23 the article? 24 A. Mainly is I think described as to the relative 25 absence of fibers, as opposed to what it is, more what it C .S.R- ASSOCIATES 25a 1 ain* t. 2 Q. So anything that ain't got fibers in it is 3 granular? 4 A. Not necessarily. But I think that is what these 5 doctors making this report are saying. They are not 6 mineralogists, and I don't think they go into that very much. 7 Q. Is that what they indicate, that if it's got no 8 fiber in it, then to their thinking it's granular? 9 A. Well, which one was I just talking about? 10 Q. Exhibit 96, 1964 study. 11 A. I don't think they really characterize the 12 material in here. 13 Q. Any other epidemiological studies that relate to 14 the possible hazards of exposure to fibrous talc? 15 A. This is No. 95 published in the Archives of 16 Environmental Health in 1965. And here they talk about the 17 study of 43 talc workers with exposure to talc dust and milling 18 operations for more than ten years, and no previous 19 occupational dust exposure. 20 Q. What type of talc are they exposed to? 21 A. "The talc dust to which millers were exposed was 22 predominately talc mixed with tremolite, anthophyllite, 23 serpentine and less than five percent free silica." According 24 to Page 434. So it's the same work force that we have been 25 talking about, that they have been talking about for years. .n . a.qsnrTa t r .q 25A 1 Q. All right. Were there concentrations of exposure? 2 A. The concentrations that the workers were exposed 3 to exceeded the American Conference of Governmental Industrial 4 Hygiene threshold limit value of 20 million particles per cubic 5 foot in all cases but one exposures to talc dust exceeded the 6 recommended guideline. 7 Q. All right. 8 A. And then they go on and get more specific and 9 point out that some of the individuals had exposures, weighted 10 average exposures as high as 60 to 120 million particles per 11 cubic foot. 12 Q. So all of the work sites at which these exposures 13 took place were operating in violation of the regulations 14 concerning the work environment. Is that true? 15 A. I am not sure that we could characterize the 16 guidelines as regulations, but in any event they were 17 guidelines that were widely known in industry that this ACGIH 18 group published, and exposures on average did exceed those 19 guidelines. 20 Q. Any other epidemiological studies related to 21 possible health hazards associated with exposure to 22 non-fibrous -- excuse me, to fibrous talc? 23 A. I think the next one would be No. 65 by Kleinfeld 24 and co-workers. 25 Q. The year? r c p AoenrTA'Ppe 255- 1 Pi, 1967, Archives of Environmental Health. 2 Q. What type of talc are we concerned with? 3 A. Same stuff. 4 Q. Treraolitic talc? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Is there any distinction made between health 7 hazards associated with fibrous versus non-fibrous talc in the 8 course of that article? 9 A. I don't think that they have any data that 10 reflects on fibrous versus non-fibrous. What this is is a 11 mortality study on people exposed to fibrous talc, and I don't 12 think there is any corresponding data to the workers exposed to 13 less fibrous or non-fibrous talc. 14 Q. Without regard to data, is that something they 15 discuss in the article, or do you know, the relative hazards of 16 exposure to fibrous versus non-fibrous? 17 A. I think they comment on the fact that fibers, 18 asbestiform fibers have been by this time implicated in causing 19 a number of cancers, including -- 20 Q. All I want you to do is answer that question so we 21 can move on. Do you know whether or not they make any 22 statements in that article with regard to the difference in the 23 suspected danger exposure to fibrous versus non-fibrous talc, 24 do you know? 25 A. Well, I don't think they put it in those kind of 2 1 terms, that is why I am having trouble giving you a short 2 answer, but they imply at least it's the asbestiform fibers 3 that are present in the talc that these miners and millers were 4 exposed to that accounts for their accessive incidence of 5 cancer of the lung which is demonstrated in this study. 6 Q. As long as we're on that subject, Dr. Castleman, 7 are you aware of any medical literature which associates 8 exposure to fibrous talc with the development of lung cancer? 9 A. Well, this study represents itself as being the 10 first such study, and I -- 11 Q. Are you aware of any others? 12 A. I believe there were subsequent studies published. 13 Q. Well, we will cover that in a moment then. Let's 14 go back to where we were. That was a cancer study you say, 15 Exhibit 65? 16 A. That was a study whose findings showed that in 17 addition to Cor pulmonale as a major complication of death of 18 these workers, that also lung cancer was demonstrated in this 19 study 20 Q. What kind of workers were they? 21 A. Talc workers and miners in New York State. 22 Q. All right. 23 A. After that were into the 1970s. 24 Q. Any epidemiological studies in the 1970s which 25 relate to the possible danger of exposure to fibrous talc? C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 2S2 1 A. Yes. Kleinfeld, Messite and Zaki. 2 Q. Exhibit number, please? 3 A. Number 71. 4 Q. What type of talc are we dealing with? 5 A. we're dealing with the same stuff. 6 Q. Tremolitic talc? 7 A. Tremolitic talc mined in up state Mew York. 8 Q. How many people were involved in the study or how 9 many subjects? 10 A. Two hundred and sixty workers. 11 Q. And what were the concentrations of exposure? 12 A. I don't think they have any information on the 13 concentration that these workers -- Oh, here. No, they are 14 taking about concentrations in other people's studies, but not 15 in this work force, I believe. 16 Q. That was 1974? 17 A. That's correct. 18 Q. All right. Any other epidemiological studies 19 relating to possible hazards associated with exposure to 20 fibrous talc? 21 A. By this time we're up to 1979. And I do not 22 represent that by this late date I have collected every study 23 that was published. 24 Q. Let's just talk about the ones that you have seen 25 before today or the ones that were provided to you today which C-S.R- ASSOTTATES .25-8. 1 serve as the foundations for the opinions you are going to 2 offer today and at trial. Have you seen any other studies 3 following Exhibit No. 71 that relate to epidemiological studies 4 associated with possible health hazards of exposure to fibrous 5 talc? 6 A. I think these studies are relating to 7 non-asbestiform talc. 8 Q. We're going to get to those in just a moment. 9 A. I think that's all that I have here regarding 10 asbestiform talc. There were probably others in this volume 11 called "Dusts and Disease" which we didn't get to photocopy 12 which was published in 1979. 13 Q. You didn't see those though, did you? 14 A. I saw them, but I only photocopied the ones 15 relating to, I think relating to non-asbestiform talcs, because 16 I figured that Kleinfeld had done a pretty thorough job 17 regarding asbestiform talc by the late 1970s, that there was no 18 basis for doubting the gravity of that risk, and that -- but 19 there were papers and interest focused in the 1970s on work 20 forces exposed to non-asbestiform talc, and that is indicated 21 in Exhibit 72 and 74 and 75. 22 Q. We will be talking about those in just a few 23 moments. I have counted up, Dr. Castleman, ten epidemiological 24 studies associated with the possible health hazards of exposure 25 to fibrous talc. r .e o aosoTTATF; 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Does that soundaboutright to you? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Every one ofthose has to dowith tremolitic talc; 5 correct? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. _And those ten studies span a period of time of 8 approximately 40 years; correct? 9 A. Or less than that. Anyway, they start in -- 10 Q. Start in '35 and go to *74. 11 A. That is right, that is about 40 years. 12 Q. Just about 40 years. So on the average that would 13 be approximately one every four years if you average it out; 14 right? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Do you have any idea concerning the total number 17 of medical articles, journals, periodicals, textbooks, so 18 forth, that were published over that 40 year period? 19 A. No, Idon't. 20 Q. Now, what I would like for you to do is go back 21 now, and let's talk about epidemiological studies related to 22 possible health hazards associated with exposures to 23 non-fibrous talc. Before we do that, let me ask you a question 24 about the fibrous talc studies. Every one of those was a 25 retrospective study, is that true? C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 2611 1 A. NO. 2 Q. Was there a prospective study done in those 3 epidemiological studies that we have discussed? 4 A. Well, there were studies in some cases that were 5 cross-sectional studies, looked at what kind of shape are 6 people in now. 7 Q. But those reviewed past history; right? They did 8 not set a control group and follow them from a point forward; 9 true? 10 A. They did that too. I mean in some cases they have 11 groups of subgroups of one study followed up five, ten years 12 later by the same New York State officials to see the mortality 13 experience, if you will, sometimes of the group which was 14 previously reported as having developed pneumoconiosis. 15 Q. Go ahead and tell me. 16 A. In that sense that the literature is prospective 17 as well as retrospective. 18 Q. Go ahead and tell me about any epidemiological 19 study that you have that relates to dangers of exposure to 20 non-fibrous talc. 21 A. We have already discussed the problem of analyzing 22 Dreessen in that regard because Dreessen doesn't talk about 23 whether it's fibrous or non-fibrous, but he does say one group 24 has four times as much tremolite in the talc than the other 25 group. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 2&1 1 Q. Well, do you read that as a discussion of health 2 hazards associated with exposure to non-fibrous talc? 3 A. I think that it's -- I read that as something that 4 came out in 1935, and would have put anyone reading it on 5 notice that non-fibrous talc could well be bad for you to 6 breathe. 7 Q. Well, do you read Dr. Dreessen's article, Dr. 8 Castleman, to be an article dealing with possible health 9 hazards of exposure to non-fibrous talc? 10 A. Yes, I read it as dealing with both the hazards of 11 non-fibrous and fibrous talc, given that the information 12 provided as to fibers is almost completely lacking, except for 13 the reference to tremolitic and less tremolitic talc. 14 Q. What you're saying is that any article that you 15 see that does not make a clear distinction should be read as 16 one that deals with fibrous as well as non-fibrous talc; right? 17 A. Right. I think it has to be read with prudence by 18 people who are concerned about public health. That is the way 19 a public health person would read it. 20 Q. Do you consider yourself to be a scientist, 21 Dr. Castleman? 22 A. Yes, sir, I am a public health worker. 23 Q. And do you agree with me that scientists often 24 disagree with one another with regard to the significance of 25 certain data? C.S.R. ASSOrtATES 22 1 A. Well, certainly it occurs, it is a common 2 phenomenon in science. 3 Q. In fact, science doesn't progress without that 4 kind of disagreement; do you agree with that? 5 A. That is part of the process of the development of 6 knowledge; that's right. 7 Q. Would you agree with me that a manufacturer who 8 reviews scientific literature has the same right to agree with 9 one group of scholars as with another, would you aqree with 10 that? 11 A. I wouldn't put it in those terms. 12 Q. Would you agree with me that if you have two 13 respectable schools of scientific thought with regard to a 14 subject, that a manufacturer is free to choose which of those 15 two schools of thought the manufacturer will agree with? 16 A. No. 17 Q. All right. You think then that a manufacturer 18 should be placed in the position of having to anticipate which 19 school of scientific thought will ultimately prevail? 20 A. No. But I think that the manufacturer has to 21 exercise prudence in the sale of products that are put in the 22 channels of commerce the same as engineers design bridges 23 assuming the worst case scenario. Manufacturers putting 24 products into the channels of commerce, given incomplete 25 knowledge about the health effects of those products have to C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 2&Z 1 assume the worst until there is proof that the people -- that 2 the respectable body of science with the more serious 3 apprehensions about the product, until there is proof that 4 those people are wrong, because human live's depend on it. 5 MR. CROSBY: Move to strike the answer as 6 non-responsive. 7 MR. JAMES: I'll join in that motion. 8 MR. PIERCE: I'll join in that motion also. 9 Q. (By Mr. Hinkle) Do you believe, Dr. Castleman, 10 that common sense plays any role in regard to how a 11 manufacturer conducts his or her business? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q* Go ahead and tell me if you can find any 14 epidemiological studies that relate to alleged health hazards 15 associated with exposure to non-fibrous talc? 15 A. You are asking for an epidemiological study, 17 right? 18 Q. Yes, sir. 19 (Whereupon, a short recess was taken.) 20 Q. Doctor, during the break have you had a chance to 21 find all of the articles that relate to epidemiological studies 22 as to the possible health hazards of non-fibrous talc? 23 A. During the break which lasted less than five 24 minutes, I have not done that. 25 Q. Well, have you found any of them during the break? r.S-R. assnrTiTPs 2SA 1 A. About the only thing I found during the break was 2 ray lunch. 3 Q. We did take a 45 lunch break to accommodate you, 4 Dr. Castleman, in hopes that you would get your lunch. 5 A. It w a s n 't your fault, but I didn't get my lunch. 6 MR. HAYS: That was ray error. I misunderstood. 7 He thought I was going to order him a sandwich, and 8 I failed to do so. If it's five minutes that you feel 9 you have been cheated out of some way by a five minute 10 break, we will add the five minutes on the end of the 11 deposition so you all won't be too upset. 12 MR. HINKLE: Mr. Hays, you are, as always, a 13 gentleman and a scholar, and we appreciate that. 14 MR. HAYS: My momma trained me to be that 15 way. I sometimes disappoint her, but I try hard. 16 Q. (By Mr. Hinkle) The question is on the table, 17 Dr. Castleman. 18 A. So far all I see are case reports that might 19 relate to hazards of non-fibrous talc. 20 Q. We will get to those in a little bit. I want to 21 know now about epidemiological studies. 22 A. Here we have got -- I am not sure if this quite 23 qualifies as an epidemiological study, but probably it does. 24 Q. what's the exhibit number, please? 25 A. Number 36. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES ----------------- -- -------------245-- 1 Q. All right. Who is the author, and what is the 2 year? 3 A. Published in 1949 by Hogue and Mallette of the 4 Firestone Tire and Rubber Company. 5 Q. How many subjects were involved? 6 A. Twenty. 7 Q. And what was the material to which they were 8 allegedly exposed? 9 A. It's a Vermont Talc, which is described as a pure 10 talc from a deposit near Johnson, Vermont with no free silica, 11 tremolite, chrysotile, chrysolite or actenolite. 12 Q. What were the conclusions with regard to that 13 article? 14 A. These authors concluded physical examinations and 15 chest roentgenograms of a group of 20 men exposed to talc dust 16 for periods ranging from 10 to 36 years in rubber inner tube 17 production were normal for men of their age group in urban 18 industrial environment. 19 Q. So this particular study follows by 14 years the 20 Dreessen study, and indicates that workers exposed to 21 non-fibrous talc have normal chest X-rays, even though they 22 worked in the industry from 10 to 36 years. Is that true? 23 A. That is what these authors say. 24 Q. All right. 25 A. I assume that the question is still pending, C.S.R. assort 266 1 what's the next epidemiological study -- 2 Q. Yes, please. Yes, let's move on, let's get it 3 done. 4 A. -- relating to a non-fibrous talc. 5 Q. Yes. 6 A. So we will skip the case reports on people exposed 7 to non-fibrous talc for now. 8 Q. We will come back to them. 9 Again, Dr. Castleman, I know you are not delaying on 10 purpose, but there is a good deal of time passing between our 11 discussion of these articles, and in view of the fact we're on 12 kind of a tight schedule, I am going to ask that you do all 13 that you can to hurry the process along. 14 A. I am already doing that. I mean, I don't think 15 that I appear to be dawdling. 16 Q. It is taking a good deal of time. 17 A. Well, I guess it's a real contrast to me doing 18 something like this, as opposed to being asked the same 19 questions again and again in depositions about asbestos. I 20 will try to change gears. 21 22 witness. MR. CROSBY: Move to strike the comments of the 23 MR. HOOD: I would ask that the witness not take 24 out time to read articles, and just answer the questions 25 posed. c..s *r . Assort a t r .c 2Z2 1 MR. HAYS: Let the record reflect that the 2 questions posed by counsel require a review of the 3 documents. So if you want the deposition to speed up, 4 maybe we ought to go to a different line of questioning. 5 Q. (By Hr. Hinkle) Again, I don't want to get 6 involved in this kind of discussion, but this should have been 7 done before we got here. 8 A. I can't anticipate every question you are going 9 to ask. 10 Q. You can anticipate that I am going to ask you 11 about these articles, Dr. Castleman. 12 A. I can anticipate that you're going to ask me 13 whether there were articles showing people breathing different 14 types of talc that got sick. 15 Q. Let's not fuss about it, let's just go ahead and 16 get the questions answered. 17 HR. HAYS: He's entitled to respond if you make 18 some remark. 19 Did you complete your response? 20 THE WITNESS: Yes. 21 I didn't think the industries involved conducted 22 epidemiological studies, nor were such studies 23 conducted by government officials in the case of 24 non-fibrous talcs. 25 MR. HAYS: Are you talking about a specific time C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 2_a 1 period now? 2 THE WITNESS: Up until the 1970s I don't see 3 anything, except case reports. 4 HR. HOOD: Let the record reflect he's turning 5 over and looking through articles that have been 6 produced in the deposition. 7 THE WITNESS: Let the record so reflect. 8 Q. (By Hr. Hinkle) You said that there were no 9 industry studies and no government studies, and I'm not 10 limiting it to industry and government. I want to know whether 11 anybody did epidemiological studies concerning the possible 12 health hazards of exposure to non-fibrous talc? 13 A. Well, there's practically nobody aside from the 14 industries involved and the government officials who could have 15 conducted epidemiological studies. A doctor working in a 16 hospital isn't in a position to do an epidemiological study. 17 He might see a case and report it, but the only folks who would 18 have been able to conduct epidemiological studies, especially 19 back in the time before the 1970s, would have been people who 20 were placed either in the industry itself, or in a government 21 agency of some sort. 22 Q. Dr. Castleman, you have told me about a number of 23 epidemiological studies that were done by Kleinfeld and others; 24 true? 25 A. Yes, by state officials. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 Q* A H right. I want you to look at those articles 2 and tell me -- and look at all of them, I want to be sure, 3 whether there are any other epidemiological studies done by 4 anyone insofar as the possible health hazards of exposure to 5 non-fibrous talc? 5 A. I don't see anything until 1976 when the federal 7 government in the form of the National Institute for 8 Occupational Safety and Health. 9 Q. Are you looking at an exhibit? 10 A. I am looking at Exhibit 72. 11 Q* All right. Was that an epidemiological study of 12 possible health hazards associated with exposure to non-fibrous 13 talc? 14 A. This is a report of an epidemiologicalstudy. 15 This isn't the primary study. 16 Q. What type of material -- excuse me. The year for 17 that again was? 18 A. 1976. 19 Q. All right. What type of material are we dealim g 20 with? 21 A. What is called "Relatively Pure Talc". 22 Q. What -- 23 A. That is what it's called by the researcher 24 Q. Who is the researcher? 25 A. Sherry Selevan, epidemiologist with NIOSH. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES -22.Q 1 HR. HOOD: That is a misstatement. The summary 2 he's looking at has the quotation "Relatively Pure" 3 end of quotation. 4 HR. HAYS: Wait a minute. Excuse me. If you are 5 going to make an objection, make an objection. Just 6 don't be making comments on the record. 7 HR. HOOD: Let's read it correct. 8 Q. (By Mr. Hinkle) What are the conclusions with 9 regard to that 1976 NIOSH study as it relates to exposure to 10 non-fibrous talc? 11 A. It says that NIOSH -- this study, and this is in 12 quotes "clearly demonstrate" end quote, that non-malignant 13 respiratory diseases such chronic emphysema and bronchitis are 14 associated with exposures to quote "relatively pure" end quote, 15 talc, according to NIOSH epidemiologist Sherry Selevan. 16 Q. Does the report speak to the concentration, 17 exposure concentrations? 18 A. No. 19 Q. The report does indicate, does it not, that -- 20 A. I mean not quantitatively. 21 Q. It does indicate that thereappears to be no 22 relation between non-fibrous talc and cancer; right? 