Document YJ58rwMKB0nND489j38Yw2qk

T: Mannor Page 161 Page 163 1 knew this was-anlssue. 2 Thank you, bufno thank you. The 3 record is clear. . .. . 4 MS. ROSENBERG: I think the 5 disclosure of-Dr. M armor's testimony :v 6 specifically statesGniorrCarbide: 7 documents. ! 8 > MR. GIANAR1S: The record is r 9 perfectly'dear. YouVemade'your - 10 record. I've made my record. The>- II documents say whatithey.say. 12 1 just don't care for them: -' 13 Thank you.': 14 Q-. Toxicology feports. you mentioned - - . 15 pelletizing?. . 16 Ai- Thatisiaparticularactionthey 17 took, which converting it to;little pellets ^ 18 that were dry/and thusavoiding the transfer. ; 19 of it in forms-that were by the.science otthe'. - 20 day unlikely to produce more exposure... *:>: r 21 The second'one.Was thementioti I 22 made of the sales report, which just shows a - 23 company-that -- :-. > , 24 . iiQ. .i:'liwasn't finished.oLet's take 25 this one;atithaftime. i.-. .- .i I MR. GIANARIS: That's fine. I 2 think you need to describe for the 3 record what you're1 marking. ., ' 4 MS. ROSENBERG: Union Carbide 1 5 is a 1964 toxicology-report attached to 6 UCC Exhibit 12 on the Madison county 7 exhibit list. 8 (Whereupon'UniOniCarbide .1964 9 toxicology, report was marked Exhibit 1- 10 for identification as of this-date.). 11 MS. ROSENBERG: UGC 2 is the 1969 12 asbestos toxicology report marked as . : - 13 Union Carbide Exhibit 30 on the Madison - 14 County exhibit list; . 15 (Whereupon Union Carbide 1969 16 asbestos toxicologyireport.wasmarked - 17 Exhibit 2 for identification as of this 18 date.) ;5 19 Q. Professor, you can go ahead and 20 answer. ' c : - . u\'`- 21 Ai Well, an example of what 1 regard.- 22 as candid, and straightforward isdhe opening' ; 23 sentence. "It has been known-for many years 24 that some persons working in the asbestos'' 25 production were prone to developing a disabling i Page 162 1 ..A. All right. > : 2 ,k-':Q. i .We talked? about all theexamples - 3 in thetoXicologysTeSportsithatyoui-rely omt .- . .. < 4 say that UnioniCarbide was reasonable in their : . 5 balancing act between -thepositive properties i - 6 of asbestos- and~the dangers. 7 Did yon rely, otKiffom their if- 8 toxicology reports?'! ; i 9 A. I'ThatVoneofthfcsourcesI * . t 10 relled-<oni'yeso-;-i; Mijs ; v.i srhfefc': nr, < 11 Q:iv Twanttoexpiorethetoxicology1- ; i-i -.- i> 12 reporteivjlmjust-askingyouwhatthe:, 13 toxicology, report- says?: i- U-. <: r-; 14 A. Can I do it Instead of doing it ^ 15 by memory? .. .- 16 Q. Surp. :'! ( ,- \ 17 - MSiROSENBERGi-Doyou w.ant to 18 mark .these as:exhibits? >. -.">> . 19 MR. GIANARIS: I don't care.to. 20 MS. ROSENBERG: 1 think we should 21 for clarity's sake. 22 MR. GIANARIS: It's my.witness. 23 I don't care to mark it 24 MS. ROSENBERG: You can' mark .. 25 those as Union Carbide 1 and 2. Page 164 1 lung disease. In time, this condition became ; 2 known asbestos and was related to exposure to l 3 high concentrations of asbestos-dust.": ' .t. 4 -That's consistent with-what the 5 scientific literature that I found says. - 6 Q. That's in 1964? 7 A. Right. The balancing act is in : 8 the next sentence, a good example of the vr 9 balancing act. "With further experience;:!!;: 10 was found thatmen could work with asbestos 11 without development ofilung cancer ifrdust 12 concentrations-.were kept below a certain 13 level." That is.an example of the appeal to- 14 control as a way of living. - 15 The claim is this now generally 16 accepted--this is now in .1964 -- that a man 17 can work a .40 hour week for a.lifetime without 18 developing asbestosis if the asbestos dust 19 particle count isikept at or.below 5 million 20 particles per cubic foot of air. That's the 21 threshold limit value for asbestos, and no 22 cases of asbestosis are known to have.occurred 23 when exposures have been maintained at or below 24 this level despite large scale utilization now : 25 approaching 1 million tons per year in the. POHLMAN REPORTING COMPANY (314)421-0099 41 (Pages 161 to 164)