Document dQzxBwoy1eJe77nJ5EgNYJXYR

FILE NAME: GATX (GX) DATE: 1999 Jan 15 DOC#: GX001 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Legal - Deposition of Barry Castleman Missik vs. Owens Corning, et al. Barry i. Castleman, Sc.D. Page 1 to Page 85 1/15/99 CONDENSED TRANSCRIPT AND CONCORDANCE PREPARED BY: Derenberger & Page Reporting, Inc. 7315 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 616 East Bethesda, MD 20814 Phone: (301) 656-6060 FAX: (301) 656-6061 BSA tu ( 2) (3) (4) Missik vs. Owens Corning, et al. Page 1 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEA5 TRUMBULL COUNTY. OHIO ............................................................... X LOIS J. MISSIK. Executrix of the : Estate of Michael Missik. Jr.. Deceased. : (5) Plaintiff. (6) v. : Case No. 97-CV-303 (7) OWENS CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION, et (8) al.. : Defendants. (9) ............................ --- x CIO) January 15. 1999 Washington. D.C. ( 11) DEPOSITION OF: ( 12) (13) BARRY I. CASTLEMAN. Sc.D. (14) called for oral examination by counsel for General (15) American Transportation Corporation, in the law (16) offices of Thompson. Hine & Flory. 1920 N Street. (17) N.W., Suite 800. Washington. D.C. 20036. beginning at (18) 10:05 a.m. on Friday. January 15. 1999. before Russell (19) L. Page. Jr., Court Reporter and Notary Public, when (20) were present: (21) ( 22) Barry I. Castleman, Sc.D. 1/15/99_________ Page 3 (1) P R O C E E D I N G S (2) Thereupon, (3) BARRY I. CASTLEMAN, Sc.D. (4) having been first duly sworn by the Notary Public, was (5) examined upon his oath and testified as follows: (6) EXAMINATION ON BEHALF OF GENERAL AMERICAN (7) TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION (8) BY MR. DANIELS: (9) Q. Dr. Castleman, my name is Steve Daniels. I (10) know you have been through this before. I will be (11) asking you some questions regarding the case of Missik (12) versus Owens Corning Fiberglas Corporation, et al., (13) and to get started, would you state your name for the (14) record, please? (15) A. Barry Castleman. 0 6 ) Q. What is your address, please? (17) A. 2412 Pickwick Road, Baltimore, Maryland (18) 21207. (19) Q. Dr. Castleman, you have been engaged by (20) Mrs. Missik, or the plaintiff, in the Missik versus (21) Owens Corning Fiberglas case; is that correct? (22) A. Yes. XMAX(1) Page 2 (1) ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF: ( 2) DEAN E. SWARTZ. Esquire TIMOTHY A. WRAY. Legal Clerk (3) 1825 Jefferson Place. N.W. Washington. D.C. 20036 (4) (202) 429-0429 (5) ON BEHALF OF GENERAL AMERICAN TRANSPORTATION (6) CORPORATION: (7) STEPHEN H. DANIELS. Esquire Thompson. Hine & Flory 8( ) 3900 Society Center 127 Public Square (9) Cleveland. Ohio 44114-1216 (216) 566-5500 ( 10) ( 11) * * * ( 12) INDEX (13) EXAMINATION ON BEHALF OF: PLAINTIFF GATX (14) WITNESS: (Mr. Swartz) (Mr. Daniels) (15) Barry I. Castleman. Sc.D. 3 (16) (17) EXHIBITS: (18) Castleman Exhibit 1 (19) Castleman Exhibit 2 PAGE MARKED: 11 46 ( 20) Castleman Exhibits 3-4 76 ( 21) ( 22) Page 4 (1) Q. In connection with that engagement, you (2) have been asked to render some opinions in that case; (3) is that correct? (4) A. Yes, I suppose you could say that. (5) Q. Let me rephrase that then. You anticipate (6) offering some opinions at trial, I assume; is that (7) correct? (8) A. Yes, I do. O) Q. In connection with your engagement in this do) case, what were you requested to do, if anything? (11) A. Well, I was told the name of the defendant, (12) and that is a company that I wasn't previously (13) familiar with. I looked up some records of mine and (14) noted that this company was a member for some time of (15) the Industrial Hygiene Foundation. That is pretty (16) much all that I did in terms of preparation. We had (17) other discussions since I arrived here yesterday about (18) the case. (19) Q. You have published a book, sir; is that (20) correct? (21) A. Yes. (22) Q. I am not going to mark this because it is Page 1 to Page 4 BSA Missik vs. Owens Corning, et al. Page 5 (D from the Thompson, Hine & Flory library, but it is (2) entitled Asbestos: Medical and Legal Aspects, fourth (3) edition by Barry I. Castleman; is that correct? (4) A. Yes. (5) Q. Is this the most recent edition of this (6) book? (7) A. It is. (8) Q. Do you anticipate publishing future O) editions? (10) A. No, but I didn't anticipate publishing the (11) fourth one either. (12) Q. Would I be correct in saying that at least (13) right now you are not working on a fifth edition? (14) A. Yes. (15) Q. GATX, who is one of the defendants in this (16) case, is not mentioned in this book; is that correct? (17) A. That is correct. (18) Qi You indicated that after this engagement, (19) you looked through some of your papers to look for (20) information regarding GATX; is that correct? (21) A. That is right. (22) Q. What exactly did you find, sir? Barry I. Castleman, Sc.D. 1/15/99 Page 7 (1) MR. SWARTZ: I don't have it with me, but (2) if my memory is correct, it was from 1935 to 1937, (3) it may have been '37 to '39, and I will provide the (4) information to you. (5) MR. DANIELS: To the extent that (6) Dr. Castleman provided you some written information, (7) if you could provide that to me, I would appreciate (8) it. (9) MR. SWARTZ; I will. (10) BY MR. DANIELS: (11) Q. So it was a brief time in the '30s that (12) they were a member; is that correct? (13) A. I remember the '30s. I don't recall how (14) long it went, but yes, it was in the late '30s. (15) Q. Do you recall finding any other information (16) regarding GATX in your review of your files? (17) A. No. I didn't look for anything else. (18) Q. What if any significance did you attribute (19) to GATX's membership in the Industrial Hygiene (20) Foundation