23 A. It says that more information needs to be 24 considered on the issue of cancer, that the findings are not 25 clear cut. They found some lung cancer deaths, but they -- the C.S.R. AssortATES --------- -- ---------------------------------------------------------- 4 - 1 last paragraph reads as follows: "Investigators discovered six 2 lung cancer deaths, four among miners and two among persons who 3 were both miners and millers during the 30 year period. Eleven 4 workers died from chronic emphysema, bronchitis and other 5 non-malignant respiratory diseases. Five were millers, one was 6 a miner, and the rest worked at both jobs. Researchers said 7 the 17 deaths^greatly exceeded cancer and respiratory disease 8 death rates for both Vermont and the nation. 9 Earlier it does say that on the cancer correlation 10 epidemiologist Selevan cautioned that other factors such as 11 smoking and mine environment need to be taken into account 12 before conclusions can be drawn. 13 Q. Could I see the exhibit, please? 14 Is this the last epidemiological study that you are 15 aware of that deals with possible health hazards associated 16 with exposure to non-fibrous talc? 17 A. Selevan*s work was published in the next year, it 18 was announced at the conference in 1977, which I attended and 19 made a presentation at, and which was published in 1979. 20 MR. HOOD: I would like the record to reflect 21 what he was referring to and reading from is not the 22 NIOSH study, but a summary that was marked Exhibit 72, 23 the source of which has not been designated or 24 determined. 25 MR. HAYS: I'm going to object once more to r.s.n. AssrirTafPRS 222 1 Counsel's remarks on the record that are not objections. 2 We have a lead counsel that is fully capable of taking 3 care of this. 4 MR. HOOD: This apparently is a NIOSH study, 5 it's a summary of it. We have asked him to produce it, 6 he has not produced, but he has produced this one page. 7 THE WITNESS: I am looking at it right now, 8 Mr. Hood. I have produced it. 9 Q. (By Mr. Hinkle) On the same exhibit there is 10 another summary that deals with benzene, hexavalent, chromium, 11 moca. 12 A. Right. Very bad chemicals. 13 Q. Those are all bad chemicals, aren't they? 14 A. (Jh-huh. 15 Q. They all pose -- When you say uh-huh, I realize 16 you have got your mouth full. Is that yes? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Do those all pose health hazards to anyone who 19 works around them; correct? 20 A. A lung cancer hazard. 21 Q. Any other hazards that they pose that you know of? 22 A. Some of the substances cause -- Did I say benzene? 23 Benzene doesn't cause lung cancer, it causes leukemia. But 24 they cause occupational cancer, and in some cases these cause 25 other kinds of non-malignant disease such as arsenic causing C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 27a 1 skin ulceration and so forth. 2 Q. Does benzene pose a health hazard apart from the 3 development of leukemia? 4 A. Yes, it causes -- I believe it causes other forms 5 of cancer. 6 Q. What other forms of cancer are you aware of caused 7 by benzene? 8 A. Cancers of the blood forming organs. But I forget 9 the exact names of them. Look, this isn't a deposition on 10 benzene, and I am not an expert on benzene. It's just 11 something I happen to know. 12 Q. All right. So if I understand it then, there are 13 two epidemiological studies that relate to possible dangers 14 associated with inhalation of non-fibrous talc, one of them, 15 the early one in 1949 finds no radiographic evidence of injury, 16 and the other one in 1976 ---- Oh, and by the way, do you know 17 whether or not that 1976 NIOSH report was ever formally 18 published? 19 A. Well, I don't know of other places where it may 20 have been published, and it may have been published elsewhere, 21 but I know it was published in the proceedings of this 22 conference. And like I say, by the time we get to the late 23 '70s I didn't keep looking for each and every article on talc, 24 although I know there were a number of such articles. 25 Q. Well, you didn't produce any epidemiological C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 2ZA 1 studies relating to possible health hazards of exposure to 2 non-fibrous talc from 1949 to 1976; true? 3 A. Right. I don't know of any such studies. 4 Q. All right. 5 A. At this time. 6 Q. Are you aware of any epidemiological studies that 7 relate to possible health hazards associated with inhalation of 8 non-asbestiform fibrous talc? 9 A. Non-asbestiform fibrous talc? 10 Q. Yes. Are you aware that there is such a 11 substance? 12 A. I haven't seen that kind of description in the 13 literature that I have read. 14 Q. So that particular term is a term that is unknown 15 to you then? 16 A. Right. 17 Q. All right. So I take it then that we would be 18 safe in saying that you have found no epidemiological studies, 19 no case studies, no animal studies dealing with possible health 20 hazards of exposure to non-asbestiform fibrous talc; true? 21 MR. HAYS: By that name you mean? 22 Q. (By Mr. Hinkle) Or any description that might 23 parallel that name. 24 MR. HAYS: Let's just be fair if you want to put 25 it in quotes. He says he hasn't seen that word, that C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 21S 1 was his testimoney. He hasn't seen non-asbestiforn 2 fibrous talc. That is not to say that some expert or 3 physician wasn't referring to that type of talc, 4 whatever it is, by another name. Go I just don't 5 want to get caught in a semantics trap here. 6 Q. (By Mr. Hinkle) Do you know, Dr. Castlemn, what 7 non-asbestiform fibrous talc is? 8 A. Ho. 9 Q. So I take it then that you would not be prepared 10 to offer any testimony with regard to that substance; true? 11 MR. HAYS; Once again, unless it's known by 12 some other name. 13 Q. (By Mr. Hinkle) Well, that is the name that I 14 know it by. And if that is the name I know it by, and if that 15 is the name I am advancing to you, you are in no position to 16 make testimony about it by that name. Agreed? 17 A. All I can say is I have never heard of this 18 entity. It's possible that that kind of characterization 19 appears in some article of some sort or another, perhaps 20 mineralogical article, perhaps another one, but I haven't seen 21 it. 22 Q All right. That 1949 article, epidemiological 23 study, Exhibit No. 36, do you agree with me that manufacturers 24 f talc have as much right to place credence in that article as 25 in any of the other articles that you have spoken of? ----------------------------------------------------------- 2I 1 A. The 1949 article by the Firestone doctors? 2 Q. Dy whoever they were, Hogue and Mallette, I think 3 you said. 4 A. Yes. I mean that is part of the total body of 5 medical knowledge. 6 Q. All right. 7 A. And as such could certainly be accorded some 8 weight. 9 Q. How, you have not produced nor reviewed, I take 10 it, any animal studies relating to the possible health hazards 11 associated with exposure to talc. Is that true? 12 A. I have looked at some animal studies, and I think 13 I have produced some animal studies. 14 Q. Let's talk about the animal studies then. How 15 many have you produced? 16 A. I think Schultz and Williams did some animal work 17 in 1942. 18 Q. Get that exhibit and let's talk about it. 19 A. (Witness produces document.) 20 Q. Can you not tell by looking at the abstract, 21 Dr. Castleman, whether it's an animal study or not? 22 A. I can tell it's an animal study. But I expected 23 your question was going to go beyond that. 24 Q. Well, when you find one, let me know, so I can 25 start framing some questions. Have you found one? C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 2 1 A. I have been looking at one for the last two 2 minutes. 3 Q. That is true. What is the exhibit number? 4 A. Schultz and Williams, 1942. 5 Q. The exhibit number? 6 A. 22. 7 Q. What were the conclusions? 3 A. They said, "The greatest amount of fibrous tissue 9 was developed in the presence of two talcs which contained the 10 least carbonate. Talcs of this ^ype should be avoided whenever 11 possible." 12 Q. What types of talc are they talking about? 13 A. Talcs which contain the least carbonate. 14 Q. Is that all we know about them, that they contain 15 the least carbonate? 16 A. Yep. 17 Q. Any other animal studies? 18 Q. This is one by Policard published in a French 19 journal. 20 Q. Exhibit number? 21 A. 19. 22 Q. You can skip the French journal. Any others? 23 A. This is another study by a French author, a 24 separate one. 25 Q. You can skip the foreign periodicals. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 2ZR 1 A. That was No. 25. This is a review of the 2 experimental studies in the report of Siegal, and co-workers. 3 Q. Exhibit number? 4 A. Number 24, this report published in the United 5 States by New York state officials describe experimental work 6 by a number of authors, Haynes in 1931; Stuber in 1934; Fossel 7 in 1935; Bethune in 1935. So while we do not have the primary 8 articles, some of which were written in other languages here, 9 we do have a nice little summary here. 10 Q. All I want to know is whether or not there are any 11 articles that deal v/ith animal studies in front of you? 12 A. Yes, there are. And like I say, this one -- 13 Q. You have told us about article 24, Exhibit 24. 14 Any others? 15 A. It contains both review of the animal studies, as 16 well as clinical material. 17 Q. Let me ask you a question. From the standpoint of 18 making general statements, is it more helpful to the scientific 19 community to have epidemiological studies or case studies? 20 A. It's helpful to the scientific community to have 21 both kinds of studies. 22 Q. Which is generally regarded as the most helpful in 23 terms of reaching conclusions by the scientific community? 24 A. I don't think there is a simple answer to that 25 question. A case report can provide you with information that n -- ----------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 275- 1 an epidemiological study cannot provide you with. Pathological 2 information is an extremely important type, and that kind of 3 information is simply not available in morbidity studies of 4 workers, we d o n 't go and chop peoples lungs out to see what 5 their lung tissues look like. All you can tell is what the 6 X-ray films show you, and the pulmonary function tests and 7 clinic examinations show you. 8 Q. So it's your position that an epidemiological 9 study is no more helpful to the general scientific community in 10 framing general scientific principles than a case studies is? 11 A. Well, I am just saying there are no simple 12 answers. A lousy epidemiological study or a poorly constructed 13 one can be very misleading and can be extremely unreliable. 14 Q. Let's assume a competent epidemiological study and 15 a competent case study. 16 A. Again, they are different types of information 17 imparted by both. 18 Q. All right. 19 A. And I don't think that the comparisons of that 20 kind are the sorts of comparisons that scientists would make 21 unless they were being deposed by lawyers. 22 Q. Are they the kinds of comparisons that are made in 23 the literature, Dr. Castleman, or do you know? 24 A. No, I can't recall seeing those kinds of 25 comparisons where a scientist says that epidemiological studies n c t> AOOAPT AfHCe -------- ------------------------------------------------ 280 1 give us information, more information, or give us information 2 that is -- or case reports give us information -- I mean, it's 3 known that case reports give information that is not contained 4 in some epidemiological studies, and epidemiological studies 5 contain information unavailable from case reports. 6 Q. Listen to the question, Dr. Castleman. Whether or 7 not epidemiological studies are more helpful in making general 8 statements of scientific principal, that's all I want to know. 9 A. They may be, but that is not guaranteed. 10 Q. I am not talking about guaranties, I am talking 11 about what is generally regarded in the scientific community. 12 A. I don't think that, you know, that the question 13 lends itself to a simple answer. 14 Q. Fine. 15 A. It really depends on specific studies that you are 16 trying to compare. 17 Q. If you can't answer then, you can't answer. 18 A. Well, thenI can't answer. 19 Q. Thank you. Now, do you find that animal studies 20 are in any way helpful in regard to making general statements 21 of scientific principal? 22 A. Sure. All these kinds of studies contribute 23 information. 24 Q. All right. Now, I want you to go back through and 25 find for me all of the case studies that deal with possible C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 2B1 1 hazards of exposure to fibrous talc. 2 A. Do you want me to skip the initial study on rubber 3 workers published in Italian? 4 Q. Yes, skip that one. 5 Q. I tell you what, let's save a little tine, 6 Dr. Castleman. As you come across a case study, let's talk 7 about it as it comes up rather than get them segregated out of 3 fibrous and non-fibrous. 9 A. That is a great idea. 10 Q. And keep them separate, by the way, when you stack 11 them up so we can have them. 12 Do you have one in front of you? 13 A. Well, I am looking at the -- this is China clay. 14 Here is talc. This is a 1936 report by Middleton. 15 Q. What's the exhibit number, please? 16 A. 16. I think Middleton is just talking about the 17 work of others, so we will skip that. 18 Q. Is there a case study involved in there? 19 A. He reports on cases of talc pneumoconiosis. 20 Q. What does he say about them? 21 A. He doesn't say anything about whether the talc was 22 fibrous or non-fibrous, which is what I am trying to find, 23 assuming that is what you're mainly after. 24 Q. What does he say about exposure to talc and its 25 possible hazards? r c d Ko r mco --------------- -------------------------------------------------- -- ----- ------------------2.S2 1 A. Summarizing Merewether's report, he says, "That 2 the suggestion is that the radiological appearances seen really 3 reflect the actual dust in the lungs together with any 4 associated congestion rather that the presence of a diffuse 5 fibrosis. The few examinations made so far did not disclose 6 any appreciable disablement after exposures ranging from 9 to 7 32 years." 8 Q. What is the year on that? 9 A. 1936. This is describing research conducted in 10 Great Britain. 11 Q. And so -- 12 A. The source of the talc is not indicated. 13 ~ Q. So this is one year after the Dreessen study? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And we haveconclusions that there is no 16 disablement associated with breathing talc for periods of 9 to 17 32 years? 18 A. Right, as had been reported by Ilerewether at least 19 as Middleton sums it up. And then he talks about other cases 20 that other people have reported. 21 Q. Do you believe that areasonablemanufacturer 22 would be justified in relying on the work of Merewether and 23 these others? 24 A. i think a reasonable manufacturer has to rely on 25 the total body of knowledge to the extent that that information C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 is obtained. 2 Q. Including this? 3 A. Including everything. 4 Q. All right. 5 A. You don't get to pick and choose 6 include everything. That is the way I look at it. I mean you 7 pick and chose on the basis of the quality of information from 8 a scientific point of view, not from an economical pecuniary 9 point of view, if you get my meaning. 10 Q. Please go on and tell us the next case study that 11 you find. 12 A. I have passed over the reports of Porro up until 13 now. 14 Q. Exhibit number, please? 15 A. This is Exhibit No. 23. I have not counted Porro 16 among the epidemiological studies, because my reading of this 17 was that the population base from which these workers came was 18 not so well defined. 19 Q. All right. Which Porro -- 20 A. Number 23. 21 Q. I have got the exhibit number, but I don't have 22 those exhibits in front of me, so tell me which Porro article 23 you are talking about. 24 A. 1942. 25 Q. Is that the American -- C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 22S 1 New York mined talc, but let me make sure. He starts out with 2 reviewing earlier work before he gets around to describing his 3 case. I am quite sure, knowing the rest of the literature, 4 that this is a talc miner who mined fibrous talc, but it 5 doesn't say that in the article. 6 Q. So you are assuming that we are talking about 7 tremolitic talc then; right? 8 A. Yes, but I am assuming, as you might say, material 9 not in evidence here in this article. I am assuming things 10 based on a larger knowledge in time than would have been 11 available to someone reading this in 1946. Someone reading 12 this in 1946 wouldn't have, I think -- these doctors just don't 13 make the distinctions that we maybe wish they would have made 14 when they wrote about the medical condition of their patients. 15 They don't make the kind of mineralogical distinctions that 16 your questions are directed toward. And so someone reading the 17 article I think simply would not know whether this is fibrous 18 or non-- fibrous talc unless they knew a little bit more about 19 what kind of talc came from St. Lawrence County, New York. But 20 even there it doesn't say that this guy work in 21 St. Lawrence County. It says there have been earlier reports 22 from St. Lawrence County. Maybe if you went back and looked at 23 Porro's earlier work you could maybe at least infer that that 24 is where this fellow came from. But it doesn't say it here. 25 Q. So the answer to my question is yes, that is your ARSnrTATP.C! --------------- ----------------------- ---------------- ---------- 2 M 1 assumption? 2 A. My assumption is someone reading the article 3 simply wouldn't know. 4 Q. I'm not asking about anybody else, lm asking 5 about you, Dr. Castleman. Are you making the assumption that 6 Exhibit Mo. 27 deals with a worker exposed to tremolitic talc; 7 yes or no? 8 A. That is my best guess. 9 Q. Thank you. Dr. Castleman, have you yourself ever 10 conducted an epidemiological study? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Have you yourself ever done a case history work--up 13 on a patient? 14 A. No, I do n 't practice medicine without a license. 15 Q. You're not qualified to supervise a case history 16 work-up; is that true? 17 A. I am not a physician, so I don't go around 18 examining people. 19 Q. Whether you do or not, I'm asking -- 20 A. At least not for medical purposes. 21 Q. Please, Dr. Castleman. Whether you do it or not, 22 do you consider that you are qualified to do that if you want 23 to? 24 A. NO. 25 Q. Do you consider that you're qualified to supervise P C T5 sccnrTJU'PC 44 1 epidemiological studies from a medical perspective? 2 A. No. I don't supervise those kinds of studies, but 3 I read them and understand them, and I've examined and 4 critically reviewed hundreds if not thousands of 5 epidemiological studies over the last 20 years. 6 Q. I didn't ask you about reading, reviewing or 7 criticizing., I asked you about supervising. Do I understand 9 that the answer to my question is: No, you are not qualified 9 to do that; right? 10 A. (No response.) 11 Q. Dr. Castleman? 12 A. I'm thinking about it. It just depends on the 13 nature of the study. I am not qualified to do it to the extent 14 that the qualifications needed would be in the area of 15 medicine, but a lot of epidemiological work is simply a matter 16 of statistics, and I am trained in the area of epidemiology and 17 the statistics, so it really would depend on more of the 18 specifics of the data base under consideration. 19 Q. So you may be qualified, but you have never been 20 called upon to do that. Is that an accurate statement? 21 A. Right. 22 Q. Have you done any follow-up research to determine 23 whether or not the -- strike the question. 24 Have you done any follow-up research to determine how 25 the various articles that we have made exhibits and have C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 288 1 discussed were received by the medical community? 2 A. The only way I would really have of knowing that 3 is by reading the articles themselves, looking at the way that 4 the different writers evidenced an awareness of writing by 5 others in their own country and in other countries. So in that 6 sense, I can see the kind of cross-- fertilization of knowledge 7 that occurs across international borders. 8 Q. Are you aware, for example, whether or not any of 9 the articles that we have discussed have been criticized in 10 terms of their methodology or conclusions? 11 A. They have been, but I am not aware of the details. 12 I haven't been involved in controversies over talc that much. 13 I know that the health research group in Washington has very 14 vigorously criticized the Vanderbilt Talc Company, and has 15 written about that, and that is one of the documents in the 16 file I brought here today. 17 Q. Apart from the Vanderbilt Talc Company, are you 18 aware of any of these articles that have been criticized by 19 subsequent authors or researchers with regard to methodology 20 and/or conclusions? 21 A. No. But there may be such controversy to which I 22 am unaware. 23 Q Would that be something that would be necessary 24 for you to know in deciding how this material was received by 25 the medical community generally? C.S.R. ASSOCIATES ------------- ------------ --- -- ---------------------------------- 2-83- 1 A. it might be relevant. But again, I think it would 2 be reflected in the medical literature if substantial 3 controversy existed. 4 Q. You are not suggesting to anyone here that you 5 have an exhaustive collection of the literature relevant to the 6 topic in front of you? 7 A. i believe I have a representative collection of 8 the literature which is illustrative of the way knowledge 9 emerged about talc. 10 Q. Dr. Castleman, did I ask you about a 11 representative sample? 12 A. I believe you used the word exhaustive. 13 Q. That is exactly the term that I used. 14 A. when I say exhaustive, I am talking about the kind 15 of research I have done on asbestos. Now, that is exhaustive. 