Document ZeKxodEweo5vYDxRe3NOm8Np

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