in connection with your opinions in this (21) case? (22) A. Well, the Industrial Hygiene Foundation, Page 6 d) A. I found that they were a member of the (2) Industrial Hygiene Foundation I think back in the (3) 1930's. Do you have that docum ent with you? I sent (4) it to plaintiff's counsel. (5) These w ere basically index card files and (6) other records of the Industrial Hygiene Foundation in (7) Pittsburgh, which was an industrial organization. It (8) is described in chapter 10 of my book. It was founded (9) in the late 1930's and published something called the (10) Industrial Hygiene Digest which was sent out to (11) corporate members of the IHF, and in the digest were (12) contained a number of articles, rather, abstracts of (13) articles on asbestos disease as well as all kinds of (14) other industrial health and safety m atters that were (15) being described in the medical and scientific (16) literature. (17) Q. How often was the Industrial Hygiene Digest (18) published? (19) A. Monthly. (20) Q. Do you know how long GATX was a member of (21) the Industrial Hygiene Foundation? (22) A. I have forgotten. Page 8 (1) like the National Safety Council which was based in (2) Chicago, was a font of information about occupational (3) and environmental health, occupational health and (4) safety issues, and provided continuous flow of such (5) information to member companies. (6) In addition to the digest, they held annual (7) meetings, and so companies that were members of the (8) foundation were in a position to learn about ail the (9) medical, scientific, toxicological, and legal issues (10) associated with the industrial use of hazardous (11) materials in the United States. (12) Q. Because we don't know exactly when GATX's (13) membership was as we sit here today, but do you (14) MR. SWARTZ: Off the record. (15) (Discussion off the record.) (16) BY MR. DANIELS: (17) Q. Do you know whether, say, between 1935 and (18) 1940, the Industrial Hygiene Digest published by that (19) foundation contained any information regarding (20) asbestos or occupational exposure to asbestos? (21) A. Yes, it did. (22) Q. Do you know what information was contained Page 5 to Page 8 BSA Missik vs. Owens Corning, et al. Page 9 (1) during that five-year time period in that digest? (2) A. I don't recall off the top of my head, but (3) the article by Vadler in 1938,1believe, was one of (4) the articles that was described. Nordmann was the (5) author. It was a German article, but the title (6) translates as The Occupational Cancer of Asbestos (7) Workers. There were a number of articles published in <3) the late 1930's that were abstracted in the Industrial O) Hygiene Digest. (10) Q. Do you have copies of those articles, those ( ID abstracts? (12) A. Yes, I probably do, or at least I have some (13) of them. (14) Q. Do you have copies of the Industrial (15) Hygiene Digest published in the '30s? (16) A. Well, what I would have would be the pages (17) of the digest that had the abstracts or copies of the <18) abstracts that were gleaned from the Industrial (19) Hygiene Foundation, which is still in existence. (20) Q. When we get to the relevant years, I might (21) ask you to provide me with copies of those pages of (22) the digest for the relevant years for GATX. Barry I. Castleman, Sc.D. 1/15/99 XMAX(3) Page 11 (1) business. (2) Q. Did you bring those documents with you that (3) you reviewed? (4) A. Yes, I did. Then just to complete my (5) answer, there are also statements by co-workers about (6) the use of asbestos in the company during the time (7) that Mr. Missik was working there. (8) MR. SWARTZ: I am not someone who butts in, (9) and I know you are here to get information. What you (10) are looking at now, they aren't statements of workers (11) but the affidavits that were attached to the motion (12) for summary judgment. I just want the record to be (13) clear. (14) MR. DANIELS: I will go through these on (15) the record so we will know exactly what they are. (16) MR. SWARTZ: I apologize for interrupting, (17) but I was just doing it for clarity's sake, not to (18) coach or anything else. I assure you I am not a (19) coacher. (20) (Castleman Deposition Exhibit 1 was marked (21) for Identification.) (22) BY MR. DANIELS: Page 10 (1) A. Sure. (2) Q. But, again, we will figure out what the (3) years are and what I need. (4) In connection with your opinions in this (5) case, other than reviewing your files and learning (6) this information concerning GATX's membership in the (7) Industrial Hygiene Foundation, did you review any (8) other documents? (9) A. I looked at some things that were shown to (10) me by Mr. Swartz. These are documents that basically (11) talk about the state of the law in Ohio regarding (12) hazardous materials, including asbestos, and the d3) duties that employers had under the state law since (14) the1940's. (15) There is also a report written by the son (16) of the founder of the defendant describing the scale (17) of the company's operations and the history of the (18) company, mentioning that they had a medical director (19) on or before the time this was written in 1948, that (20) they had 225 people in their engineering department. (21) Obviously they had a tremendous range of engineering (22) activities that were an integral part of their Page 12 (1) Q. Sir, showing you what I have marked for (2) identification as Deposition Exhibit 1, this is the (3) group of documents that you brought with you today; is (4) that correct? (5) A. That is correct. (6) Q. Other than your own documents relating to (7) the Industrial Hygiene Foundation and some of your own (8) files, these are the documents that you reviewed in (9) connection with rendering your opinions in this