16 Q. That is what I'm thinking too, and that is why I 17 asked. Are you suggesting that you have done and you have in 18 front of you and exhaustive compilation of the work that is 19 done in this field? 20 A. It's not exhaustive in the sense that it is all 21 inclusive. And I believe that the work that I have done on 22 asbestos comes close to that, at least with respect to the 23 historic literature. But the work on talc, there could be a 24 few things missing here, probably are. 25 Do you want to continue going through case reports, or C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 2 3 .Q 1 do something else? 2 Q. Are you qualified to criticize the methodology and 3 the conclusions of the various authors that we have been 4 discussing today? 5 A. I think I am qualified to criticize, critically 6 review some of the stuff. I am not a pathologist. If you get 7 into the fine points of what pathologists write about what they 8 see or think they see, you might be getting into an area where 9 I would feel uncomfortable. But for the most part, the 10 information reported here is information which I feel that I am 11 competent to critically evaluate. 12 Q. Have you been asked to make any criticisms of the 13 methodology and/or the conclusions of any of these articles 14 that we have discussed today? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Go to the next case study, if you would, please. 17 A. This is No. 29. This is a 1947 publication in the 18 AMA journal called Occupational Medicine. The author is a 19 physician in New York City. 20 Q. What type of substance, what type of talc is he 21 dealing with? I am assuming that he's dealing with talc; 22 right? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. What type of talc is he dealing with? 25 A. I believe that this is a case in which the author iVS-P. AQCrv'Ta'PPO ------------------ -- ---------- ---------------------------- 291 1 says, The elements of silica and asbestos have been eliminated 2 as a cause of the pneumoconiosis in this case since the patient 3 was never exposed to these substances in any industry prior to 4 his exposure to talc in the cosmetic industry, and since the 5 chemical analysis of the talcum powder revealed less than .05 6 free silica." So here it appears that we're talking about a 7 non-fibrous, -talc which is also low in free silica, which has 3 nonetheless caused pneumoconiosis, and which was being used in 9 the cosmetic industry. 10 Q. Prior to that time is there anything in the 11 medical literature indicating that exposure to non-fibrous talc 12 might result in injury to the lungs? 13 A. I think this is the first -- this may be the first 14 study, I hesitate to say it definitely was, but this certainly 15 may have been the first report where the author focused in on 16 the presence or absence of asbestos fibers and talc in trying 17 to ascertain what components -- I am sorry asbestos fibers and 18 silica, in trying to figure out just what it was that was 19 causing pneumoconiosis in the talc exposed worker. 20 Q. May I see the exhibit, please, while you are 21 looking for the next case study? 22 A. Sure. 23 Q. Do you have it in front of you, Dr. Castleman? 24 A. I am examining an Italian report, because I think 25 the later literature shows that the Italian talc was not n co t *moo 1 fibrous. If you want to just skip the Italian work -- 2 Q. Yes. 3 A. we can do it. I am now looking at a German 4 publication in 1950. Di Biasi's case I believe I have seen 5 referred to by others as being a low or as to a fiber free 6 talc. 7 Q. What'sthe exhibit number? 8 A. 39. 9 Q. Do you knowwhether or not it deals with fibrous 10 versus non-fibrous talc? 11 A. i believe I have seen this referred to in 12 subsequent literature as a non-fibrous talc. 13 Q. What are the conclusions? oh, by the way, what 14 year is it? 15 A. This is 1950 to '51. Let me just -- that 16 particular issue isn't addressed in the conclusions, at least 17 not that I could tell. 18 Q. So you are unable to tell us what the conclusions 19 are in that article? 20 A. I will tell you what the conclusions are, but I 21 don't think they have a whole lot to do with whether it's 22 fibrous or non-fibrous. They're talking about a man who had 17 23 years exposure to talc dust. 24 Q. What was the outcome of that exposure? 25 A. This is written in German. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 233. 1 Q. If you can't make any sense out of it, 2 Dr. Castleman, that is all right, we will move on. 3 A. It's recorded as a case of talcosis, but the 4 details of the whole thing are expressed in the terms of a 5 pathologist, and it is in the German language. 6 Q. Let's go to the next case study then. 7 A. i think were up to Friedman, pneumoconiosis, 8 reported a case. 9 Q. Exhibit number, please? 10 A. 1952, No. 43. This is in JAMA. 11 Q. Uhat type of talc? 12 A. They say the free silica contents of talc is half 13 a percent or less. Let me make sure we're talking about the 14 same, because sometimes they go back and forth between 15 reviewing past studies and telling you what they have seen 16 themselves. I am afraid this is another case of a doctor not 17 being terribly attentive to mineralogic details. 18 Q. Do you know whether or not that deals with fibrous 19 versus non-fibrous talc? 20 A. It doesn't say anything about whether there are 21 fibers in this talc or not. 22 Q. All right. 23 A. The next case report is in the AMA Archives of 24 Industrial Hygiene, 1952, and this is No. 44. Forty-two year 25 old man at the time of his death. He had worked in a shoe C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 23A 1 factory cutting out shoe linings. And there was abundant 2 talcum powder used in this process. 3 Q. What were the exposure levels? 4 A. i am quite certain there is no data on that. 5 Q. What was the type of talc involved? 6 A. I would be very surprised if a doctor reported 7 that. This is one of those extraordinarily thorough case 8 reports. 9 Q. It does not tell us what type of talc we're 10 dealing with? 11 A. He is helpful though. On 461 the good doctor does 12 tell us the case reported by Di Biasi found only very 13 occasional asbestos bodies. The analysis of the talc inhaled 14 revealed a small fraction of asbestos. So that is the 15 reference I mentioned that said that Di Biasi's case was a 16 relatively non-fibrous talc. 17 Q. But it did have asbestos in it? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. What about Exhibit No. 44? 20 A. About his own case? 21 Q. Yes. 22 A. it's extraordinarilydetailed. This is the way 23 Germans write case reports. 24 Q. Can you tell whether or not it's fibrous versus 25 non-fibrous talc? C-S-R- a.Q.RnrraTPc 1 A. I don't think so. 2 Q. All right. Let's go to the next one then. 3 A. I don't think he indicates whether there were 4 fibers in this talc. 5 Q. Let's go to the next one then. 6 A. This is No. 45 by a Navy doctor called "Talc 7 Pneumoconiosis". 8 Q. What is the date? 9 A. 1953. He has been employed dusting life rafts 10 with talcum powder for a year. 11 Q. What type of talc? 12 A. I very much doubt that the Navy doctor had any 13 information on that. It was a previous job that the individual 14 had held prior to going into the Navy. 15 The next one is No. 46 in the British Medical Journal by 16 Bertram Mann and Doctor or Mr. Deasy. This case -- 17 Q. Year, please? 18 A. 1954. Points out that the bulk of the reports are 19 related to workers in talc mills or steatite mines, workers and 20 employees engaged in the rubber industry, and in the production 21 of cosmetics. 22 Q. What type of talc is he discussing? 23 A. In this case he says, "Under Discussions 24 Petrographically talc consists of straight fibers, curved 25 fibers and shreds. These fibers measure up to ten microns in C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 22S 1 length." 2 Q. Do you know what kind of talc it is? 3 A. Hot beyond what I just read you. 4 Q. Any discussion of any other substances included 5 with talc? 6 A. No. These doctors are lousy mineralogists. 7 Q. What were the conclusions with regard to that 8 particular case? 9 A. In the end he says, "A survey of the literature 10 suggests that this condition is not a pure pulmonary silicosis, 11 but is rather a slowly developing fibrogenic disorder. And it 12 has been suggested that it may be allied to asbestosis. In the 13 above reported case talc pneumoconiosis manifested itself by a 14 very insidiously developing dyspnea associated with a mildly 15 productive smoker's cough." 16 Q. Does it discuss in that article whether or not the 17 subject was a cigarette smoker? 18 A. The words "smoker's cough" are in quotes. So he 19 might not have been a smoker, he might just have had a cough 20 that sounded like a smoker's cough. It doesn't say. 21 Q. Hay I see the exhibit, please? 22 A. Yes. I don't think it actually says whether or 23 not the man smoked. 24 Q. Do you have the next case history in front of you? 25 A. Yes. C..s. r . A s s n r t s t r s 233 1 Q. What is the exhibit number, please? 2 A. I am not sure that these -- I am not sure if he's 3 reporting a new case here or not. This is McLaughlin, No. 50, 4 1955. Does look like McLaughlin is just reporting again on a 5 case that he's already seen. Which reminds me, there were a 6 few more articles brought in this morning, one of which was the 7 original McLaughlin report of 1949. 8 Q. Well, was that 1949 McLaughlin report a case 9 study? 10 A. It was, it was a case study. 11 Q. Exhibit No. 93? 12 A. McLaughlin's report, the original one was 13 published in the British Journal of Industrial Medicine in 1949 14 reporting a fatal case of talc pneumoconiosis, and age 51, who 15 had worked in a rubber tire factory for 37 years. 16 Q. What kind of talc? 17 A. The mineralogy of the particles in the lung 18 included some fibers. 19 Q. Yes. Concentration of exposure? 20 A. Kind of interesting. The concentration of 21 exposure, I don't know if that is indicated. Let me just -- as 22 to whether they are fibrous or not fibrous, it says that talc 23 in this plant came from Norway initially, and then Canada. 24 Q. Doctor, this is quite interesting to us, but I 25 need to know whether or not there is anything in there about C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 2ia 1 concentration, exposure concentrations? 2 A. Sorry. I don't see any numbers. I don't think 3 that they had any measures of concentrations to which the man 4 had been exposed. It says regarding fibrous, "Both varieties 5 of talc used are predominately platy in form, although each 6 contains a portion of fibers." 7 Q. This is one of the articles that you did not have 8 a chance to look at until it was delivered this morning secured 9 last night by Hr. Hays. Is that true? 10 A. That's correct. 11 Q. What is the next case study? 12 A. I think McLaughlin returns to the discussion of 13 this case in this 1955 article. 14 Q. Six years later he's discussing it again? 15 A. He's still talking about that case in a more 16 general review on dust diseases. He was a British factory 17 inspector physician. So that is in No. 50. Now, on we go. 18 Animal study by Schepers. All right. Here is a case. 19 Q. What is the exhibit number,please? 20 A. 53, published in 1956, Thorax, by A.C. Hunt, the 21 London Hospital Medical College. Ten years exposure, 57 years 22 old at the time of death. Coating lead accumulator plates with 23 talc. 24 Q. What kind of talc? 25 A. Clinical history, we do have some mineralogic r..s .n . Assort a t e s _________________________________________________________________ 2 05 1 examination from Dr. Nagelschmidt no less. "X-ray defraction 2 diagram shows strong talc pattern, and a few weak kaolin lines, 3 and very faintly the strongest quartz line at 3.34 A. This 4 indicates a sample contained, apart from talc, less than a half 5 a percent of quartz, and perhaps two or three percent kaolin. 6 There was no evidence of the presence of tremolite." 7 Q. .Do you know whether that was a fibrous or a 3 non-fibrous talc? 9 A. He does indicate that he had seen some lung damage 10 that looked like asbestos bodies. He says "Curious bodies 11 similar but not identical to asbestos bodies have been 12 described in most cases of talc pneumoconiosis." He says 13 referring to McLaughlin. He says they consist of a single 14 fiber with terminal rosettes but without intermediate beading. 15 They were present in this case, although in small numbers." So 16 they didn't find any tremolite in the analysis of the talc by 17 Dr. Nagelschmidt, who Dr. Nagelschmidt was a world class 18 mineralogist. 19 Q. But there were asbestiform bodies in the lung 20 samples? 21 A. But he had a few asbestos bodies in the lungs, or 22 things that looked like them anyway. 23 Q. All right. 24 A. Subsequent studies have shown that urban dwellers 25 all over the world have the same kinds of forms in their lungs. n c n AOCn/^T AfpfC 1 Q. Is that discussed in that particular article? 2 A. No. 3 Q. This is just a gratuitous statement by 4 Dr. Castleman? 5 A. No. That's a statement based on literature 6 published study in 1963, but since this was written in 1956 7 this gentleman didn't have the benefit of that knowledge. 8 Q. I mean though, when you made that statement that 9 was not based on anything that you had in front of you; right? 10 A. Right. 11 Q. Please, go on. 12 A. So we're through with this case. Then there is 13 some textbooks. We have got three more cases by Dr. Seeler and 14 his co-workers in Cambridge, Massachusetts. 15 Q. Exhibit number, please. 16 A. 57. This is published in the Archives of 17 Industrial Health in 1959. Layout men in a factory 18 manufacturing rubber-coated cable. 19 Q. What's the year? Did you say '59? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. What type of talc are we dealing with? 22 A. Pretty clean stuff. Says "Talc used throughout 23 the years by the men whose cases we are reporting was all from 24 a single mine in Vermont, and presumably was a fairly uniform 25 composition. It varied in grain size from one to 150 microns, C.S.R. ASSOCIATES ------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- 301 1 90 percent of the particles less than ten microns. Analysis of 2 the talc below 10 microns in size was reported as eight percent 3 talc, 68 percent dolomite, three percent magnetite, 16 percent 4 serpentine, and five percent other minerals. The free silica 5 content was reported to be less than a half a percent." There 6 isn't any reference to asbestiforra materials or fibers, there's 7 no reference to tremolite or fibers that I can see. 8 Q. What are the conclusions with regard to exposure 9 to this what you call clean stuff? 10 A. Well, clean in the sense that it didn't appear to 11 have any reference to asbestiform fibers in the part that I was 12 looking at. 13 Q. What are the conclusions? 14 A. They found needle-shaped particles in the areas of 15 fibrosis. "X-ray defraction studies in our two case indicated 16 that doubly refractile needle-like particles were talc." And 17 they make reference to the fact that a number of authors remark 18 on the presence of asbestos-like bodies in the tissues which we 19 did not observe in our material." On Page 27. So that anyway 20 you can read this at your leisure. 21 Q. May I see it please? 22 A. (Witness produces document.) 23 Q. Your understanding is that this deals with 24 non-fibrous talc, Exhibit No. 57? 25 A. As far as I can tell. But I mean, you know, I C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 202 1 haven't looked at it as thoroughly as I might like to. 2 Q. It makes reference to the fact that talc merely 3 produces inert reactions? Is that comment made in the comment 4 in that particular article? 5 A. I am sorry, where are you reading from? 6 Q. I will just come around and look at it with you, 7 if I m a y . 8 A. Sure. Seems like they describe it in other terms. 9 Oh, yes. They are making reference to an earlier short term 10 animal study conducted by Miller and Sayers in the injection of 11 talc into peritoneal tissue, which unfortunately wasn't allowed 12 to stay in the tissues long enough to produce peritoneal 13 mesotheliomas. And these were studies that were conducted in 14 the 1930s. But as to their own findings, they say that, "Talc 15 must be regarded as a material which will cause pneumoconiosis 16 if a high concentration of the dust is inhaled for many years." 17 And they go on to reiterate that in a summary saying that, 18 "Lungs in both cases showed extensive fibrosis which did not 19 however show a specific pattern that might be of diagnostic 20 value." Apparently referring to the chest X-ray. 21 Q. Any other case studies? 22 A. I think the rest of this stuff is from the New 23 York State people. 24 Q. And those are studies that we have already 25 discussed? n o o Ar?A/*Tnmfff ZQ2- 1 A. Kleinfeld and co-workers, yes. 2 Q. All right. 3 A. Of course, we haven'tdiscussed everything here. 4 Q. We will cover that. 5 To summarize, you have at least in English two studies 6 which deal with non-fibrous talc, one in 1947 and one in 1959; 7 right? 8 A. I can certainly recall two which were explicit on 9 that point. And there were others which we simply do not know. 10 Q. Mow, the study in 1947 which is Exhibit 29, 11 indicated that the subject had minor symptoms; correct? Look 12 at Exhibit 29, please. 13 A. I don't haveit here. 14 Q. Exhibit 29 is not there? 15 A. Here it is. 16 Q. Did you find it? 17 A. Yes, I have it here. 18 Q. The very tail end of the -- 19 A. That is right. This individual, this individual 20 is mainly referred for evaluation because of the abnormal chest 21 X-ray picture, but the individual did not have, certainly 22 didn't have seriously overt symptoms of disease. 23 Q. So prior to 1959 we have no case studies of any 24 non-fibrous talc which appears to be causing problems in the 25 subject. Is that true? C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 3J14 1 HR. HAYS: Have we been distinguishing in 2 the early studies between fibrous and non-fibrous? 3 Q. (By Mr. Hinkle) The only studies that we can find 4 that make the distinction are the ones that I am talking about. 5 A. The problem is, of course, the doctors in many of 6 these cases simply didn't provide the information that we would 1 at this particular time like to look back and find. So, you 8 know, in a lot of cases incomplete information exists as to 9 whether or not it was fibrous or non-fibrous. And my 10 admonition that the worse case situation has to be taken into 11 account would apply. That is that someone reading it would 12 have to assume that unless it's very clear, that the case 13 reported does not result from a product similar to the one that 14 you are selling, you have to assume that maybe it has some 15 import for your product. 16 MR. PIERCE: Move to strike as unresponsive. 17 Q. (By Mr. Hinkle) If you would, please, show me any 18 article that you have in front of you that says that inhalation 19 of non-fibrous talc may be disabling in any way. 20 A. Again, they don't really put it in those terms in 21 most of these articles. They say inhalation of talc may be 22 disabling. In some cases they say inhalation of talc 23 containing fibers or tremolite may be disabling, or quartz. 24 Q. Is there any medical literature that you are aware 25 of, Dr. Castleman, that would say to a manufacturer of r .s _R _ iRsnrTa t e s 35 1 non-fibrous talc it has been proven to the scientific community 2 that your product can cause disability in people who breathe 3 it? 4 A. I don't think there is anything that absolute in 5 the early literature. 6 Q. Well, in anywhere that you know of? 7 HR. HAYS: He's been confining his testimony 8 to early literature, and has not researched the later 9 literature. He stated that on the record. 10 Q. (By Hr. Hinkle) That is fine. Whatever you have 11 looked at anywhere, any time that would say to a manufacturer 12 or distributor of non-fibrous talc, your product may cause 13 disability. Do you see that anywhere? 14 A. If not earlier, certainly the report of Seeler and 15 his co-workers say that to me. 16 Q. What's the year on that? 17 A. This is the 1959 report where -- because others 18 had pointed out that fibers or fibrous talc might be worse than 19 non-fibrous talc, this researcher looked into that question 20 with respect to his own case, whereas had he seen the case 20 21 years earlier, he probably wouldn't have done so. 22 Q. You are talking now about Exhibit 57? 23 A. Right. 24 Q. Does Exhibit 57 indicate that the subject is 25 disabled? C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 3H 1 A. We're talking about pathological findings. 2 Q. Is there any statement in there that the subject 3 is disabled? 4 A. I think these subjects were dead. But let me make 5 sure. 6 Q. All right. Is there anything in there that 7 indicates that the subject ever suffered from any disability by 8 reason of inhalation of talc? 9 A. Maximum breathing capacity in one case is given as 10 66 percent of a predicted value. 11 Q. Does it say whether the subject was a cigarette 12 smoker, Dr. Castleman? 13 A. No, I didn't see any reference to that. 14 Q. Does it say whether he was exposed to any other 15 chemicals or any other substances that might compromise the 16 lungs? 17 A. It doesn't indicate that he had -- Oh, hold it. 18 He worked as a coal miner in West Virginia for about four 19 years. 20 Q. That mightaccount for lungimpairment, might it 21 not, Dr. Castleman? 22 A. It might. 23 Q. All right. 24 A. I am not sure itwould account for the type of 25 lung impairment that they found. n o nepA/Tnmnn ZQ7- 1 Q, What kind of lung impairment did they find? 2 A. Well, after they get through the fine print, it 3 says "Summarizing both the gross and histological findings in 4 this case, the pattern is one of a chronic, crippling 5 progressive disease of the lungs by scar tissue, injury and 6 distruction of blood vessels, dilatation of bronchi and alveoli 7 and slighter degrees of fibrosis and atelectasis throughout the 8 rest of the lung. The presence of large quantities of doubly 9 refractile material, except in the centers of oldest and 10 largest of scars, which appear to be the etiologic agents 11 responsible. Our diagnosis of the lymph nodes was one of 12 talcosis, anthracosis and benign reactive hyperplasia. 13 Q. What's anthracosis? 14 A. What you get from mining coal. 15 Q. That is what you get from mining coal. All right. 16 Go ahead. 17 A. Hard coal. Case two. And again, there is a lot 18 of medical information of very detailed nature. "In summary, 19 the pattern of the lung in the second patient was much like the 20 first, characterized by a progressive replacement of normal 21 lung parenchyma by scar tissue. There was narrowing and 22 ocollusion of the bronchi and bronchioles, and an obliteration 23 of large portions of both vascular and lymph channels." 24 Q. Does it say whether or not that particularpatient 25 was a smoker, for example? C.S.R. ASSOCIATES ana 1 A. He had a chronic cough since 1910 when he had 2 pneumonia and emphysema. Doesn't sound like a smoker, but it 3 doesn't say. 4 Q. Excuse rne, Dr. Castleman -- 5 A. Doesn't say anything about whether he smoked. 6 Q. Pneumonia and emphysema doesn't sound to you like 7 conditions associated with smoking? 8 A. Well, he had pneumonia and emphysema, he had a 9 mild chronic cough since 1910 when he had pneumonia and 10 emphysema, which I think would have been when the man was quite 11 young. 12 Q. That doesn't sound like something associated with 13 smoking to you? 14 A. Well, the context is he had had a mild chronic 15 cough since 1910 when he had pneumonia and emphysema until 16 about 1954. 17 Q. I am trying to follow up on a comment that you 18 made gratuitously as you read that, that it doesn't sound like 19 a smoker to you. 20 A. I'll take that back. The more I look at this the 21 more I feel like that was not justified. I am not saying he 22 was or wasn't. I will take a neutral position on the subject 23 since the case report doesn't say anyway. 24 Q. Thank you, Dr. Castleman. 25 A. You wanted to know if he was a smoker. I don't n co 1 see anything about that. Was there anything else you wanted to 2 know? 3 Q. Do you know whether he was exposed to any other 4 agents that might have compromised his lungs? 5 A. Doesn't indicate that he was. 6 HR. HAYS: Can't we just let the article 7 speak for itself about agents? 8 THE WITNESS: Says, "He was engaged in various 9 unskilled occupations not involving unusual dusty 10 exposure for several years, and for 34 years in the 11 rubber plant." And then it goes on to make more 12 comments about -- 13 Q. (By Mr. Hinkle) By the way, do you know what all 14 chemicals are involved in the manufacturing of rubber tires? 15 A. No, I don't. 16 Q. Do you know all of the dusty agents to which 17 workers are exposed in the manufacturer of rubber tires? 18 A. No, I don't. 19 Q. Go ahead. 20 A. Describing a condition they say, "The pulmonary 21 pathology in the two patients that we studied and those 22 previously reported is characterized by what is presumably a 23 progressive replacement of normal lung tissue by fibrous tissue 24 without any specific pattern that could be regarded as 25 diagnostic for talc pneumoconiosis." llfl 1 Q. And to go back to the point that we were making 2 earlier, prior to 1959, there is no case history reporting any 3 disability associated with the inhalation of non-fibrous talc 4 that you have found and reviewed. Is that true? 5 A. I haven't found any article that is explicit on 6 that point until this one in terms of saying, you know, as I 7 have tried to indicate, relatively few of the articles give us 8 the kind of information we would like to have as far as whether 9 it's fibrous, whether it has tremolite. These doctors are not 10 mineralogists, not very many have had the benefit of Dr. 11 Nagelschmidt to help them examine the material that caused the 12 disease. 13 Q. All I want to know, Dr. Castleman is, there is one 14 case history that you find prior to 1959 that deals with 15 non-fibrous talc; right? 16 A. That explicitly deals with non-fibrous talc. 17 Q. That deals with talc to the degree that we know 18 whether or not it's fibrous or non-fibrous? 19 A. And which caused very serious disease, yes. 20 Q. Well, the one that we know before 1959 says that 21 the symptoms are minor; right? 22 A. Right, says that it did cause an abnormal chest 23 X-ray, but up until the time of the report no really serious 24 symptoms. 25 Q. All right. Do you know whether or not there are r c n accrtrt j t p c ------------------------------------------------------------------ aii 1 articles concerning the health hazards associated with the 2 breathing of flour, for example? 3 A. I have heard of baker's asthma. J 4 Q. You have heard of that then? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Do you know whether or not there are reported 7 articles concerning the health hazards associated with the 8 breathing of sugar? 9 A. I can'trecall. Sugar cane, yes, I've heard 10 something about sugar, maybe it's not the sugar, but some of 11 the other waste material that is associated with the processing 12 of the sugar plants. 13 Q. Have you heard that there are health hazards 14 associated with the breathing of the dust in a cotton gin for 15 example? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. You have heard that there are health hazards 18 associated with breathing the dust in a wheat bin, for example? 19 A. Farmer's lung, yes. 20 Q. Heard about that? 21 A. Well, I don't know about wheat, but I have heard 22 of farmer's lung. 23 Q. Well -- 24 A. Generally things that are stored in silos can be 25 composed and cause high presence of nitrous oxides and stuff, ASSnrTATP; 312 1 if the farmer walks in and doesn't realize it he can really get 2 clobbered. 3 Q. Are you generally familiar with the fact that any 4 kind of dust can be concentrated to the degree that if you 5 breathe it it will hurt you? 6 A. I think that that's been a general assumption in 7 the field of industrial health, that some dusts are more 8 pernicious than others, but almost any dust can cause ill 9 effects if exposures to it are sufficiently gross. 10 Q. Do you know of any substance, any material that 11 you would say is less pernicious that can be employed in the 12 rubber industry to do the same job as talc? 13 A. I am not here as a technological expert on the use 14 of talc and similar agents in the rubber industry. I think you 15 need to consult with, you know, rubber processing engineers to 16 get answers to questions like that. I don't even know what the 17 alternatives to talc that would be available are. 18 Q. I take it then that the answer to my question is 19 no, you don't know of anything? 20 A. I am just not the right guy to ask. I don't know 21 what the alternatives to talc are in that kind of a process, 22 much less how safe or unsafe they are. Are you telling me that 23 the things you have just listed are the alternatives that could 24 be listed instead of talc? 25 Q. Doctor, it's a wise man who knows what he doesn't r e n _ aecnrtater ---------------------------------------------------- -- ------------ 343- 1 know. And if you don't know whether there is anything that can 2 be used as a substitute for talc, you can say that. 3 A. I have. 4 Q. Thank you. 5 A. I don't know what is available as a substitute in 6 talc and rubber processing. I am not here as a rubber 7 processing technology authority. 8 Q. Thank you, Dr. Castleman. Now, have you disclosed 9 to us all of the opinions that you have with regard to talc? 10 A. I think so. 11 Q. All right. 12 A. Or at least, I mean, it's always possible somebody 13 would ask me a question that would elicit an opinion that I 14 haven't given you, but I have in good faith tried to tell you 15 what I think would be asked of me in connection with these 16 cases. 17 Q. Now, I understand that you are going to be asked 18 some questions concerning asbestos. And with the exception of 19 questions concerning asbestos, have you complied with the 20 request made upon you by plaintiff's counsel with regard to 21 expressing opinions in this case? 22 HR. HAYS: There are a couple of documents on 23 clay that are involved in this. 24 Q. (By Mr. Hinkle) Well, let me ask, Doctor, are you 25 holding yourself out today as an expert in the development of C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 medical and scientific knowledge concerning the possible 2 hazards of exposure to clay? 3 A. I have seen reference to hazards of clay and clay 4 products in the literature, but I do not consider myself an 5 expert on that. 6 Q. All right. Then having made that statement, do 7 you agree that with the exception of the questions that you are 8 about to be asked about asbestos that you have stated the 9 opinions that you intend to offer in the trial of these cases 10 in Oklahoma? 11 A. I believe I have. 12 MR. HAYS: We will ask him some questions on clay 13 probably at trial. 14 MR. HINKLE: Well, I will tell you, if he is not 15 an expert and he's not prepared to testify to it today, 16 then we're going to strenuously object to it. These 17 cases have been on file now for two years, and the 18 plaintiffs have had every opportunity in the world to 19 locate experts and cultivate those experts and prepare 20 those experts, and we have come a thousand miles to take 21 this man's deposition, and if plaintiff's intend to 22 try to create an expert in a field where he's not an 23 expert at some later date, we are going to strenuously 24 object to it. 25 MR. HAYS: Well, he does have information about O.S.R. ASSOCIATES J1 S 1 talc literature. 2 MR. HINKLE: Well, I have got information about 3 the Shah of Iran too, but that doesn't make me an 4 expert. 5 MR. HAYS: That is what he's here for, to tell 6 you when the literature was there and what was there. 7 MR. HINKLE: I am not going to inquire into all 8 the areas where he's not an expert. If he is not an 9 expert as he says, there is no need for us to waste all 10 this time. 11 MR. HAYS: His definition of v/hat an expert is 12 and mine are two different things, and I think he is 13 an expert in clay. 14 MR. CROSBY: We will stipulate to that. 15 MR. HINKLE: I think that the court will be 16 in a pretty good position to decide. 17 MR. HAYS: Well, I intend to ask him some 18 questions on clay on my cross about the articles you 19 requested that were brought here, may be not you, but 20 one of the counsel requested that. They are here, and 21 I am going to inquire about them. 22 MR. CROSBY: Before you go into something else, 23 let me adopt your statement about opinions of this 24 witness in all matters, but particularly that relating 25 to matters that he is not prepared to opine on at this C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 31& 1 time. 2 MR. HOOD: We join in that. 3 Q. (By Mr. Hinkle) Before I yield the witness, let 4 me ask the witness whether you agree with this statement as of 5 1976. "Possible adverse health effects from intermittent use 6 of these product-- " talking about talc products, especially 7 those that contain asbestiform and fragmented anthophyllite and 8 tremolite, chrysotile, quartz and trace metals are presently 9 unknown and warrant evaluation." Do you agree with that? 10 MR. HAYS: Show him what you're referring to. 11 MR. HINKLE: I just want know if he agrees or 12 disagrees with that statement. 13 MR. HAYS: Show him the article and let him take a 14 look at it. 15 MR. HINKLE: All I want to know is whether he 16 agrees with that statement. 17 THE WITNESS: The statement sounds like the 18 ultimate product of timidity and bureaucracy, and 19 could very well have come from some government report. 20 MR. HAYS: I want him to look at the article. I 21 request that he be allowed to look at the article and 22 review it, and not be required to agree to something 23 taken out of context, read in the record to be pulled 24 out for a motion for summary judgment. 25 MR. HINKLE: I am not going to ask him to comment C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 312 1 on the article. I just want to know his thoughts with 2 regard to that statement. And if he is taking the 3 position that that is a timid and bureaucratic 4 statement and he doesn't agree with it, that is all 5 right with me. Q. (By Hr. Hinkle) Is that your position? 7 A Is that supposed to be something that was said in 8 1976? 9 Q. Yes, sir, 1976. 10 A* It just sounds like whoever wrote that was writing 11 with what would have to be described as an abundance of caution 12 in attributing health hazards to talc, given the body of 13 knowledge that existed, by 1976 which was really substantial. 14 Q. So you disagree with that statement then? 15 A. I've answered your question. 16 Q. I am not sure that I heard that. You said that he 17 was acting with an abundance of caution which may mean he's 18 right or wrong, or you are not willing to take a position. Do 19 you agree? Disagree? Or just not going to take a position? 20 A. I have answered your question. 21 Q. Dr. Castleman, I don't think you have. I am going 22 to read the question to you again. 23 MR. HAYS: I want to request he be allowed to 24 look at the article. 25 MR. HINKLE: He doesn't need to look at the C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 article. 2 MR. HAYS: Yes, he does. 3 MR. HINKLE: No, he doesn't, not to answer 4 that question. Listen to this question, Dr. Castleman, 5 and tell me whether you can agree with this or disagree 6 with it, or whether you refuse to take a position on 7 this. _ 8 MR. HAYS: Why are you hiding the article from 9 him. 10 MR. HINKLE: I've got my reasons. 11 MR. HAYS: Let's hear the name of it. What's the 12 article? 13 MR. HINKLE: You don't need to know. All I want 14 to know is whether he agrees with that statement. 15 MR. HAYS: Who is it from? What's the big secret? 16 Q. (By Mr. Hinkle) I am going to read this to you, 17 and you tell me what your response is. "Possible adverse 18 health effects from intermittent use of these products -- " 19 referring to talcum powders, "Possible adverse health effects 20 from intermittent use of these products, especially those that 21 contain asbestiform and fragmented anthophyllite, and 22 tremolite, chrysotile, quartz and trace metals are presently 23 unknown and warrant evaluation. 24 A. Absent any context, I don't know that I could 25 agree or disagree or otherwise comment on it, because the word C.S.R. ASSOCIATES ------------------------------------------------------ ----- 3^9- 1 intermittent there is -- well, it's, you know, it just leaves 2 the whole thing hanging. And I don't know with what it's 3 hanging from. If I can't see the context, I've got no idea 4 what those authors or that author possibly means by 5 intermittent. Does he mean an hour? A month? Or do they mean 6 three hours a day? 7 Q. So I take it you're just not able to say I agree 8 or disagree; correct? 9 A. I am not able to answer a question posed in the 10 manner that you have posed it to me, no. 11 Q. I don't know that I would -- let me conclude with 12 this, Dr. Castleman. With regard to the state of the medical 13 knowledge concerning the dangers of talc and exposure to talc, 14 would you agree that practicing physicians would be as able as 15 you to make statements in that regard? If you could find it, 16 they could find it; right? 17 A. About the history of the knowledge? 18 Q. Yes. 19 A. Or about what isknown today? 20 Q. Yes. 21 A. Certainly practicingphysicians are capable of 22 reading the same information or finding the same information or 23 using medical libraries, looking stuff up in medical textbooks. 24 Q. As a matter of fact, you yourself did not assemble 25 the materials we have been discussing. Those were assembled C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 32 1 for you; correct? 2 A. Well, I have really directed the assembling of all 3 this material. 4 Q. You sent someone to the medical library and told 5 them what to get for you? 6 A. I told them to get specific references, and I told 7 them exactly how to use those references in a very 8 straightforward manner, looking into bibliographies of those 9 articles and getting other references. And then I have gone 10 and additionally looked at additional material that that person 11 didn't bring back. I mean the whole thing has really been 12 directed by me. It's not as if somebody served this stack of 13 articles up to me on a silver platter. I am sure you realize 14 that. 15 Q. The sources that you went to to get this 16 information, they are readily available to any physician who 17 cares to look. Would you agree? 18 A. Any physician, businessman, sure. 19 Q. Lawyer? 20 A. Medical libraries are open. I can't imagine a 21 medical library turning anyone away who has a legitimate reason 22 for going to them. 23 Q A lawyer or a high school student, if they know 24 where to look, can go get this information? 25 A. I don't know -- a high school student might need a C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 22i 1 little bit of help. But yes, the information has been publicly 2 available. Most of these articles are in the English language 3 and come from journals and textbooks that are available in 4 major cities across this country. 5 Q. You wouldn't quarrel with a physician, in fact a 6 physician who has published in this area, that is the effects 7 of talc in the chest, you wouldn't quarrel with a physician who 8 said that there was no consensus in the medical community until 9 at least 1984 with regard to the effects of talc in the chest, 10 would you? 11 A. Well, I guess it really depends exactly how he 12 says that. 13 Q. Let me phrase it to you as close to his words or 14 as close to his response to the question as I can. The 15 question was put to him: "Was there a consensus in the medical 16 community prior to 1984 concerning the effects of talc in the 17 chest?" And his answer was: "No." 18 MR. HAYS: I am sorry. Would you restate that 19 for me again? * 20 Q. (By Mr. Hinkle) Sure. The question was -- 21 MR. HAYS: To who? 22 Q. (By Mr. Hinkle) To a physician who has written on 23 the subject, your witness, a witness for the plaintiff. 24 MR. HAYS: Which witness? 25 MR. HINKLE: Dr. Feigin. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 222. 1 MR. HAYS: Said what? 2 Q. (By Mr. Hinkle) The question was put to him: 3 "Prior to 1984 was there a consensus in the medical community 4 concerning the effects of talc in the chest?" 5 MR. HAYS: lie couldn't speak to the medical 6 community. He limited it to radiologists, and he said 7 1950. _I am going to challenge -- in the early 1950s. a I'm going to challenge your statement on that. 9 MR. HINKLE: If I am wrong, I'm wrong. 10 MR. HAYS: Well, you are wrong. 11 MR. HINKLE: I may be. 12 Q. (By Mr. Hinkle) Assume for purposes of this 13 question that I'm correct. 14 A. I'll assume there is some doctor who has published 15 some article on talc who has said whatever you are going to 16 say. Go ahead. 17 Q. Are you going to quarrel with that doctor's 18 conclusions, if that's what he says? 19 A. Well, again, I would want to know the context. Is 20 he talking about talc as a mineralogically pure substance which 21 may or may not have ever been used in a factory in the United 22 States? Or is he talking about the kind of materials that have 23 been used in industry and have been the subject of many medical 24 and scientific reports? First of all, the reason I have to ask 25 you this is because the question itself doesn't include that C.S.R. ASSOCIATES Z2Z 1 information. 2 Q. Let's me put it to you this way then, what talc 3 products would we be discussing in order for you to agree with 4 that statement? 5 A. Talc products generally used in industry which 6 have been the subject of the medical literature on talc, I 7 would think. 3 Q. Meaning that there was no consensus in the medical 9 community prior to 1984? 10 A. On what? 11 Q. Concerning the health hazards, the effects of talc 12 on the chest? 13 A. I think that, you know, there was something at 14 least approaching a consensus of the people writing on this by 15 the 1950s that talc exposed workers sustained lung damage, and 16 some of them sustained a little bit, and some of them get 17 killed. And the dispute since that time has been, well, how is 18 it that some of these people get really hurt much worse than 19 others, even though they seem to be exposed to comparable 20 concentrations of dusts which are generally referred to as 21 talc. 22 Q. So I take it that you would not then agree with 23 that statement? 24 A. The statement, by the time we get through defining 25 terms, maybe I could agree with it. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 3.2A 1 Q. Well, then I gave you the opportunity to tell me 2 any talc product about which that that would be true. 3 A. The only talc product about which such a statement 4 might be approaching true would be something that would be like 5 a mineralogically pure talc of a type which had not been the 6 subject of medical reports previously where this material is 7 looked at for its own effects independent of other types of 8 minerals with which talc is usually found. 9 Q. And then any other type of talc, you would not 10 agree that that statement would be true for any other type of 11 talc? 12 MR. HAYS: I am not going to let him be sucked 13 into answering a question that is set up like that. 14 First of all, he had stated that he did not do an 15 exhaustive research of later articles on talc. He 16 did early articles in order to establish the 17 availability of literature at an early point in time 18 beginning back in the '30s, I believe. 19 MR. HINKLE: Are you instructing -- 20 MR. HAYS: I am clarifying what's happened here. 21 You are saying some doctor has made a statement, and 22 he's my witness, that nobody knew about pure talc and 23 its causing any problems until 1984. And I am telling 24 you that is not so, and he's not testified about that. 25 MR. HINKLE: Are you done? C.S.R. ASSOCIATES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 325. 