case, (10) correct? (11) A. That is right. (12) Q. I have in this group of documents (13) plaintiff's second supplemental answers to defendant (14) GATX's interrogatories, three pages of that, correct? (15) A. Yes. (16) Q. And I also have an affidavit of Mr. Philip (17) Greer; is that correct? (18) A. Yes. (19) Q. I also have an affidavit of Mr. Richard (20) Schuller; is that correct? (21) A. Yes. (22) Q. I also have an affidavit of Mr. Clarence Page 9 to Page 12 b s a ______________ Missik vs. Owens Corning, et al. Page 13 (1) Austin, Jr., correct? (2) A. Yes. (3) Q. I have excerpts from the videotape (4) deposition testimony of David Berg; is that correct? (5) A. Yes. (6) Q. I have a General American Transportation (7) Corporation annual report, excerpts from that, for (8) 1957; is that correct? O) A. Yes. (10) Q. I also have the excerpts from the history (11) of General American Transportation Corporation (12) 1898-1948 by RalphC. Epstein, PhD; is that correct? (13) A. Yes. (14) Q. I also have what looks to be a brochure of (15) General American Transportation Corporation, Services (16) and Products, correct? (17) A. That is correct. (18) Q. 1954, correct? (19) A. Right. (20) Q. Then I have the State of Ohio Legal (21) Requirements for the Prevention and Control of (22) Industrial Public Health Hazards, 1946? Barry l. Castleman, Sc.D. 1/15/99___________ XMAX(4) Page 15 O) things that struck me were the descriptions of the (2) environment in which he worked rather than his (3) specific tasks which he may have done in those (4) environments. (5) Q. And the descriptions of the environments in (6) which he worked you would have received from the (7) Schuller, Austin, and Greer affidavits? (8) A. That is correct. (9) Q. Anywhere else you would have gotten that (10) information? (11) A. No. (12) Q. What, if anything, was significant to you (13) about that description of the work environment? (14) A. It sounds like there was a lot of asbestos (15) used there, and it was used in a completely wanton (16) manner, and there was a frequent and substantial (17) opportunity for most of the people in these work areas (18) to be substantially exposed to the risk of asbestos (19) related disease. (20) Q. Do you know in what specific respects (21) Mr. Missik would have come into contact with asbestos? (22) A. Well, again, I don't recall exactly what Page 14 (1) A. Yes. (2) Q. This Exhibit 1, again in addition to the (3) documents you reviewed from your own files, is this (4) the entirety of documents you reviewed in connection (5) with this matter? (6) A. Right. Bear in mind that because I have (7) written this book and doctoral theses, there is the (8) background of published and publicly available (9) knowledge on asbestos and disease which would also go (10) into any testimony that I offer in the case or d i) opinions that I might give. (12) Q. So certainly the numerous articles and (13) abstracts and studies and documents that you have (14) reviewed both in connection with your professional (is) engagements and in connection with writing your book (16) would form a background to your opinion; is that (17) correct? (18) A. That is correct. (19) Q. Do you have any understanding from anything (20) you have reviewed regarding Mr. Missik's particular (21) work history, the jobs that he did? (22) A. I don't recall exactly what he did. The Page 16 (1) Mr. Missik's job was, but the environment he worked in (2) was one where asbestos dust was continually being (3) generated, stirred up, asbestos dust all over the (4) equipment and floors, and continual use of different (5) types of asbestos products, pads and pastes and things (6) like that, mixing of dry powders with water and stuff (7) like that going on around him, sawing of materials In (8) the immediate w ork space where he was employed. (9) Q. Do you know what kind of materials were (io) being sawed? in ) A. W ell, they w ere cutting - 1don't know if (12) sawing is the right word. There was some kind of a (13) saw device described in one of these affidavits, and (14) then they were also tearing asbestos, thick asbestos (15) paper for other applications, as I recall. (16) Q. When they were cutting or sawing the (17) material, do you know what kind of material was being (18) cut or sawed? (19) A. I think they were just called asbestos (20) pads. (21) Q. Feel free to review Deposition Exhibit (22) Number 1 to refresh your recollection if you like. t Page 13 to Page 16 BSA Missik vs, Owens Corning, et al. Page 17 (D A. The thickness is not described in the (2) affidavit of Greer, but he talks about four-inch O) square or slightly larger asbestos pads that were used (4) at various points, and these pads were cut. (5) They moved the saw out into the shop and (6) cut the asbestos pads right there in the open shop, so (7) this was one use, and then the next thing I mentioned (8) was the asbestos powder mixed with water, so-called O) splatter compound for welding, and paste that was a 0 0 ) residue of that material later on having to be drying (11) out and being removed. (12) Q. So would it be fair to say that your (13) knowledge regarding the asbestos products both the (14) types and the manner in which the asbestos products (15) were used comes solely from these three affidavits? (16) A. Right. I guess you could say I have some (17) idea what sorts of exposures would be involved based (18) on other published literature describing similar types (19) of manipulations of products of a similar kind. (20) Q. Do you know how often these pads had to be (21) cut? (22) A. NO. Barry I. Castleman, Sc.D. 1/15/99_________ Page 19 (1) material, simply cutting that pad, were there be any (2) significant fiber release? (3) A. I would think so, yes. (4) Q. What kind of quantity are we