1 MR. HAYS: Maybe, maybe not. Let's see what you 2 continue with. I don't think that is fair. 3 MR. HINKLE: Well, Jim, I really don't care 4 whether you think it's fair or not, because I do think 5 it's fair. 6 MR. HAYS: You have got to make a fair 7 representation of what a witness said. And I don't 8 think that's accurate. 9 MR. HINKLE: Well, then you and I can discuss 10 this in more detail when we get the transcript back. 11 But let me make sure that the Doctor understands my 12 question. 13 Q. (By Mr. Hinkle) That the statement made that 14 prior to 1984 there was no consensus in the medical community 15 concerning the effects of the talc in the chest. That 16 statement might be true about some theoretically absolutely 17 pure talc, which has never been dealt with in the literature 18 before; right? Is that what you said? 19 A. In terms of human case report data. 20 Q. Okay. 21 A. I think that that might conceivably betrue, 22 because the types of talc that have been the subject of all 23 these reports were, mineralogically speaking, different types 24 of mixtures. 25 Q. Now, with reference to that statement again, that C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 11&. 1 is that prior to 1984# there was no consensus in the medical 2 community concerning the effects of talc in the chest, that 3 statement would not be true as to any other type of talc that 4 you know of; right? . 5 A. I really do find it hard to follow some of these 6 questions you are asking me, I realize you have got something 7 in mind, but I can't for the life of me even follow what it is 8 you are asking me. 9 Q. Try to just listen to the question. 10 A. I am trying. 11 Q. And frame your response to the question. Here is 12 the statement. Prior to 1984 there was no consensus in the 13 medical community concerning the effects of talc in the chest. 14 That's the statement. 15 MR. HAYS: That is your hypothetical statement? 16 MR. HINKLE: That is my hypothetical statement. 17 MR. HAYS: And you are saying it is a fact, but 18 you're saying it is a hypothetical, and you're asking 19 him to respond to a hypothetical? 20 MR. HINKLE: This is something that I have 21 been told. 22 Q. (By Mr. Hinkle) I understand that you would agree 23 to that statement with referrence to some theoretical talc that 24 has never been dealt with in the literature before that is 25 absolutely pure and so forth and so on. Right? That might be 222 1 true about such a product if one existed; right? 2 MR. HAYS: I can't follow that line of 3 questioning. I don't know if the Doctor can or not. 4 Are you still dealing with a hypothetical? 5 Q. (3y Mr. Hinkle) Isn't that what you said, 6 Dr. Castleman? 7 A. I am looking -- 8 MR. HAYS: Only in response to a hypothetical 9 did he answer that question. I don't want that 10 boot strapped into something that is not a hypothetical, 11 and I get a feeling that it's kind of fudging over 12 the edge a little bit. I may be wrong, but there seems 13 to be a fudge factor I'm picking up on. 14 MR. HINKLE: You are too sensitive, Jim. 15 It's a straightforward question. 16 MR. HAYS: Boy, if that is straightforward, 17 you have got a new definition of straightforward. 18 Q. (By Mr. Hinkle) Did I or did I not accurately 19 paraphrase your response to that question, Dr. Castleman? 20 A. I believe that you have done a reasonable job of 21 that. 22 Q. Let's move to the next one. 23 MR. HAYS: Let him finish his answer. 24 THE WITNESS: I do not see in the scientific 25 literature any cases of individuals -- I don't know, C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 222. 1 I don't think I see, maybe there is some. 2 HR. HAYS: Are you distinguishing that from 3 pure talc that's been discussed earlier in the 4 literature which we've commented on? 5 Q. (By Mr. Hinkle) Will you now respond to this 6 question? with the exception of the theoretically pure talc 7 that has never been dealt with in medical literature, will you 8 agree or disagree with this statement: Prior to 1984 there was 9 no consensus in the medical community concerning the effects of 10 talc on the chest? 11 MR. HAYS: I am going to object to that question. 12 That is impossible to answer. A hypothetical and a 13 hypothetical. It's too complex. 14 MR. HINKLE: It's a statement. He can agree with 15 it, or not agree with it. That's all I'm asking, Jim. 16 MR. HAYS: He can say he has no opinion, or 17 doesn't understand the question or whatever he wants to. 18 I just think that is unfair. A hypothetical and a 19 hypothetical is the way I see that. You are asking if 20 somebody has said that there was a talc that we really 21 don't think exists, that might exist -- 22 Q. (By Mr. Hinkle) Let me do it this way. I am 23 making the statement, Dr. Castleman, today, that prior to 1984 24 there was no consensus in the medical community concerning the 25 effects of talc in the chest, d o you agree with me? Or do you C.S.R. ASSOCIATES ----- ------------- -- ---------------------------------------433 1 disagree with me? 2 A. I would say yes and no. I would say yes, there 3 was a dispute about how harmful talc in a mineralogically pure 4 sense how harmful it was; but no, there was not that much of a 5 dispute about the fact that talc as used in industry has caused 6 disease in a number of countries, and quite a bit of it in the 7 United States. And that that has been reported both for 8 fibrous -- has been reported for both fibrous and non-fibrous 9 talcs, and certainly before 1984. 10 Q. With regard to the way that these medical articles 11 are received by the medical community, would you defer to the 12 opinions of a board certified radiologist? 13 A. Maybe, maybe not. 14 Q. What type of board certified radiologist maybe 15 might you defer to? 16 A. Well, I mean I've been asked questions like that 17 in the context of asbestos, for example. And I honestly don't 18 believe that there is a doctor living who is more qualified to 19 talk about, or at least certainly not on the basis of board 20 certifications, no doctor on the basis of qualifications and 21 certifications would be more qualified than I am to talk about 22 how the literature on asbestos was received, because I have 23 written my doctoral thesis about that, and I've investigated 24 that for a number of years. 25 Q. I am not asking you about asbestos. There are C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 33n 1 plenty of people who are going to ask you about that. 2 A. Let me just finish. 3 MR. CROSBY: I move to strike the initial response 4 as nonresponsive, and in a continued effort to 5 volunteer information that is nonresponsive. 6 Let's move on to something that is being asked. 7 THE WITNESS: I am answering the question, and 8 I'm going to finish my answer. 9 MR. HAYS: That was responsive, and you answer the 10 question the way you feel you need to. 11 THE WITNESS: This is simply not a matter 12 that is simply measureable in terms of credentials 13 and board certifications. Board certifications don't 14 make a doctor an authority on the history of how medical 15 information was received on the hazards of talc. No 16 board certification is going to impress me at all about 17 whether a doctor was aware of that. I would be as much 18 impressed if that doctor was a participant in the arena 19 of the development of medical and scientific knowledge 20 like Dr. Kleinfeld was for years. That is the kind of 21 person who would probably be able to give us the best 22 insite on how a lot of this information was received, 23 not only by the scientific community, but by the medical 24 and industrial community. And that is not a matter of 25 board certification. That is a matter of being active C.S.R. ASSOCIATES --------- -------------------- -- -------------------------------------- 1 in the field that we're talking about. 2 Q. (By Hr. Hinkle) So if someone were active in the 3 field and had contributed to the development of the scientific 4 knowledge and had made notable contributions to the literature, 5 you might be willing to defer to that board certified 6 radiologist with regard to how these medical articles were 1 received by the medical community. Is that a fair statement? 8 A. Yes, certainly covering time that the individual 9 was involved in the research, not necessarily the time 10 preceeding it. I mean, if this is somebody who came along in 11 the 1980s, that doesn't necessarily give them tremendous 12 insites about what was going on in the 1930s and '40s. 13 Q. Would you agree with me that a board certified 14 pathologist who has made significant contributions to the 15 medical literature and to advancement of knowledge in this 16 field would be someone who would be in a better position to 17 evaluate the pathological evidence than you would be? 18 A. Again, are we talking about the history of the 19 development of knowledge about talc as a hazard? Or are we 20 talking about the pathology of an individual case? 21 Q. Both. 22 A. In the latter case, I would defer to a pathologist 23 in an area which is purely a matter of pathology. 24 In the former case, again it just depends on the nature 25 and extent of the person's involvement in being involved in the C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 332 1 field and reading about the kinds of stuff that was going on 2 over a period of history that we're interested in. 3 Q. Would you agree with me that a pathologist would 4 be in a better position to evaluate the merit and shortcomings 5 of these various studies that we have been discussing? 6 A. In the case of some of the studies, a pathologist 7 who has contributed in the field of talc pneumoconiosis 8 certainly might be able to pick up shortcomings and limitations 9 in some of these articles that I might not see. 10 Again, I am not here to testify about the truth 11 contained in the articles themselves. I am here to testify, as 12 I understand it, about the notice to manufacturers and sellers 13 of talc, that people back in the '30s and '40s and '50s and 14 '60s and '70s that thought talc was deadly stuff, or at least 15 dangerous stuff. 16 Q. You have been working since Friday to perfect your 17 expertise in the field of the development of medical and 18 scientific knowledge as to the hazards of talc? 19 A. I have been working since 1970 and '71 off and on 20 to perfect my knowledge in the field of the hazards of talc. 21 And one of the exhibits here is a 1972 letter to the Food and 22 Drug Administration to try and limit the use of talc in certain 23 kinds of products. 24 Q. These articles that you have been referring to as 25 the basis for the notice that you mentioned to the C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 223- 1 manufacturers was assembled and delivered to you some Friday 2 and some today; correct? 3 A. Some of it's been accumulating on my desk for some 4 time. Hr. Edholm has been sending me things over a period of 5 weeks, if not months. But it's true, I haven't sat down and 6 examined the material, and I am making no, you know, I am not 7 disputing that. I haven't really sat down and tried to examine 8 this as a continuous body of knowledge in the manner that we 9 have been discussing today until the last week or so. 10 Q. You are aware that there are individuals in this 11 country who have been spending years and years to follow, 12 document and contribute to the development of scientific and 13 medical knowledge as to the effects of talc, you are aware of 14 that? 15 A. Yes, sure. 16 Q. You were asked to do a survey concerning the early 17 knowledge of the dangers associated with exposure to talc? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. What does that mean in terms of years? 20 A. Well, in my mind it would mean prior to the late 21 1970s. 22 Q. All right. 23 A. Particularly prior to 1970. 24 Q. Have you seen any medical literature which 25 establishes a definite link between inhalation of fibrous C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 2ZA 1 Well, let me ask it this way first. Have you seen any 2 medical literature which in your mind establishes a definite 3 link between inhalation of non-fibrous talc andcancer? 4 A. Not cancer, I don't think. 5 Q. Okay. 6 A. Again, I really feel that I have not done an 7 exhaustive review of the literature that would deal with that. 8 I had only begun to look at that when I quit my review on 9 history of knowledge about the hazards of talc. I think the 10 information you are asking about would mainly be the subject of 11 publications over the last 12 to 13 years. 12 MR. HAYS: And again, you are dealing with a 13 definition, that as I understand it, was not available 14 at certain periods of time in the history of the 15 literature of talc. 16 MR. HINKLE: Is that a statement by you or an 17 inquiry by you? 18 MR. HAYS: We discussed it before, and you say 19 non-fibrous talc, and the import of your question is 20 there was nothing dealing with that particular product 21 in the literature pertaining to cancer prior to a 22 certain time when the distinction between fibrous 23 and non-fibrous was not made at a certain time. It was 24 not made until later in the history of medicine 25 concerning talc disease. So it's misleading from that C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 3^5- 1 standpoint. 2 MR. HINKLE: You may be surprised when you take 3 some of the experts of some of the defendants in 4 this case. 5 MR. HAYS: I won't be surprised at anything your 6 experts say. 7 Q. (By Mr. Hinkle) So do I understand then that the 8 answer to the question is that you are not aware of any medical 9 literature which links in your mind inhalation of non-fibrous 10 talc and cancer; true? 11 A. That is true. And with the caveat that I haven't 12 really looked for information that would cover the period of 13 the late '70s onward. 14 Q. Are you aware of any information, medical 15 information, which makes to your mind the link between 16 inhalation of fibrous talc and cancer? 17 A. Oh, sure. Kleinfeld studies 18 Q. The year, do you recall? 19 A. The first one was 1967. 20 Q. Anything prior to 1967? 21 A. I don't think so. 22 MR. HINKLE: I believe, Dr. Castleman, that 23 is all that I have at this time. 24 THE WITNESS: I am glad we may be finished 25 with talc today. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 MR. CROSBY: Before we get to the next talc 2 person, I've look for the Pood and Drug letter, can 3 you give me an exhibit number so I can pull that and 4 be reading it if there are other talc questions? 5 MR. HAYS: I have 4:57. 6 MR. WAGNER: I just a few questions. 7 THE WITNESS: Let's have it. 8 9 10 BY HR. WAGNER; CROSS EXAMINATION 11 Q. First of all, you have testified with regard to 12 reviewing literature with regard to certain subjects. Is there 13 medical literature pertaining to the exposure of workers in 14 rubber or tire plants with regard to the exposure to carbon 15 black? 16 A. There probably is, but I haven't looked for it. 17 Q All right. You stated earlier you are not 18 familiar with the major components or major products that go 19 into making tires? 20 A. Well, I'm not familiar with all the components in 21 the products, I think is what I said. I have certainly heard 22 of carbon black being used in tire manufacturing. 23 Q. Sure. My question, sir, is: Have you made any 24 inquiry or has anyone ever advised you with regarding to what 25 type of products workers in tire plants may be exposed to on a C.S.R. ASSOCIATES W- 1 more frequent or a greater degree than they are to talc? 2 A. I think it just depends on where in the plant the 3 worker is employed. That some workers are going to be more 4 exposed to some things, and others are going to be more exposed 5 to others. It just depends on their particular job and 6 classification and location in the factory. 7 Q. I take it that prior to -- let me ask you 8 directly, sir. Prior to the start of this deposition had you 9 ever held yourself out to be an expert with regard to talc? 10 A. No. Although I have been involved in trying to 11 get government regulations of talc exposure to the public 12 controlled since 1972. 13 Q. Would it be a fair statement to say you have been 14 involved in quite a few different products, types of things 15 with regard to trying to get the government to control it? 16 A. Right, yes I have, primarily carcinogens. 17 Q. In this regard, how many -- or can you tell me 18 about what types of products you have testified with regard to 19 as being an expert that we know that you have testified in the 20 past with regard to asbestos material, and likewise that we now 21 know that you are testifying here as an expert with regard to 22 talc, have you testified with regard to other such products? 23 A. No, not in civil proceedings. Perhaps with the 24 possible exception of dye intermediates in one case, in a case 25 involving DuPont. But it was also an asbestos case. r c o accnrT yvrntrc ------------------ --------------------------------- -------------- aaa. 1 All right. As far as you recall, you have never 2 held yourself out to be an expert except in the items we have 3 just mentioned here; is that right? 4 A. Yes^ that's correct. Well, in civil proceedings. 5 I mean, obviously I have been involved in administrative rule 6 making and federal regulations of a whole host of chemicals and 7 other products". But in terms of civil litigation the 8 limitation would be as you have expressed. There are experts 9 and experts, and it's just a question of what you mean by an 10 expert, and I just want it to be clear that we're talking about 11 experts in the context of expert witnesses in civil litigation. 12 MR. HAYS: I have got 5:01. 13 MR. WAGNER: I thought you meant I had three 14 minutes rather than three questions. 15 MR. HAYS: You did have three minutes. Have you 16 got another question? 17 MR. WAGNER: I'll pass the witness. Thank you, 18 Doctor. 19 20 (Whereupon, the deposition proceedings were concluded 21 for the day, to resume at 9:00 on July 7th.) 22 23 24 25 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 3 4 5 vs. ) No. M-1417 ) 6 ARMSTRONG WORLDINDUSTRIES, ) INC., VERMONT TALC COMPANY, ) 7 Gt al., ) Defendants.) 3 ******************************* D VOLUME II 10 OF THE DEPOSITION OF BARRY CASTLEMAN 11 on behalf of the 12 Defendants 13 on July 5th, 6th and 7th 1989 14 in Baltimore, Maryland 15 ******************************* 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 REPORTED BY: Marjorie Parker Miller, C.S.R. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 340 1 2 BY HR. G O S S ? CROSS EXAMINATION 3 Q. Dr. Cast1 eraanf you had testified yesterday when 4 you gave us a summary of your opinion that by the 1950s talc 5 manufacturers should have taken certain steps to inspect for 6 potential hazards, as I recall, was a portion of your summary. 7 What were those steps that a manufacturer of talc should have 8 taken to inspect for hazards? 9 A. Well, they could have used the means at their 10 disposal to determine whether their product was a health 11 hazard, and that would be by conducting animal studies such as 12 had been done at the Saranac Laboratory in the late 1930s and 13 the early 1940s. 14 They certainly could have done medical monitoring of 15 their longest exposed employees. They could have gotten in 16 touch with some of their customers who had been purchasing 17 their material for a long time and engaged in the discussion 18 about whether medical monitoring of workers in those plants was 19 showing any lung disease. That sort of thing. 20 Q. You had also mentioned in your earlier testimony 21 that a mineralogical analysis of talc should have been 22 performed. Is that also one of the things that should have 23 been undertaken by a manufacturer of talc? 24 A. Yes, I think so. Although one would assume they 25 that in the normal course of business for reasons having C.S.R. ASSOCIATES J 41 1 nothing to do with health effects, nut sure, they could O certainly have looked at their products in the light of 3 developing medical knowledge that was pointing to certain 4 constituants of industrial talc being more worrisome. 5 Q. So they should have analyzed their talc to 6 determine whether it contained substances such as tremolite? 7 A. Yes, substances such as those which were being 3 name in the literature as more worrisome aspects of industrial 9 talcs. 10 Q. Those substances included tremolite, and what 11 other substances were named in the literature? 12 A. Well, the literature named tremolite, the 13 literature named fibers or abestiform fibers generally, and the 14 literature referred to silica. 15 Q. Anything else? 16 A. Those are the things that stand out in my memory 17 as the things that were mentioned, to the extent that attention 18 was called to specific constituants of the talc, aside from the 19 so-called pure mineral talc itself. 20 Q. I would like for you to enlighten me about these 21 animal studies that you say should have been performed. What 22 type of animal study would you have conducted had you been a 23 talc manufacturer in the 1950s? 24 A Product manufacturers could have exposed animals 25 to inhalation of the talc, sufficient numbers of animals C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 3 42 i exposed for basically lifetime inhalation studies. 2 Q. Perhaps you didn't understand my question. I am 3 not asking what they could have done. I am asking what you 4 would have done had you been a talc manufacturer in the 1950s, 5 what type of animal study would you have performed? 6 A. That is the kind of study that I would have 7 performed. 8 Q. How many animals -- Well, first of all, what type 9 of animal would you choose? 10 A. I would have consulted with the experts at Saranac 11 Lab or some other comparable institution and asked them what 12 they thought was the most appropriate animal model. 13 Q. And how many animals would you expose the product 14 to? 15 A. I would have consulted the experts on that as 16 well, if i were a talc manufacturer. 17 Q. Do you know if any experiments on talc were ever 18 done by any laboratories such as the Saranac Lab on talc? 19 A. Yes, there were some studies done. 20 Q. When did those studies begin? 21 A. The Saranac Lab did some studies between 1937 and 22 1941 according to Dr. Scheper's report. 23 Q. But you are stating that as of the 1950s the talc 24 manufacturers should have conducted additional studies because 25 those were not conclusive? C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 A. Well, the studies that were done by Schepers were 2 for one talc, and different manufacturers were selling 3 different products called talc, so I don't think that the 4 studies that were conducted would have necessarily told you 5 everything you wanted to know about all the talcs that were 6 being sold in this country. 7 Q. What type of medical monitoring would you have 3 performed had you been a talc manufacturer in the 1950s? 9 A. Well, a standard sort of thing for industries 10 handling potentially hazardous dusts was first of all, a 11 pre-employment physical. This was done as a business matter to 12 prevent the hiring of people who already had sustained lung 13 damage from dust and who might in the course of time file 14 compensation claims. And then periodic medical monitoring 15 including chest x-ray, clinical examinations, pulmonary 16 function tests, such as were reported in the literature in 17 describing adverse effects of talc during the period of time of 18 the 1950s. 19 Q. How often would these periodic medical 20 examinations be done? 21 A. Every two years, or every two or three years. The 22 railroad medical doctors had their own protocol for doing that 23 with fibrogenic dusts which were published in the proceedings 24 of the medical section of the American Association of Railroads 25 in the early 1950s. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 Q. Do you know whether the tire plants had any such 2 protocols for periodic medical exams? 3 A. I don't know. 4 Q. Well, you are aware of the Firestone study that 5 was done in 1948 or 1949, are you not? 6 A. Yes, well, the one we discussed yesterday. 1 Q. The Hogue andMallette study? 0 A. Yes. 9 Q. So Firestone didundertake to determine the effect 10 of talc on its workers, did it not? 11 A. Evidently they did conduct one study. 12 Q. Dr. Castleman, are you familiar with the term 13 "platy talc"? 14 A. Yes, I have seen it in the literature. 15 MR. HINKLE: Excuse me. Dr. Castleman, I am 16 sorry to interrupt you. Would you be kind enough to 17 speak up so those of us at the end of the table could 18 hear you? 19 THE WITNESS: I would suggest that two or three 20 seats that are closest be occupied by those of you who 21 are having any trouble hearing me. I am not feeling 22 terribly well this morning, and it's a little hard to 23 speak up. 24 MR. HAYS: We have four chairs down here, and 25 there is another one right there. You all can move 3 47 1 Q. And you believe it is important for any scientist 2 who holds himself out as an expert witness in the area of 3 asbestos and health hazards of asbestos to keep current with 4 the scientific knowledge dealing with asbestos, do you not? 5 A. Well, I do that mainly because I am active in the 6 arena of regulation of asbestos today, and so my activities, 7 which go far beyond civil litigation on asbestos, obligate me 3 to try and keep up with the latest things that are being o discussed, different types of controversies, the latest flock 10 of red herrings being published in the scientific literature 11 and so forth that one has come to see over the years in dealing 12 with asbestos and health. 13 Q. In any type of science, no matter what type of 14 science you are dealing with, it's important if you are an 15 expert in the area to keep up with the current development of 16 the knowledge in that particular science, is it not? 17 A. Well, it is if you are going to be currently 18 active in current disputes and current controversies over the 19 current state of knowledge. The reason I haven't tried to 20 thoroughly familiarize myself with current articles on talc is 21 that my role in the area of talc is much more limited than it 22 is in the area of asbestos and health. And I have simply 23 agreed to look into the history of knowledge on talc, and so 24 it's for that limited purpose that I am still working on talc 25 today, although I had an interest in it since around 1972 or a m * mvin 348 1 so. 2 Q. Well, Dr. Castleinan, I think you anticipated my 3 next question, because I really did not ask you about talc, I 4 had really asked you about asbestos in other areas of 5 scientific development. But as far as talc, you are not 6 familiar, as I understand it, with the current state of 7 scientific literature; is that correct? 0 A. well, I have looked at some such literature, and I 9 have an idea what the current state of knowledge is on talc, 10 but I haven't done the kind of thorough and extensive reading 11 that I would do if I were engaged in controversies over, you 12 know, the current need to regulate talc as, you know, some kind 13 of a consumer product or other. Then I would need to be able 14 to discuss the fine points of medical and scientific literature 15 relating to the state of current knowledge on the hazards of 16 products. 17 Q. Do you draw a distinction between current 18 regulation and current litigation? 19 A. Yes, in the sense that I am involved in litigation 20 as a state of the art witness as something of a historical 21 witness rather that someone who's a medical witness testifying 22 about the current state of medical knowledge on the subject. 23 Q. You had made the statement on our first day of 24 testimony that you are doing the same thing with talc as you 25 did with asbestos. Essentially that statement is not entirely 349 1 correct, is it? You have not done the same thing with talc as 2 you have with asbestos in that you have not kept up to date 3 with current literature concerning talc? 4 A. Well, I don't recall the context of the statement, 5 but for the purpose of what we have been discussing the last 6 two days and what we're going to be doing today, my involvement 7 in the cases is parallel in the sense that I am presenting 3 information on what was historically available about the 9 hazards of talc in the scientific literature. And this is 10 analogous to the kind of presentation that I do on the state of 11 knowledge about asbestos I developed over the '30s, '40s, '50s 12 and '60s. The only difference, I suppose, is that I am also 13 engaged or have been engaged, continue to be engaged in 14 government regulation of asbestos in a current context separate 15 from civil litigation entirely, and this obligates me to have 16 rather fluent current knowledge about the literature on 17 asbestos. 18 Q. You had made the statement earlier that talc had 19 been indicted, and I want to ask you about that term, because 20 quite often, you know, as a lawyer I may look at terms 21 differently from the way a scientist does. And generally the 22 word indicted to a lawyer means that someone had been charged 23 with crime. Are you aware that anyone, or that talc, or that 24 any talc manufacturer had been charged with any type of crime? 25 A. Well, I wasn't using the word as a lawyer, I was r* e n 350 1 using it as a layman. But talc has been charged with causing 2 illness and disease and lung damage, and in that sense it was 3 indicted in the literature by people who were writing articles 4 saying workers exposed to talc are suffering damage to their 5 health. That is the sense in which I used the word. 6 Q. And the literature today is still changing, and 7 however you are not aware of any of the most recent changes in 8 the literature concerning talc and its possible health hazards? 9 A. i wouldn't say that. But I am not as 10 knowledgeable as I might be if i spent a lot more time reading 11 current literature about the health effects of talc, and I am 12 not totally unaware of what is in the current literature. I 13 just don't -- haven't canvassed the current literature, 14 examined it the way I have with asbestos or the way I have even 15 with historic literature on talc. 16 MR. GOSS: I don't have any further questions. 17 MR. CROSBY: Mr. Hood has a scheduling problem, 18 and I have agreed to let him go head of me, if you 19 don't have any problems with that, he will go before I 20 go. 21 MR. HAYS: Anymore talc people that want to ask 22 questions? I think we ought to finish that up first. 23 MR. CROSBY: My understanding was that was the last 24 questioning for talc. I don't know whether I was wrong 25 or not. PCD a met* 3 51 1 MR. HAYS: Any further questions on talc from 2 anyone? 3 MR. HINKLE: Not that I know of, Mr. Hays. I 4 don't think all the talc people are present. 5 MR. GOSS: Not to say that questions may not 6 arise after further questioning today. 7 MR. HAYS: All right. Since no one has anymore 8 questions about talc, let's go ahead with asbestos. 9 CROSS EXAMINATION 10 BY HR. HOOD: 11 Q. Dr. Castleman, you have been listed as a witness 12 as an environmental engineer who has been consulted, been a 13 consultant to the United States Counsel on Environmental 14 Quality, OSHA, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Are 15 you aware of that? 16 A. Well, that is all true. 17 Q. And it's anticipated that your testimony will 18 include, but will not be limited to the development of 19 scientific knowledge concerning the hazard of asbestos, talc, 20 soapstone and clay. Have you in the last two days told us all 21 opinions you have on those subjects and anticipate telling a 22 jury in these trials in Oklahoma? 23 A. I think so. Again, it depends on what sorts of 24 questions I will actually be asked in trial. 25 Q. Are there any other bases of your opinions other C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 than what you have given us here in your testimony in the last 2 two days? 3 MR. HAYS: I will be questioning Dr. Castleman 4 about clay later in the day. So other than that. 5 MR. HINKLE: In that regard, the attorney who 6 represented the clay manufacturer, based upon Dr. 7 Castleman's assertion that he was not an expert has 8 left us. 9 MR. HAYS: Well, he was here, and he heard me 10 state on the record that I would be questioning about 11 clay. If he wanted to leave, that's his option. 12 MR. HINKLE: Well, I just want it clear that he 13 was relying on the Doctor's statement that he was no 14 expert, and not on your statement. 15 MR. HAYS: I saw you all conversing about it 16 earlier during the deposition, I figured something like 17 that would happen, it doesn't surprise me a bit. But I 18 told him I was going to question on clay, and I gave him 19 the articles yesterday, the exhibits and had him look at 20 them, so he knows I am going to ask about it. 21 Q. (By Mr. Hood) So then, Doctor, the answer to my 22 question is what? 23 A. I don't remember your question. 24 Q. Have you given us the bases of your opinions on 25 those subjects? C .S.R- ASSOCIATES 353 1 0 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. I think so. Again, a matter of clay being in the literature, including some of the literature that is already marked as exhibits, is something that we can certainly talk about a little bit more. Q. But other than the clay subject, we have heard then, the bases of your opinions and your opinions as they apply to these cases? A. Well, I don't know that we have said much about asbestos, but you know very well what my opinions are in connection with historical development of knowledge about asbestos. Q. All right, sir. Mr. Crosby had asked you about your contact with Mr. Hays. Is he the only attorney in the tire worker industry with whom you have had contact who has brought tire worker cases? A. I have been in contact with the Casey, Gerry firm, but I don't think about tire worker cases. Q Any other lawyers? A. i have met Gordon Stemple, but Idon't know that I have ever had any formal involvement with him in this litigation. Q. So you have not given any other attorney permission to list you as a witness in any tire litigation? A. Stemple, you mean? Q. Anyone, any lawyer,other than Mr. Hays? C.S.R. ASSOPT AVRR 1 A. That Is the only one I can think of, although 2 there may be -- 3 IIR. HAYS: Are you talking about ray firm in its 4 entirety? i think he's spoken with John Norman. 5 MR. HOOD: Sure. Thank you. 6 THE WITNESS: There may be firms with which 7 I've dealt in asbestos generally who also have some 3 tire worker cases, and they have listed me in them and 9 they haven't bothered to tell me, that wouldn't surprise 10 me. 11 Q. (By Mr. Hood) Now, we were trying to find out 12 when you were first contacted. Can you look back at a bill to 13 determine, based on hours spent, when you were first contacted 14 by Mr. Hays? 15 A. I don't know. 16 Q. There is no way you can tell us the answer to that 17 question? 18 A. No, because, you know, billing doesn't start until 19 the work starts. 20 Q. And the work started a day before the deposition 21 which you have given in this case? 22 A. No, the gathering of the materials started some 23 months before. 24 Q. Your actual review of those materials started the 25 day before? C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 3 55 1 A. Didn't start then, but finished, largely AJ* concluded. 3 Q. Do you keep a record of time spent on the 4 telephone, time spent talking to consultants and so forth, so 5 you can charge Hr. Hays for that? 6 A. No. I just estimate that kind of time if I think 7 it comes to anything significant. 3 Q. And you charge him for Mr. Holm's time based on 9 what Mr. Holm's charges you? 10 MR. HAYS: Mister Who? 11 MR. HOOD: Ed Holm. 12 MR. HAYS: That is his last name. 13 Q. (By Mr. Hood) Whatever his name is? The 14 researcher in Washington. 15 A. Right. I either pay Mr. Edholm myself and bill 16 it, or I get Mr. Edholm to deal directly with Mr. Hays. 17 Q. You have not asked him nor have you yourself 18 conducted any research on the health hazards to tire workers 19 specifically from asbestos? 20 A. You mean Edholm. Edholm has simply been going to 21 the library. 22 Q. Getting what you've asked him to get? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Has he or have you conducted any specific research 25 concerning health hazards to tire workers from asbestos C.S.R. ASSOCIATES O DO 1 exposure? 2 A. no. 3 Q. Have you in fact found anything in the world 4 literature which suggests a health hazard to tire workers from 5 asbestos exposure? 6 A. The literature on asbestos indicates that people 7 can get exposed to asbestos and get asbestos diseases whether 8 they work in tire plants or elsewhere. But I don't recall 9 specific literature focused on asbestos hazards in tire plants. 10 It's well known in the industry generally when there is a lot 11 of insulation material available and used, there are going to 12 be exposures to asbestos, or least there have been in past 13 years. 14 Q. Have you reviewed the Harvard studies of tire 15 workers? 16 A. I have seen some such studies. I remember -- 17 these are studies that were done in the mid '70s, mid '70s and 18 maybe even into the late '70s, Peters and others. 19 Q. I am asking you if you have heard of them, if you 20 have, if you have read them? 21 A. I recall that the rubber workers were interested 22 in having some studies done, and they engaged some people at 23 Harvard sometime in the mid '70s, I guess it was. 24 Q. Who were those people engaged? What were the 25 names of the doctors or researchers that conducted those C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 studies? 2 A. I think that Peters was one, Wakeraan may have been 3 involved. This is just from memory. 4 Q. Have you ever read any of their works? 5 A. I have looked at these things, and I've seen some 6 publications along these lines, but I can't really remember 7 much about them. 8 Q. And you have not produced any here today on your 9 deposition? 10 A. No. I think that their focus was not so much on 11 asbestos for one thing, but on, as I recall, more on the 12 different types of chemical exposures that took place in these 13 plants. 14 Q. Have you reviewed the works of tire workers and 15 health hazards done at Chapel Hill? 16 A. I can't offhand think of such studies. Can you 17 give me the name of an author? 18 Q. You have not produced any. If you have not, does 19 that mean you have not reviewed them? 20 A. No. I mean, I have been reading medical and 21 scientific literature on this kind of thing for a long time. 22 Q. Are you aware of specific studies done by the 33 ChaDel Hill qroup of scientists and doctors with regard to the )A health hazards of tire workers, yes or no? 25 A. I might have heard about it if you give me the C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 names of the individuals who did the research. I don't always 2 notice the university affiliation the research was published 3 by. 4 Q. And if you have read it, and since you have not 5 produced it, you didn't find such works, if they exist, of 6 significance concerning your opinions in these cases? 7 A. I haven't seen that stuff in years. 3 Q. So who did them and what they concluded, you have 9 no knowledge? 10 A. Right. As I sit here today, I am not aware of the 11 details of such reports or names of the authors, I don't think. 12 Unless of course if you tell me the names of the authors and 13 the studies that you are talking about, that might help me 14 remember. 15 Q. And who the lead authors of works out of Chapel 16 Hill were, you do not know without me telling you the names of 17 the articles or the authors; is that correct? 18 A. Well, that is mainly because I don't always keep 19 track of the university affiliation of researchers, although 20 the researcher's name may be very familiar to me. 21 A. You have no future plans for conducting research 22 concerning the health hazards of either asbestos or talc to 23 rubber workers that will apply to your testimony in the 24 Oklahoma cases? 25 A. I have no further plans of that kind. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 Q. You do not plan to conduct a site inspection, nor 2 to review any records from the Oklahoma plant where these 3 plaintiffs worked? 4 A. I have no such plans at this time. 5 Q. Nor to inspect any other tire making facility? 6 A. Again, I might availmyself of theopportunity, if 7 I could, but I haven't made any plans to do so. 8 Q. You do not have any plans to inspect any talc 9 mines or talc manufacturing facilities? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Youare not going to be a witness on causation in 12 these cases, I believe you told Mr. Crosby that? 13 A. That's correct. 14 Q. And you have produced a list of articles, at least 15 the list that you gave to attorney Sutter, we have got that now 16 as one of the exhibits. 17 A. well, John Sutter's list of articles would 18 certainly be a -- 19 Q. Has that been marked as an exhibit, is my 20 question. Do we have that list? 21 MR. CROSBY: I believe it's No. 80. 22 MR. HOOD: Okay. Great. 23 Q. (By Mr. Hood) Were did those cases or where did 24 those articles coitie from that are on that list? 25 A. I think that the list was originally prepared by C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 me, and then added to by me, and perhaps by Mr. Sutter as well, 2 over a period of time. 3 Q. Your work as a consultant to the Environmental -- 4 United States Counsel on Environmental Quality has been as an 5 environmentalist with an environmental group that you have 6 volunteered to do work for? 7 A. I was hired by the White House counsel on 8 environmental quality to examine documents involved in the 9 reserve mining company water pollution case and Lake Superior 10 in 1973. 11 Q. Okay. And other on than one occasion, have you 12 ever done any other work for them? 13 A. Not paid consulting, no. 14 Q. All right. As to OSHA, what has been your 15 involvement with that? 16 A. As a consultant the Occupational Safety and Health 17 Administration employed me to look into the possibility that 18 OSHA regulations on hazardous substances may have caused 19 displacement of hazardous industries to developing countries. 20 Q. When was that done? 21 A. Ten years ago. 22 Q. When was that work concluded? 23 A. At that time. 24 Q. And as to the EPA what has your involvement been? 25 A. Well, OSHA and with the EPA I have been involved C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 extensively in different types of rule making as a participant 2 in the rule making, as a person who submitted information in 3 connection with the development of government regulations. 4 This is above and beyond my role as consultant to any of these 5 agencies. 6 Q. This is something you have done on your own as a 7 volunteer? 8 A. Or as an employee or consultant to environmental 9 groups like the Natural Resources Defense Counsel or the 10 Environmental Defense Firm. I have also been employed as a 11 consultant by the EPA for a period of about two years. 12 Q. When was that? 13 A. Between 1979 and 1981. 14 Q. In what capacity? 15 A. The EPA was considering the possibility of banning 16 asbestos, and I was providing information to the EPA in support 17 of efforts to ban asbestos. 18 Q. What were the years again? 19 A. 1979 to *81. 20 Q. All right, sir. Now, this list, Exhibit 80, which 21 is your list of articles, when did you first prepare this list? 22 A. Well, the original list of articles goes back to 23 something that was prepared around 1980 or 1981. 24 Q. When did you add articles that pertain to these 25 cases? C.S.R. ASSOCIATES JO L Xn A. Articles haven't been added for particular use in 2 these cases, in the rubber worker cases. They simply are an 3 accumulation of articles, that has, you know, that I have 4 become familiar with over the years. 5 Q. Okay. What you basically have done is collect 6 materials relating to asbestos hazards dating back to the 19th 7 century? 8 A. Right. 