talking (5) about? (6) A. Industrial hygienists can probably testify (7) to this better than I. (8) Q. You don't know? (9) A. When it comes to specific numbers, I don't (10) feel comfortable trying to answer that, but I would (11) say that in terms of what is recognized as a health (12) hazard today and was recognized in the 1970's (13) certainly, the levels of exposures associated with (14) that kind of cutting activity, absent any local (15) exhaust, ventilation or other methods to control the (16) exposure, would be significant as health risks. (17) Q. In the 1960's, what kind of knowledge would (18) there have been regarding the cutting of lubricated (19) packing in terms of the potential hazards of fiber (20) release? (21) A. It was known that asbestos caused cancer (22) and asbestosis by the 1960's. That was well XMAX(5) Page 18 (1) Q. Do you know whether these pads were (2) lubricated packing material? (3) A. No. (4) Q. Depending on what kind of product was being (5) cut, would that make a difference in terms of the (6) kinds of fiber release that was occurring? (7) A. Well, it would at least at the time. If (8) there was some kind of a lubricated packing material, (9) as you call it, there might be less exposure than if d o) it didn't have any kind of lubricant, but at the same (11) time if you have heat exposure and abrasion and other (12) things going on, whatever lubrication there might be, (13) whatever water might be mixed with some of these (14) powders in making these pastes, these things do tend (15) to dry, and so you can have release of asbestos from (16) product use through its life cycle which might be more (17) considerable than you get in the initial cutting of (18) some of these materials. (19) Q. Let's focus just for a moment, staying away (20) from the paste and the compound and that sort of (21) thing, just focus for a moment on the cutting of the (22) asbestos pad. If that were a lubricated packing Page 20 (1) established. The literature on mesothelioma started (2) coming out, at least the most alarming and persuasive (3) literature on mesothelioma as an asbestos disease (4) started coming out in 1960, and by the mid 1960's, it (5) was well established that mesothelioma was a very (6) serious threat from asbestos exposure. (7) The studies of mesothelioma cases, (8) epidemiological studies that were done showed that O) people were able to develop this disease from asbestos (10) exposure even if their only exposure was neighborhood (11) exposure or household contact exposure. You didn't (12) have to be a worker who was standing over a production (13) process in an asbestos products manufacturing plant (14) all day to be at risk of cancer from asbestos, (15) particularly mesothelioma, and this was well (16) established and accepted in the early 1960's. (17) Q. The bystander exposure, are you referring (18) to the Newhouse and Thompson study? (19) A. In 1964 the Newhouse and Thompson work was (20) reported in New York and published in 1965 in this (21) country and in England, and that really iced it. As (22) far as I am concerned, that signaled the end of the Page 17 to Page 20 b5a______________ Missik vs. Owens Corning, et al. Page 21 (1) asbestos industry. The industry kept growing for a (2) number of years basically because the industrial users (3) of asbestos products were irresponsible and there was (4) no governmental presence to restrain industrial abuses (5) with asbestos in this country and many other countries (6) until the 1970's. (7) Q. Do you know whether any of the asbestos (8) containing products that were purchased by and/or used O) by GATX at their Sharon facility contained any (10) warnings on them? (11) A. I don't know. (12) Q. Does that make any difference in your (13) opinion whether they did or did not contain warnings? (14) A. If they did, it would have been one more (15) way the company could have known about the hazards and (16) the workers could have known about the hazards, but it (17) doesn't change the responsibility of the company to (18) act in a responsible manner based on knowledge that a (19) big company like that would have about something like (20) asbestos. (21) Q. Would you agree that the risk of various (22) asbestos related diseases depends in some measure upon Barry I. Castleman, Sc.D. 1/15/99______ _______ XMAX(6) Page 23 d) Conference of Governmental and Industrial Hygienists; (2) is that correct? (3) A. it was just adopted by the ACGIH. It had (4) originally been published as a tentative guideline by (5) the Public Health Service in 1938, and then in 1946 (6) the ACGIH started to issue these annual recommended (7) lists of what they at first called maximum allowable (8) concentrations, and asbestos was one of 150 or so (9) substances on the first list, and year after year this (i o) volunteer committee would add five or 10 substances (11) each year to the list. (12) Q. You are familiar with the concept of a (13) threshold limit value; is that correct? (14) A. Yes. (15) Q. What is a threshold limit value? (16) A. Weil, It's a term that the same group d7) started using in 1948 to describe what had previously (18) been called maximum allowable concentrations, and I (19) think the generic term or the best term for this is (20) occupational exposure limits, and we are talking about (21) maximum concentrations recommended for different types (22) of toxic materials in the workplace, chlorine, gas, Page 22 (1) the quantity of exposure, the levels of exposure? (2) A. Yes. (3) Q. In your opinion, is there a minimum level (4) of exposure necessary to cause the disease process of (5) asbestosis? (6) A. There probably is, but I don't know what it (7) is. It has been estimated that even at the present (8) occupational exposure limit, the OSHA limit of 0.1 (S) fibers per cc, there are going to be two deaths per (10) thousand workers exposed for a lifetime at that level (11) from asbestosis, and there are five more from lung (12) cancer. (13) Q. Do you recall what the suggested level was (14) inthe1960's? (15) A. Well, the guideline that has been used (16) since 1938 by various authorities was 5 million (17) particles per cubic foot of dust, and this was based (is) on an old Public Health Service study, a survey of (19) people whose average age was 32, and the survey was (20) aimed at determining the prevalence of asbestosis in a (21) workforce where asbestos textile products were made. (22) Q. That was the proposed level by the American Page 24 (1) carbon monoxide, lead, dust, a whole range of things. (2) Q. Was it thought at the time that exposures (3) below those levels would not lead to harmful health (4) effects? (5) A. I suppose there may have been some people (6) that thought that, but to people who were at all (7) seriously acquainted with this process, it was (8) abundantly clear there was a lot that we didn't know (9) about the hazards associated with different types of do) industrial materials. The studies simply hadn't been (11) done, lifetime animal exposure studies, long-term, (12) large numbers of epidemiological studies of workers, (13) even prevalence surveys of large numbers of workers d4) who had years of exposure to different substances. d5) These things were just not publicly (16) available, and so anybody that was at all acquainted (17) with the really limited scientific basis of the TLVs, (18) or whatever acronym or whatever they were called, (19) would know that these things were not a guarantee, (20) that they were regularly being reduced, that the (21) exposure limits recommended for benzine and a number (22) of other substances kept going down over the years as i Page 21 to Page 24 BSA Missik vs. Owens Corning, et al. Page 25 (I ) more and more toxic effects were documented at lower (2} and lower levels. 0 ) The British wrote about this. One of the (4) British authorities wrote in the British Journal of (5) Industrial Medicine. This guy later became the number (6) two man in the factory inspectorate over in England, (7) and he spent a year at Harvard with Phil Drinker and (8) people over there. O) Q. Who was this? (10) A. This guy's name is Brian Harvey, and he (I I ) ridiculed the idea of these exposure limits. He said (12) they are constantly being revised downward, they are (13) called safe or recommended or described as safe in one (14) year to the next and then they go down, so what was (15) safe one year isn't safe the next year. (16) He said that the Americans also have the (17) strange attitude that some of them think they can just (18) get down to a certain exposure limit and keep using (19) hazardous material, whereas we have always thought (20) that the first line of approach is to substitute (21) hazardous materials for safer things rather than just (22) work down to some level of exposure and continue to Barry 1, Castleman, Sc.D. 1/15/99___________ XMAX(7) Page 27 (1) employed. So, there were things like this. (2) The rate of physical activity also (3) determines the breathing rate, and so these are things (4) that are not taken into account by simply writing some (s) recommended or some occupational exposure level as the (6) maximum concentration to which people should be (7) exposed. (8) All of these things were published in this (9) country and others, these kinds of critiques, back in (10) the 1940's, for example at presentations at the (11) Industrial Hygiene Foundation. (12) Q. Nevertheless, that TLV of 5 million (13) particles per cubic foot stayed in existence for over (14) 20 years, correct? (15) A. It did because we didn't have any real (16) governmental regulation of occupational safety and (17) health in this country. The Occupational Safety and (18) Health Administration wasn't established by law by (19) Congress until 1970, and so we had a bunch of state (20) agencies doing kind of a superficial job of trying to (21) do something, but they really weren't doing much about (22) controlling industrial health and safety hazards. Page 26 (D use unnecessarily hazardous material. (2) Q. Did he publish those opinions? (3) A. Yes. (4) Q. What article? (5) A. The British Journal of Industrial Medicine (6) in 1954. The British attitude was expressed by others (7) as well. Another medical inspector of factories (8) writing in the Lancet in 1953 said that in some (9) countries where they have these maximum allowable (10) concentrations, some people seem to think that a man (11) is a standardized machine, and this doctor wrote that (12) there is well-known literature on the variability of (13) human response to drugs and toxic substances and that (14) other factors in addition to the variability among (15) people come into play when you talk about workplace (16) conditions, the hours of work, the heat in the (17) environment. (18) In a hot environment, people's breathing (19) rate is different, and so if there is a certain (20) concentration of the toxic substance in the air, the (21) exposure is going to be determined partly by the (22) temperature of the environment in which the worker is Page 28 (1) Q. During the time period that that TLV was in (2) effect, would a manufacturer have any reason to (3) believe that exposures to asbestos at less than those (4) levels would cause harmful effects? (5) A. Sure. (6) Q. Based upon the articles that you were just (7) telling me about? (8) A. The documentation of the TLVs was first (9) published in 1962, and in the space of 112 pages they (10) explained the scientific basis complete with the (11) reference citations for