9 Q. And you have produced thematerials and articles 10 that you have developed with regard to scientific knowledge 11 concerning the hazards of asbestos, talc, soapstone and clay? 12 A. Yes, I have. I mean not every single article that 13 I have ever seen, but articles which constitute the basis of 14 any opinions I would offer. 15 Q. The plaintiff's have listed Morris Kleinfeld as a 16 witness in these cases, did you knew that? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Have you had anycommunication with him? 19 A. I don't think so. I may have written him a letter 20 once years ago. But I haven't in connection with this 21 litigation, I haven't had any contact with him. 22 Q. Are you aware of what his opinions are as they may 23 apply to these cases based on what you have either been told by 24 plaintiff's counsel or learned yourself? 25 A. No. All I have to go by or would have to go by C.S.R. ASSOCIATES w v 1 are the articles that are published that bear his name. 2 Q. You have no knowledge yourself of the uses of 3 asbestos in the B.F. Goodrich plant in Miami, Oklahoma? 4 A. I don't have any specialized knowledge about how 5 asbestos was used. I assume it was widely used as insulating 6 materials in the plant. 7 MR. HINKLE: Let me interrupt for a moment. 8 This might be a time where we clear something up. 9 Jim, I have been told that Dr. Kleinfeld is not going 10 to be presented as a witness for the plaintiffs. Is 11 that true? 12 MR. HAYS: There is a possibility he may be 13 presented through deposition, but not live, we just 14 sent out a new witness list, so I will discuss this 15 with you off the record later. 16 MR. HINKLE: Let's get that cleared up. Because 17 I have been told unequivocally that he will not. 18 MR. HAYS: I will be glad to discuss it with 19 you later. 20 Q. (By Mr. Hood) Do you know how a radiologist can 21 differentiate between the effects of inhalation of talc versus 22 inhalation of asbestos when an x-ray is viewed? 23 A. I know that the literature indicates that there 24 are similarities in the x-rays, but I think that this is a 25 question best posed to radiologists, not to me. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 Q. You have never worked for nor have been a consult 2 to any rubber or tire manufacturing company? 3 A. No. 4 Q. Can you give me a list of known carcinogens to 5 which workers in the tire manufacturing industry are exposed 6 to? 7 A. I don't think I can give you a complete list. I 8 have heard of some chemicals that are used there. 9 Q. You are not an epidemiologist? 10 A. I am not an epidemiologist -- 11 Q. You are not a respiratory -- 12 A. -- per se, although epidemiology is one of the 13 tools of my trade. 14 Q. You have had no formal training in the field of 15 epidemiology? 16 A. Yes, I have. I have taken courses in epidemiology 17 at Johns-Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health. 18 Q. when did you take those courses? 19 A. In the early 1970s and early 1980s. 20 Q. How many such courses did you take? 21 A. Maybe seven or eight such courses. Maybe ten. 22 Q. You do not hold a degree in epidemiology? 23 A. No. My degree is in health policy. 24 Q. You were in what school when you took those 25 courses? C.S.R. ASSOCIATES JO o 1 A. Johns-Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health. 2 Q. You have never been trained as a respiratory 3 epidemiologist; is that correct? 4 A. Never heard the term respiratory epidemiologist 5 before. 6 Q. So whether there are people who are so 7 specialized, you have no knowledge? 8 A. I suppose there are people who do epidemiological 9 studies on respiratory problems, but I have never heard them 10 called respiratory epidemiologists before. 11 Q. Now, you have been excluded as a witness in how 12 many jurisdictions? 13 A. I don't know, maybe three, maybe four, over a 14 period of ten years. 15 Q. Where are those jurisdictions? 16 HR. HAYS: You mean jurisdictions in their 17 entirety or particular judges? I think there is a 18 legal distinction here. The witness may not be 19 understanding. One judge limited him in his testimony, 20 not the entire jurisdiction. 21 Q. (By Mr. Hood) Let's say judges then. 22 A. That is a very good point, because I have been 23 excluded by a judge in Chicago, but I have also testified in 24 Chicago in front of other judges. 25 Q. Which judge in Chicago? C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 A. I think his name was Grady. 2 Q. Any other -- name the other judges and their 3 locations that have excluded you. 4 A. I don't really keep track of the names of the 5 judges, but I can give you whatever I remember. 6 Q. Okay. 7 A. Following Judge Grady's decision, a similar 3 decision was made by a judge in the Virgin Islands in St. 9 Croix. I think there was a state court judge that also 10 followed Judge Grady in Milwaukee where I had also testified in 11 front of other judges. 12 Q. Okay. 13 A. I think aside from that, there were just a couple 14 of old decisions, one in '79 which very much limited me, at 15 least, this is in Mobile, and, I mean I recall testifying 16 before the judge, but I also recall the judge making some 17 adverse ruling. I have forgotten exactly what went on there. 18 And in 1982 there was a ruling published in the Federal 19 Reporter by Judge Beckham which very much limited the scope of 20 testimony I would be able to offer, although he didn't 21 completely exlcude. And of course, since that time I have 22 testified numerous times in the State of California, both state 23 and federal courts. Those last two matters pre-date my 24 obtaining my doctorate from Johns-Hopkins School of Hygiene and 25 Public Health. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES jo o 1 Q. You have had no training or experience in 2 industrial or occupational medicine? 3 A. Again, it's all a question of what you mean by 4 that. 5 Q. Other than what you have read in literature, you 6 have had no formal training certainly? 7 A. I have contributed to the literature, educated 8 people in the field of industrial medicine. 9 Q. That is on your book Asbestos that you are talking 10 about? 11 A. No. I am talking about an article called 12 "Corporate Influence on Threshold Limit Values" that was 13 published in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine that 14 was quite well received by the editor Dr. Selikoff and others 15 who commented on this article. 16 MR. CROSBY: Object to the response as 17 volunteering information not solicited by the question, 18 and move to strike it. 19 Q. (By Mr. Hood) You have had no experience working 20 in a tire manufacturing facility? 21 A. No. 22 Q. What is done by various employees in a tire 23 manufacturing facility in their daily occupation, you have no 24 personal knowledge of? 25 A. I have no personal knowledge of. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES JU 7 1 Q. What a chemist would do in a tire plant, you don't 2 know? 3 A. No, I don't know what a chemist would do in a tire 4 plant, although I can -- there are issues of quality control 5 and so forth that would be attended to by a chemist. 6 Q. How a tire is built, the building process, you 7 have no knowledge of that? 8 A. I have some knowledge, but it's limited. I 9 haven't made a study of the technology of tire manufacturing. 10 Q. You don't hold yourself out as an expert in that 11 area? 12 A. NO. 13 Q. Youhave notraining orexperience in the field of 14 psychology or psychiatry? 15 A. No,aside from onecourse incollege. 16 Q. As to the context of the articles that you have 17 read and their place in history, do you have opinions and 18 knowledge? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And that is based upon what you have read in the 21 literature; is that correct? 22 A. Based upon what is in the literature, it's based 23 upon -- when we talk about asbestos, it's based upon a larger 24 review of corporate knowledge and actions, as well as what was 25 in the scientific literature. And it's based upon interviews C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 with people who were around at the time, as well as well, 2 when I say corporate knowledge, I mean all the various types of 3 corporate knowledge evidence that has been developed in the 4 asbestos litigation. 5 Q. So it's based upon documents that you have 6 reviewed? 7 A. Primarily documents, and in some cases statements 8 of individuals that I have contacted. 9 Q. Who are you talking about when you say 10 individuals? 11 A. Dr. Hueper, Dr. Hardy, Dr. Mancuso, Dr. Angrist, \7 |nr. warold Stewart, and some others like that, 13 o. Several of whom are dead? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Have been for some while? 16 A. Yes. I have been investigating this thing for 17 Isome while. 18 q. But as to the times these articles were written, 19 |in the '40s, even the '30s, '40s, '50s and '60s, you weren't 20 even an adult at that time, were you? 21 A. Not until the '60s sometime. 22 Q. What is your age? 23 A. Forty-two. 24 q . So then whether or not an article was well known 25 or obscure, or how an article was received by the medical C.S.R. ASSOCIATES ---------------------------- --------------------- ----------371 1 community when it was published, you have no personal 2 knowledge? 3 A. I have no personal knowledge, although, as I say, 4 by reading the literature one does get an idea that some 5 articles were widely cited, achieved some prominence, other 6 articles appear not to have been noticed as much, 7 Q. Your research methods, as you have identified 8 them, has been to go to the index medicus and attempt to obtain 9 a thorough list of articles on a given subject, and then to 10 review those articles; is that correct? 11 A, That is what I did with asbestos. I haven't 12 actually done that with talc. 13 Q. And you have never done anything as to a specific 14 group of workers known as tire workers or rubber workers? 15 A. That's right, I haven't focused any research 16 efforts into looking at medical literature developed around 17 tire workers as an occupational group. 18 Q. And you told us yesterday that you are not an 19 expert in the field of warning and warning labels or the 20 adequacy of the same? 21 A. I feel that I am not a specialist in the field of 22 designing warning labels, if that is what you mean by an 23 expert. 24 Q. And the same thing with regard to pamphlets 25 concerning the use of materials, this is not an area in which C.S.R. ASSOCIATES J 6 1 you are an expert? 2 A. I have written materials for the purpose of 3 educating people about health hazards. I have written the 4 kinds of pamphlets that you're talking about, and I think my 5 experience is relevant in that regard. 6 Q. What kind of pamphlets have you written? 7 A. Circulars that we handed out to brake mechanics 8 trying to warn them about the hazards of brake repair back in 9 1972, 1973. 10 Q. So that if we were defending a suit brought by a 11 brake mechanic and he had read your pamphlet and thereafter had 12 continued to work with materials containing asbestos, he would 13 have done so knowingly assuming the risk of danger and disease? 14 A. That's a legal question, and I don't think I can 15 answer legal questions. 16 Q. But I can ask you that question in that kind of 17 case, and you would agree that your phamplet would have 18 adequately and fully warned him of the health hazards to which 19 he subjected himself voluntarily? correct? 20 A. It would have informed him to the the best of my 21 ability at that time about those hazards. 22 Q. What is the history of the threshold limit value 23 for talc? 24 A. Threshold limit value apparently was set at 20 25 million particles per cubic foot at some time, and I can't tell C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you when, but I noticed it referred to I think in some of these articles in the 1950s. Q. Did it remain unchanged? Or has it been changed at all? A. I don't know whether it's been changed. I think it's been changed for talcs that contain asbestos fibers, tremolite fibers. Q. And what is the current TLV then? A. well, the TLV for that kind of talc would be the same as for asbestos, so many fibers per cubic centimeter of air. Q. A. Which is what? Well, I think that right now there is some litigation over that that has been brought by Vanderbilt Talc, but the standard I believe is 0.2 fibers per cubic centimeters of air equivalent to 200,000 fibers per cubic meters of air. A fiber is longer than five microns in length. Q. How long has that been the standard? A. Since 1986. Q. Prior to that what was the standard? A. It was two fibers per cubic centimeters of air. Q. When was that adopted? A. That took effect in 1976 as part of a government regulation published in 1972. q# Prior to that what was the standard? C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 374 1 A. For a short time it was 'five fibers per cubic centimeters of air. 3 Q. When was that? 4 A. From December 7th, 1971 until June 7th or so, 5 1972. 6 Q. And prior to that what was the standard? 7 A. Twelve fibers per cubic centimeter. 8 Q From when to when? 9 A. From around April of 1971 when OSHA officially 10 went into business, until December when they issued the 11 emergency standard for asbestos. 12 Q. Prior to December '71 what was the standard? 13 A. Prior to then it was open season on workers in the 14 United States as far as the federal government was concerned, 15 unless they worked for government contractors doing $10,000 a 16 year in business or more, in which case they would have been at 17 least theoretically under the subject to the Walsh-Healy Act 18 Provision where the standard was 12 particles per cubic -- 19 MR. HOOD: Move to strike the answer. 20 Q. (By Mr. Hood) Just tell me what the standard was, 21 please, prior to December '71. 22 A. The federal standard applied only to government 23 contractors doing $10,000 of business a year or more, and that 24 standard was 12 fibers per cubic centimeters of air from around 25 1969 until 1970, '71. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 375 1 Q. What was before that? 2 A. Before that there were no -- there was no federal 3 regulation of general industries in the United States. 4 Q. What about the American Conference of Governmental 5 Hygienists, had they adopted a threshold limit value for 6 asbestos prior to that? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. What was that? 9 A. That was five million particles per cubic foot of 10 air. 11 Q. And that was the standard from when to when? 12 A. 1946 until about 1970. 13 Q. And that standard remained uncriticized in the 14 medical literature during that period? 15 A. it was not a standard, and it was criticized. 16 Q. When was it first criticized? 17 A. I've listed a number of examples of that in 18 Chapter 4 of my book. I can recall a few. It was criticized 19 in 1952 by May Mayers, it was criticized by Warren Cook in 20 1956. It was criticized by a number of speakers at the New 21 York Academy of Science Conference that was held in 1964, 22 published in 1965, among them Adding Ley from Great Britain who 23 worked for a British asbestos company and said that U.S. TLV 24 had absolutely no scientific basis whatsoever. 25 Q. You have had no training yourself in the field of C.S.R. ASSOCIATES J/V 1 idustrial hygiene? 2 A. Yes, I have. 3 Q. When? 4 A. Among the courses that I took at Johns-Hopkins 5 chool of Hygiene and Public Health was a course in industrial 6 ygiene ventilation where I designed ventilation systems using 7 elatively simple engineering principles. I mean, they are 8 impie to cover background in engineering to apply to 9 echniques that are used in designing dust control systems. So 10 have some training in industrial hygiene. 11 Q. You are not a certified industrial hygienist? 12 A. No. 13 Q. You have taken one course in ventilation 14 tpparently? 15 A. I've taken one course that was specifically in the 16 iesign of industrial ventilation, and a number of other courses 17 Ln which various aspects of hygiene were discussed and 18 presented in the Johns-Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public 19 lea 1th. 20 Q. Have you seen anything in the literature 21 criticizing TLV for talc? 22 A. I haven't really looked that carefully at 23 literature on talc, but off the top of my head, I can't say 24 that I have seen anything criticized in TLV for talc, except 25 perhaps people writing about asbestiform talcs saying that they 377 1 needed to be regulated like asbestos. 2 Q. You have done no work for the tire, the tire 3 industries union, which is the International Rubber Workers 4 Union? 5 A. No. I mean I have had correspondence or at least 6 met with Lou Beliczki over the years. 7 Q. When did you meet with him? 8 A. I don't know. I guess I have known Lou Beliczky 9 for about 15 years. 10 Q. And how many times have you met with him? 11 A. I usually run into him at some conference or 12 another. 13 Q. You haven't discussed with him health hazards to 14 workers in the tire industry from asbestos? 15 A. Yes, I think so. 16 Q. Did he ever recognize such a hazard? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. When did he first do that? 19 A. I don't know. I guess I met with him, maybe it 20 was a meeting of the American Public Health Association in Las 21 Vegas a few years ago, and we talked about the fact that there 22 were a number of lawsuits being filed over asbestos damage to 23 workers in the rubber industry. 24 Q. Did he tell you he thought those cases were 25 frivolous and shouldn't have been brought? 378 1 ^ forgst exactly what he told me. I remember him 2 feeling that there was -- he was a little apprehensive that 3 some cases might be filed. 4 Q. Did he tell you he thought it was a disservice to 5 the union membership for lawyers to file cases about disease 6 that didn't exist in workers that he was monitor of health for? 7 A. I don't recall him saying anything quite like 8 that. 9 Q. If in fact the workers for whom suits were being 10 brought were not sick, would that be a correct statement in 11 your view? 12 A. I just don't recall what Beliczky said about that. 13 Q. Not Beliczky, I am asking you, Barry Castleraan? 14 A. If people are filing lawsuits over claims for 15 disease when there really isn't any medical basis for saying 16 that these people have disease, and if large numbers of such 17 claims are being filed, it simply means the people who have 18 real problems are going to be waiting in line that much longer 19 to get their day in court, and that is a disservice. 20 Q. Is it also a disservice to that individual to let 21 him think he has a claim, when in fact he medically does not in 22 fact; is that correct? 23 A. Yes, it would be. 24 Q. Have you ever worked with an electron microscope? 25 A. No, I've never operated one. 379 1 Q. Have you ever collected dust to determine the 2 levels of asbestos dust or talc dust in the work environment? 3 A. I have assisted in setting up equipment to do 4 sampling on one occasion I can recall while I was a local 5 health official. 6 Q. Where was that? 7 A. The Civil Defense Building in Towsonr Maryland. 8 Q. What were you testing for or assisting setting up 9 to be tested? 10 A. They had sprayed asbestos ceilings and were 11 concerned about what might be in the air. 12 Q. Did they determine that the ambient air was such 13 that the asbestos was not dangerous in that location? 14 A. They found small quantities of asbestos in the 15 air, but nothing approaching the occupational standards. 16 Q. What you would find in the ambient air in the 17 urban society? 18 A. Probably a little more than that. 19 Q. But not enough to cause concern so that it should 20 be removed? 21 A. Well, we were concerned that we might be creating 22 more of a problem by disturbing that material than by leaving 23 it in place. 24 Q. That is the current view as recently as yesterday 25 of the EPA, we shouldn't remove asbestos if it's not creating a 3 80 1 health hazard? correct? 2 A. I am not sure that is what the EPA said yesterday 3 about removing asbestos. 4 Q. That has been their view in the past? 5 A. I think the government's view has been that 6 priorities need to be setf and the places where the material is 7 in bad condition or deteriorating or is creating a health 8 hazard, that that needs to be addressed first, and that other 9 places where the material seems to be reasonably in tact, the 10 material can be left there for at least some time because we 11 have limited resources to address that. 12 Q. You are then of the view that if the asbestos is 13 not friable and not creating sufficient adverse levels in the 14 air within a building that it should be left alone? 15 A. Well, at least for the time being. It doesn't 16 mean that it should be left alone in perpetuity. 17 Q. That would apply in a tire worker facility where 18 tires are made? 19 A. I am thinking more about building plenums and 20 things of that nature, that is very different than an 21 industrial facility. 22 Q. How would you know if it's different if you have 23 never been in such a facility? 24 A. Because an industrial facility contained -- the 25 asbestos material is in a more -- is much, it seems to me, is 3 81 1 likely to be exposed to impactr is going to require regular 2 maintenance, removal, repair. And thermal insulation on pipes 3 is subjected to heat stress which is very different than the 4 kind of conditions that exist inside of an air plenum where 5 recirculating air is being blown around for an office building. 6 It's a totally different situation. 7 Q. Go back to the TLV for talc. Do you know of any 8 criticism in the literature which causes you to think that 9 industry was writing the talc standards like you think about 10 asbestos? 11 HR. CROSBY: Object to the form of that question. 12 THE WITNESS: I don't like it either. 13 MR. CROSBY: Move to strike the voluntary response 14 of the witness. 15 MR. HAYS: Are you sure you got that, since you 16 are reading the newspaper? 