about 250 substances. The (12) section on asbestos is less than a page long. The (13) word cancer does not appear. (14) The latest reference cited in the 1962 and (15) 1966 documentations on asbestos is a 1955 reference, (16) and when you read the text, it's very clear that the (17) exposure limit is based on limiting the risk of (18) asbestosis based on the 1938 Public Health Service (19) report. So, anybody that knows asbestos can cause (20) cancer at a glance could see from that that this (21) exposure limit is not intended to protect workers from (22) cancer and there is no scientific basis for assuming Page 25 to Page 28 bsa______________ Missik vs. Owens Corning, et al. Page 29 (1) it would protect workers from cancer. (2) Q. Why should a manufacturer have that level (3) of sophistication? (4) A. I just assume that big companies that are (5) using products like asbestos on a large scale and (5) employ medical directors have the expertise to know (7) that this stuff has widely been associated with (6) occupational cancer certainly by the 1960's. (9) Q. Do you have any opinion regarding the (10) levels of exposure at the Sharon or Masury facility of (11) GATX between 1964 and 1984, any of those time periods? (12) A. No. I don't know of any measurements that (13) were ever done by the company of the exposures at that (14) time. (15) Q. And you don't even have any ballpark (16) estimate as to what they would have been? (17) A. No. (18) Q. You would agree that lower levels of (19) exposure are less likely to cause disease? (20) A. Well, they are less likely - what you have (21) are competing risks, in the early days of the (22) asbestos industry, people were dying from asbestosis. Barry I. Castleman, Sc.D. 1/15/99___________ x m a x q ) Page 31 (1) neighborhood near an asbestos plant? (2) A. The work of Newhouse and Thompson was very (3) clear. They counted as occupational exposure both (4) manufacturing and product use, but then there was (5) household contact exposure absent occupational (6) exposure, living in a household of an asbestos worker, (7) the children, the brothers and sisters, and the wives (8) of the worker, husband of the worker, and they found a O) statistically significant excess of mesothelioma cases (10) with histories like that compared to the control (11) patients' histories. (12) What they did was they went to the (13) surviving relatives of 76 mesothelioma patients, (14) mesothelioma cases that they were able to (15) pathologically verify were mesothelioma cases based on (16) the material available at the London Hospital, and (17) they went back and they picked 76 patients out of the (18) same hospital records of same age and sex and death (19) from other causes and went to their relatives and (20) asked the same questions. (21) So, by making these comparisons, they (22) showed not only occupational exposure to asbestos was Page 30 (D The first cases that were reported in England and the (2) United States were death cases of people who died at (3) the age of 33. (4) As people started to live longer in the (5) asbestos industry, as the British started limiting (6) employment of people under the age of 18, as some (7) controls were applied in some countries, people (8) started to live to their SO's, and as people started (9) to live longer working with asbestos, we started to (10) see more cancer, and so you have competing risks. (11) By the time the mesothelioma story came out d 2) in the early 1960's, it was abundantly clear that (13) there was no level of asbestos exposure that could be (14) declared safe from the risk of mesothelioma except (15) zero. You have got people who just live within half a (16) mile of an asbestos plant showing a statistically (17) significant increase of mesothelioma, people who had (18) no household contact and no occupational contact. (19) That Is pretty scary. (20) Q. You are talking in that study or those (21) similar studies about people who either had bystander (22) contact, brushing off somebody's coat, or living in a Page 32 (1) causing mesothelioma but that very, very, very likely (2) household contact in the absence of occupational O) exposure caused mesothelioma and also a statistically (4) significant excess, a very persuasive statistic on (5) neighborhood exposure absent household contact and (6) occupational exposure. (7) Q. Do you agree with the statement that most (8) people living in an urban environment are going to (9) have some asbestos in their lungs? do) A. Well, that certainly has been more true in (11) the past and probably true today, yes. When you look (12) with an electron microscope, you can find asbestos in (13) the lungs. (14) Q. Absent neighborhood or bystander exposure, (15) are there any instances of mesothelioma simply caused (16) from living in an urban environment? (17) A. There are some cases of mesothelioma where (18) they haven't been able to identify any kind of (19) exposure history, but it seems that the more thorough (20) the questioning is, the more they find an exposure (21) history. In some cases the questioning is more (22) superficial, and in some cases the questioning is more Page 29 to Page 32 BSA Missik vs. Owens Corning, et al. Page 33 (1) detailed. (2) South Africa I remember reported 80 cases, O) and they had found a history of exposure to some kind (4) of asbestos in all 80, and it's certainly typical with (5) mesothelioma there is an identifiable exposure, the (6) kinds that we have been discussing, in the large (7) majority of the cases, if not all. (8) Q. Doesn't that suggest that there is at least (9) some level at which the disease process will not (10) start? (11) A. No. I just suggest after 30 years, it's a (12) little hard to come up with the evidence, especially (13) from surviving relatives. How is a surviving relative (14) going to know that the decedent had a six-month job at (is) an asbestos brake plant 35 years ago? (16) Q. In your opinion, can exposure to asbestos (17) at background levels cause mesothelioma? (18) A. it doesn't seem to be the problem that a (19) lot of us feared it would be 30 years ago, not seeing (20) an epidemic of mesothelioma in the general population (21) from urban asbestos exposure. (22) So, there seems to be some good news to Barry I. Castleman, Sc.D. 1/15/99 XMAX(9) Page 35 (1) the level of asbestos that is in the urban air in the (2) city from brake lining wear and from maybe demolition (3) activities associated with buildings that have some (4) asbestos material in them, that sort of thing. (5) Q. Do you have any sense of how many fibers (6) per cubic centimeter that would be? (7) A. It's generally reported in other units (8) because the sampling and analysis is done with an (9) electron microscope, and generally they talk about (10) nanograms per cubic meter. (11) As I recall, the early reports of New York (12) City while they were still using sprayed asbestos, (13) they would sometimes find 30 nanograms per cubic meter (14) in an urban environment like New York, and out in the (15) countryside they would find 1 or less. (16) Q. Would you consider a level of 1/100th of a (17) fiber per cubic centimeter as a background? (18) A. I don't know. I'm not sure where you would (19) draw it because it gets difficult. When you use the (20) optic microscopy method of measuring, below a certain (21) point I'm not sure how reproducible or reliable the (22) numbers are when you start talking about numbers that Page 34 (1) report as far as even though there is some asbestos (2) exposure, that we all have some very small asbestos (3) exposure, the general urban levels of asbestos (4) exposure that exist in this country do not appear to (5) be associated with an epidemic of disease. There may (6) be some people who have gotten mesothelioma because (7) they were especially susceptible, people who have (8) gotten mesothelioma from just the asbestos in the air. (9) Q. But It would be fair to say that general (10) exposure at background levels Is not going to cause (H) mesothelioma; Is that a fair statement? (12) A. I think so. (13) MR. SWARTZ: Rather than object to the form (14) of the question, can you define what you mean by (15) background levels? (16) MR. DANIELS: I will ask him. (17) MR. SWARTZ: Just so we have a (18) clarification. (19) BY MR. DANIELS: (20) Q. Do you understand what I mean by background (21) levels? (22) A. By that let's just say I infer you to mean Page 36 d ) are well below 0.1, which is the occupational exposure (2) limit. (3) The reason that was set for the (4) occupational exposure limit was because, as I (5) understand, it couldn't be reliably measured at levels (6) less than that using a phase-contrast optical (7) microscopy technique. (8) Q. You are not an industrial hygienist; is (9) that correct? do) A. No. (11) Q. So I guess the answer to my question is you d 2) don't really have a judgment one way or the other as (13) to whether 0.01 fibers per cubic centimeter would be (14) background level or not? d 5) A. These things are defined as background 0 6 ) level in some laws, for example, where you have (17) asbestos abatement inside of a building and they have (18) to set some kind of a legal level at what point can (19) this building reoccupied, and so laws might define (20) certain levels as background levels for the purpose of (21) allowing reuse of a building after asbestos abatement (22) has been done, but that is a kind of more legal, Page 33 to Page 36 BSA Missik vs. Owens Corning, et al. Page 37 (1) artificial situation than what you are asking me about (2) in terms of what we are ail exposed to as urban O) background levels of asbestos. (4) Q. With respect to lung cancer, based upon (5) your reading and experience, is there any threshold (6) level necessary to cause lung cancer? (7) A. I don't think so. I don't see any reason (8) why there would be. I think it's generally accepted, O) I should add, by all the international authorities (10) that have ever written about this that there is no (11) level of exposure except zero that can be postulated (12) as free from the risk of cancer from asbestos, (13) including lung cancer. (14) Q. So one could be exposed at very small (15) levels and run the risk of being either exposed to (16) mesothelioma or lung cancer? (17) A. Yes. (18) Qi And have similar thresholds, in your (19) judgment? (20) A. I don't know about that. When you start (21) talking about what the dose response relationship (22) looks like, at real, real low levels, we don't have Barry I. Castleman, Sc.D. 1/15/99_________ XMAX(IQ) Page 39 (1) relationship is in that strain of those kinds of (2) animals, you wouldn't really be able to say what the (3) risks are for people based on rats or mice. (4) Similarly, without human epidemiology, it's (5) even more complicated because you don't have people (6) exposed to a single substance. We don't have the (7) opportunity to study people the way we can study (8) experimental animals, and so you have got all kinds of (9) uncontrolled, uncounted, and mixed exposures to (10) different materials that are things we breathe and eat d 1) and drink in the ordinary course of life. (12) Q. Do you subscribe to the mathematical model (13) that is a straight line from the X/Y axis for the dose (14) response risk for malignancies? (15) A. I think that is generally what is most (16) relied upon by people who are the experts on these (17) things. (18) Q. But as I think you just told me, that (19) essentially is a mathematical model because the data (20) is