17 MR. CROSBY: I am reading what he called a 18 stuffed-shirt paper's account of the EPA ban, as he 19 called it, on abestos, Counsel. As and I take it, that 20 is part of my job. I am on Page B-4 of the wall Street 21 Journal, dated Friday, July 7th, 1989 in approximately 22 column three. 23 MR. HAYS: Strike all the self-serving comments 24 what he's reading as his duty as counsel. 25 MR. CROSBY: Counsel, I might introduce it. If n o n *.oor\nvam 3 HZ 1 you want to help me practice law, I would be glad for 2 you to do that sometime on somebody's time besides 3 mine. L e t 's move on. 4 THE WITNESS: L e t 's take a break. 5 MR. HAYS: Yes, let's take a five minute break. 6 MR. HOOD: The witness would like to take a five 7 minute break. We will. 8 (Whereupon, a short recess was taken.) 9 Q. (By Mr. Hood) Do you know of any effort by the 10 talc industry to have any effect upon the standard TLV for 11 talc? 12 A. No. 13 MR. HAYS: Let me ask you this, sir. We asked 14 if there were any further talc questions, and there 15 were no further talc questions, and we opened this 16 portion of the deposition to go into asbestos. It 17 seems to me you're reopening the talc area, which of 18 course will reopen the opportunity for talc people to 19 ask questions at a later time, it will be utilized as 20 an attempt to continue the deposition. I ask yon to 21 continue your questions as to asbestos, as the talc 22 questions have been exhausted, and in fact. I think you 23 asked some preliminary questions about talc to determine 24 that when you first started your questioning. So I just 25 ask that you stick to asbestos as you planned to. * rA/iT t m n o j uj 1 MR. HOOD: I have made no commitment to do 2 anything other than examine the witness. 3 MR. HAYS: Well, then if you are not going to talk 4 about asbestos, I change our agreement, and asked 5 Mr. Cosby to begin his questions. 6 MR. CROSBY: My name is Crosby, C-r-o-s-b-y. 7 MR. HAYS: Crosby, I'm sorry. 8 MR. CROSBY: You have already said Hood can go 9 now. 10 MR. HAYS: No. I thought that was with the 11 agreement that he was going to talk about asbestos. 12 MR. CROSBY: I certainly can't control what 13 Mr. Hood asks or does. 14 MR. HAYS: So the agreement is off, because 15 it's been breached by you all. 16 MR. CROSBY: I haven't breached anything, 17 Mr. Hays. I have been sitting over here because you 18 said he could go next. 19 MR. HAYS: You requested that he go next. 20 MR. CROSBY: I asked if he could. 21 MR. HAYS: Yes, based on the fact that it had 22 to do with asbestos. 23 MR. CROSBY: I didn't understand that to be the 24 basis of it. 25 MR. HAYS: I asked the question if there were C.S.R- ASSOCIATES J W f 1 any further talc questions. tou HR. HOOD: Let me proceed, please. 3 Q. (By Hr. Hood) As to articles that you produced, 4 Hr. Castleman -- 5 MR. HAYS: I asked everyone that question. 6 MR. CROSBY: Well, I'm going to have some 7 questions relating to talc. W e 're all in this lawsuit 8 together. 9 MR. HAYS: You don't have anything to do with 10 talc. Are you representing a talc 11 defendant? 12 MR. CROSBY: That is not any of your concern. I 13 am here to ask questions on behalf of my client. 14 MR. HAYS: Well, then I am going to ask that you 15 continue on with your line of questioning or you 16 waive it. 17 Mr. Hood: Can I proceed with questions -- 18 MR. HAYS: I object to any questions on your 19 behalf at a later time. 20 MR. CROSBY: Well, just a minute. 21 MR. HAYS: If you are not going to go ahead and 22 ask your question the way you are supposed to -- 23 MR. CROSBY: If that is your contention, then 24 if I now stop and interrupt Mr. Hood, are you going to 25 preclude him from finishing his line of questioning? C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 385 1 MR. HAYS: No. I want talc finished up. 2 MR. CROSBY: I can't finish up talc, I can't 3 finish up asbestos if I start right now. This witness 4 has provided us documents that I have never seen in his 5 file in all my years. I have got lots of questions I 6 have to ask him, some of them are in the files of 7 asbestos that relate to talc. 3 MR. HAYS: I am sure you will try to continue this 9 deposition for a month, if you can. 10 MR. HOOD: Can I proceed, please? 11 MR. HAYS: Over my objection. 12 Q. (By Mr. Hood) As to the documents that you have 13 produced, would you tell us first generally how these documents 14 in your opinion would have placed any manufacturer of asbestos 15 materials on notice of potential disease hazard to tire workers 16 in their work environment? 17 A. Well, the medical literature of asbestos indicates 18 that people who do pipe covering who are exposed to insulation 19 products get asbestos diseases, and there is nothing in the 20 medical or scientific literature to indicate that people who do 21 that kind of work with those kind of products wouldn't get 22 those kinds of diseases if they were handing the materials in a 23 rubber plant. 24 Q. So there is nothing then in those articles that 25 specifically refer to such a health risk to tire workers? r e o Ree/VT urnwe 1 A. Not as tire workers, no. 2 Q. Have you contacted any industrial health official 3 or former official with the Goodrich, Goodyear, Firestone, 4 General Tire, Yates, Kelly Springfield or Michel in companies? 5 \ 6 A. No. Q. So with regard to the known or suspected health 7 [problems in their companies at various times, you have no 8 knowledge? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Have you contacted any officials with the United 11 Rubber workers union or their industrial health personnel about 12 known or suspected health problems at various times in history? 13 A. Well, I have known Lou Beliczky for a number of 14 [years. 15 Q. Specifically what, if anything, has he told you 16 concerning his knowledge of health hazards from exposure to 17 asbestos to tire workers? 18 A. I can't recall anything about asbestos. Our 19 initial concerns and contacts were about chemical hazards, I 20 think. 21 MR. RHODES: Excuse me, Mr. Hood. I'm sitting 22 right across from Mr. Castleman, and I can barely hear 23 you. It sounds to me like you are mumbling. Can you 24 enunciate a little bit better? 25 MR. HAYS: If there is a problem hearing, C . S.R. A S S O C I A T E S 387 1 considering we're in a large room and at a large table, 2 why don't we get a microphone brought down if they've 3 got one here. 4 MR. RHODES: I am four feet away from him. 5 MR. HAYS: You are not four feet away, you're 6 eight feet away, eight to ten feet away. 7 MR. HOOD: Do you want to measure it, or can 8 I proceed, please? 9 MR. HAYS: Well, if they can't hear, let's get a 10 microphone down. Somebody can order that. 11 Q. (By Mr. Hood) Do you know who with that union was 12 responsible for its membership's health and safety? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Do you know if that union was ever concerned with 15 the health and safety of tire workers or rubber workers from 16 exposure to asbestos? 17 A. I am sure they were at some point, but I don't 18 know when it started. 19 MR. GOSS: I didn't understand that answer. 20 MR. HOOD: "I am sure they were at some point, but 21 I don't know when it started." 22 MR. HAYS: There is a table down at this end 23 that is not in use. Four of you can sit around that, 24 if you would like to. 25 Q. (By Mr. Hood) Do you know of any complaints made P C D iccnmippc .JOB 1 by industrial health officials of the United Rubber Workers 2 Union, or the tire manufacturing companies regarding the 3 exposure of the employees to either asbestos or talc? 4 A. No. I just don't know anything about the record 5 of such complaints that may or may not have been made. 6 Q. Are you aware of any epidemiological studies of 7 asbestos health hazards in the tire worker industry? 8 A. Well, I think the -- I think I mentioned that I 9 glanced at some kind of a NIOSH report, plant survey. 10 Q. That was done in 1970 is what you said I think on 11 Wednesday? 12 A. I thought it was more recent than that. But I 13 haven't seen it since. I thought it was in the '80s. 14 Q. You never have produced that report here in this 15 deposition. Can you further identify it for us and can you 16 produce it to us? 17 A. No. I think it must have just been thrown out. 18 Mr. Hays sent me materials, sent me a lot of articles from the 19 1980's and things about talc, and I just took one look at how 20 recent they were and excluded them from my review, because I 21 didn't feel like -- 22 Q. That NIOSH report did not reference any health 23 hazard to tire workers from exposure to asbestos? 24 A. Well, I have forgotten exactly. I think they did 25 some chest x-rays on the guys. I just took a look at how C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 recent it was and put it aside. I was mainly interested in 2 earlier medical literature. 3 Q. Are you aware of any case report where a doctor 4 attributes asbestosis to a building occupant, and that being 5 his sole exposure? 6 A. well, if a person worked in an industrial 7 facility -- 8 MR. HAYS: That is such an unfair question, I 9 started just to let it slide, because I am sure the 10 Doctor can handle it. But you are saying exposure in a 11 building? Mow, what does that mean? Does that mean an 12 industrial setting? A home? Does that mean a -- 13 MR. HOOD: A building where -- I'll explain it 14 for you since you asked that. 15 MR. HAYS: All right. 16 MR. HOOD: Assuming the witness needs that. 17 Q. (By Mr. Hood) In a non-asbestos manufacturing 18 building. 19 A. You mean like a steel mill? 20 Q. Yes, any kind of location. 21 A. There is certainly plenty of cases of steel mill 22 workers and people like that who develop asbestos-related 23 disease. 24 Q. Of those people have they been working as 25 maintenance or insulation people in those facilities? C.S.R. ASSOCIATES O 1 A. well, they work -- certainly some of them have 2 worked as pipe fitters, people like that where they may have 3 actually touched the asbestos themselves, and others are just 4 working around it. And it's a well established risk to workers 5 in industrial settings generally where there is a lot of 6 asbestos insulation around. Some people are going to get 7 asbestos diseases. 8 Q. And when was that first reported in the 9 literature? 10 A. Oh, in the 1930s. 11 Q. And what was that article? 12 A. There were articles about clerks in asbestos 13 manufacturing plants, boiler riveters, 1934, 1935, Wooden 14 Glowing in '34, Page in *35. Chemical plant workers with 15 asbestosis in 1939. 16 Q. Who reported that? 17 A. I think the author was named Arnold, British 18 Journal tuberculosis. 19 Q. All of those are case reports. Are there any 20 epidemiological studies? 21 A. Epidemiological studies started to come later. 22 There were studies of lung cancer access in workers who did, 23 who were described as boiler makers, steam fitters and asbestos 24 workers. 25 Q. When was that? C.S.R. ASSOCIATES .3 y x 1 A. Breslow, American Journal of Public Health, 1954. 2 Q. What about non-asbestos workers? 3 A. Well, i mean steam fitters are not asbestos 4 workers. Boiler makers are not asbestos workers. 5 Q. Okay. 6 A. Plumbers, other people have been reported as 7 victims of asbestosis in case reports as well. 8 Q. I'm asking about epidemiological studiesnow. 9 Were there any before 1980? 10 A. Aside from Breslow? I am sure there were, but I 11 can't think of it off the top of my head. 12 Q. What is your understanding of the asbestos 13 exposure history of the tire workers from the Miami, Oklahoma 14 pi ant? 15 A. Well, I gather that there was a lot of asbestos 16 used as a thermal insulation material in the plant, both in 17 terras of specialized equipment used in rubber manufacturing, as 18 well as general pipe covering insulation that existed widely 19 throughout the plant. 20 Q. Where do you generally gain this general 21 information? 22 A. Just from conversations I have had with people. 23 Q. Who are those people? 24 A. I suppose I may have talked to Lou Beliczky about 25 that, but I am not sure. And I have read things about rubber C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 processing and rubber plants, tire plants, maybe some of those 2 articles by John Peters and other people that sort of describe 3 the way the plants are laid out. It's obvious that there is a 4 lot of heat involved, and a need for thermal insulation in an 5 industrial process like tire making. 6 Q. Who is John Peters? 7 A. He's one of the authors of medical studies of tire 8 workers. 9 Q. Is he considered an expert in this area? 10 A. I suppose so. il Q. Has he written extensively in the area? 12 A. He's written in the area. 13 Q. Have you ever met with him? 14 A. I don't think so. 15 Q. Do you know what his opinions are concerning a 16 health risk from exposure to asbestos in tire workers? 17 A. No. 18 Q. Who are some of the other scientists or authors 19 who you have conferred with that have written about the tire 20 worker or rubber industry? 21 A. I can't think of anybody with whom I have 22 discussed the rubber industry. I sat through some 23 presentations back in 1976, some of the earlier -- I guess it 24 was some of the earlier studies that were being done. 25 Q. Who is Dr. Thomas Mancuso? C.S.R. ASSOCIATES J 7J 1 A. He's a physician in the field of industrial 2 medicine. 3 Q. Is he highly respected? 4 A. I think so. 5 Q. Has he written in the field of industrial health 6 hazards to workers in the rubber or tire industry? 7 A. I don't know if he has or not. 8 Q. Has he written in the filed of industrial health 9 hazards to workers from asbestos? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Is he an expert in those areas in your view? 12 A. Well, he was -- yes. 13 Q. And have you read his works? 14 A. Some. 15 Q. And the ones that you have read have dealt with 16 asbestos; is that correct. 17 A. Well, they dealt with asbestos, chromates. 18 Q. Are you aware of any reported health risk by 19 Mancuso from asbestos to tire workers? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Do you know who Dr. R.R. Monson is, M-o-n-s-o-n? 22 A. I have heard the name. 23 Q. Do you know if he's written anything in the 24 medical literature or scientific literature concerning the 25 health hazards to tire workers or rubber workers? C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 394 1 A. I believe he has. 2 Q. Have you cead any of his works? 3 A. I may have. I think he and Peters were working 4 together. 5 Q. Do you know if he or Dr. Peters ever concluded 6 that there was a health risk to asbestos or from asbestos to 7 tire workers or rubber workers? 8 A. I don't know whether they ever investigated that. 9 Q. Whether they investigated it or not, do you know 10 what they concluded? 11 A. No, I don't know if they made any such 12 conclusions. 13 Q. And you have not reviewed the literature to see 14 what they have written on this subject? 15 A. No. Well, not on asbestos, no. 16 Q. Nor have you read what they have written in the 17 field of health hazards to rubber or tire workers? 18 A. I may have seen some things, but I mean I know I 19 have, but it's been years since I looked at that stuff, and I 20 was mainly looking at it with interest in chemical hazards. 21 Q. Have you read works by Dr. McMichael, A.J. 22 McMichael? 23 A. I have seen the name. 24 Q. Do you know what he's written on? 25 A. I can't remember. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 Q. Have you read any works by him concerning health 2 hazards to tire or rubber workers? 3 A. I may have glanced at a couple of articles of that 4 kind, but I can't recall anything about it. 5 Q. You haven't produced any yet? 6 A. No. 7 Q. What about Dr. H.A. Tyroler, T-y-r-o-l-e-r? 3 A. I don't know. 9 Q. You pronounce it Tyroler. Whatever he's written, 10 you don't know and you haven't produced? 11 A. Correct. 12 Q. Dr. Ted Williams, samething wouldbe true? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Dr. Harris, R.L. Harris, Mr. Harris, same thing 15 would be true? 16 A. Yes. 17 MR. HAYS: Is he a Doctor or Mister? 18 MR. HOOD: I think he's an engineer, an 19 industrial hygienist. I think he's a Mister. 20 Q. (By Mr. Hood) Do you know what asbestos materials 21 were actually used in the Oklahoma, Miami B.F. Goodrich plant? 22 A. Only in a general sense. 23 Q. So who the manufacturers of the materials were, 24 what types of materials, what the condition of those materials 25 were at the time various plaintiffs were employed at that C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 location, you have no knowledge? 2 A. I don't have specific knowledge. I have a fair 3 idea who some of the manufacturers were based on who was 4 represented at the deposition. 5 Q. What the content of the dusting powder thrown by 6 workers on rubber to act as a detacifier were at that location, 7 you have no knowledge? 8 A. That's correct. 9 Q. And whether or not asbestos or talc or talc 10 tainted with asbestos was used, and whether it had tremolite, 11 you have no knowledge? 12 A. You mean for the purpose of dusting the rubber? 13 Q. Right, at that specificlocation? 14 A. That is right, I don't have specific knowledge on 15 that. 16 Q. Whether or not there were cleavage fragments in 17 the tremolite which caused disease, you have no knowledge of 18 that? 19 A. Right, that's correct. 20 Q. Whether the talc was pure or not, whether it 21 caused disease or not you have no knowledge? 22 A. Well, I don't know about the details of the 23 constituants of the talc that was used. Whether it caused 24 disease or not is not a question for me. 25 Q. The effect of exposure by given plaintiffs to C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 carbon black you have to knowledge? 2 A. That's correct. 3 Q. To benzene you have no knowledge? 4 A. That's correct. I don't get involved in the 5 details of the individual plaintiff's chemical exposure. 6 Q. Polycystic aromatic carbon, a-r-o-m-a-t-i-c, you 7 have no knowledge? I am going to ask the same question as to 8 several substances. 9 A. I have no specific knowledge as to any 10 individual's exposure to polycystic aromatic hydrocarbons or 11 any other thing you asked me about. 12 Q. Would that also be true of anitoxidents? 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. Curing fumes? 15 A. Correct. 16 Q. Other solvents? 17 A. Correct. 18 Q. Naphthas? 19 A. Correct. 20 Q. Smog in the area from the ambient air? 21 A. Correct. 22 Q. Polyvinyl chloride? 23 A. You meaning vinyl chloride? 24 Q. P-o-l-y-v-i-n-y-1 chloride? 25 A. No, I don't know what exposure they have to C.S.R. ASSOCIATES J 1 polyvinyl chloride. 2 Q. Any additional medical problems they may have? 3 A. No. This all goes beyond the area of my 4 testimony. 5 Q. Whether or not there was a sufficient level of 6 airborne asbestos and/or talc particles to cause a high risk of 7 disease to any of the plaintiffs in these cases, you have no 8 knowledge? 9 A. I don't know what the levels of exposure were, if 10 that is what you mean. 11 Q. And whether or not there was air circulating in 12 these plants which was sufficient to eminatate enough asbestos 13 or talc fibers so as to cause disease, you have no knowledge. 14 A. I don't understand your question. I mean the 15 fibers don't emanate by process of evaporation. The fibers are 16 released by abrasion, they may be released by air current, and 17 they may be recirculated that way. 18 Again, these details about industrial hygiene aspects in 19 the plant I am admittedly unfamiliar with. 20 Q. And whether or not adequate ventilation existed in 21 that particular plant for this air circulation you have no 22 knowledge? 23 A. Putting aside the use of the word adequate, I am 24 unfamiliar with the nature of the ventilation system that the 25 plant had. C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 Q And you have no knowledge of what the tire 2 companies or their employers/employees knew about the health 3 effects of asbestos? 4 A. That is also true. 5 Q. And/or talc? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. You have not talked with any of the plaintiffs in 8 these cases? 9 A. NO. 10 Q. You have not read any depositions of any witnesses 11 in these cases? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Are you aware of any medical articles which deal 14 with the combined effects of asbestos or talc? 15 A. What do you mean the combined effects of asbestos 16 or talc? 17 Q. Well, are you aware of any medical articles which 18 report such a combined effect? 19 A. Well, only insofar as the medical literature 20 contains reports on asbestiform minerals present in talcs. 21 Q. And that would be the articles that you have 22 produced and we went over yesterday, the talc articles? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Do you know how the tire workers at the Oklahoma, 25 Miami plant compare to the blue collar workers in the United C.S.R. ASSOCIATES 1 States as to mortality or morbidity ratios from disease? 2 A. You mean overall life expectancy things like 3 that. 4 Q. That's right? 5 A. No, I don't. 6 Q. Are you aware of specific communications of a 7 health-related problem in the tire worker industry of any of 8 the following companies? Do you understand the preface to the 9 question? 10 A. I am not sure I do. 11 Q. Are you aware of specific communications of a 12 health-related problem in the tire worker industry? 13 A. You mean to their employees? 14 Q. No. To any of the following companies thatI'm 15 going to list. Some communication to these companies of a 16 health-related problem to persons working in the tire industry 17 or the rubber industry from exposure to their product. Do you 18 understand the preface to the question? 19 A. I am having trouble understanding. You mean, are 20 they saying that the tires are dangerous? 21 Q. No, that the work environment from these companies 22 products -- well, specifically, do you know of any specific 23 communication of that to the following companies? 24 A. I still don't understand you. 25 Q. Are you aware of any specificcommunications of a C.S.R. ASSOCIATES