very difficult to acquire at those kinds of low (21) levels? (22) A. We just don't know. We don't know enough Page 38 (1) any way of knowing in any kind of a satisfyingly (2) scientific way. O) These are all based on extrapolations where (4) we have some picture of what the dose response curve (5) looks tike at the high end and we make extrapolations (6) down to the low end of dose and risk, but we are using (7) mathematical models and certain assumptions about the (8) way the body reacts to these things. O) These are things that can't be directly (10) tested, and if you w ant to know what the one in a (11) million risk is even for rats exposed to a (12) concentration of asbestos in the air, you have got to (13) come up with 10 million rats in the study and not get (14) them wiped out by anything else w hile you are doing d 5 ) the study, even given the abundance of rats that we (16) have in places like Washington, and so to be able to (17) put a study like that together, it would be extremely (18) expensive and difficult to do a study like that, and (19) no one would really go to that trouble. (20) So, because of the large number of (21) experimental animals you would have to use, and then (22) you would only know what the dose response Page 40 (1) about these biological systems to say with certainty (2) just what the low end of these dose response curves is (3) shaped like. We can make educated guesses, but we (4) can't directly measure and confirm the theories. (5) Q. These dose response models really didn't (6) start being created until the 70s; is that a fair (7) statement? (8) A. It just depends what end of the dose O) response curve you are talking about. People have go) been concerned about exposure to toxic substances. (i 1) Since people have been writing occupational exposure (12) limits, they have been looking at this. They have 03) this concept of dose response and this idea that we (14) should set some limits on the exposures that people (15) have based on what is already in the scientific (16) literature so that we don't make people sick with (17) things that are going to ultimately make them sick. (18) We don't need to wait for people to develop (19) a clinical disease in order to take some kind of (20) intervention. That is really the idea behind (21) industrial hygiene sampling and threshold limit values (22) or maximum allowable concentrations. You refer to the i Page 37 to Page 40 BSA Missik vs. Owens Corning, et al. Page 41 (D existing body of literature on lead poisoning; you (2) don't need to wait for the next bunch of workers to (3) get poisoned to know what is going to happen if their (4) exposures are measured at a certain level. (5) Q. But in the '60s, were people doing dose (6) response risk assessments or did that really start (7) taking place in the '70s and '80s? (8) A. I think it goes way back. It goes back to 0 ) the '40s at least when the TLVs started being (1o) recommended, and that was basically this process of (11) trying to determine, given the state of scientific (12) knowledge, given the cost to industry of controlling (13) things like lead dust and smelters, where do the (14) authorities draw the line and say we want exposures to (15) be kept below this level. (16) Q. With regard to asbestosis, are there (17) threshold exposures necessary to start that disease (18) process in your j udgment? (19) A. There probably are, but as I have told you (20) I don't know(21) Q. You don't know what they are? (22) A. - where one might draw the line and what Barry I. Castleman, Sc.D. 1/15/99 XMAX(11) Page 43 (1) A. No, I don't feel comfortable trying to pick (2) numbers of what the risks were for the people working (3) in that plant. I just don't - 1mean, if there were (4) some exposure measurements, I would feel like maybe (5) venturing in that direction, but my qualitative (6) impression is that a lot of people were exposed to a (7) mortal risk at that place, but trying to put numbers (8) on it is another story. (9) Q. Have you reviewed any workers' compensation (10) information to determine whether there are any (11) asbestos related diseases arising out of that (12) facility? (13) A. I understand that the company has been (14) extremely limited in the information that it has been (15) able to produce in this case, and I haven't heard (16) anything about any workers' compensation materials (17) being called for or brought forward by the defendant (18) relating to asbestos related disease. It is certainly (19) possible that there is plenty of asbestos disease that (20) doesn't show up as workers' compensation claims. (21) Q. Would an absence of asbestos related (22) workers' compensation claims be of any significance Page 42 (1) you can do to protect the most susceptible fraction of (2) the population exposed. (3) Q. Based upon your review of the affidavits (4) and any other information that you may have had (5) regarding the conditions of the Masury facility, is (6) there any way to quantify a worker's risk of getting (7) the various asbestos related diseases? (8) A. Yes. People have done this based on O) studies. I told you about one where they estimated (10) that at the current level of exposure recommended as (11) the OSHA standard, there will be out of every thousand (12) workers exposed at that limit for a working lifetime (13) two deaths from asbestosis and five from asbestos (14) related lung cancer. (15) Q. How many mesotheliomas? (16) A. That study didn't estimate mesotheliomas. (17) Q. Based upon the types of exposure, and again (18) I understand you can't quantify those and you are not (19) in a position to do that, but based upon what you have (20) read, are you able to ascribe any statistical risks to (21) a worker at the Masury facility who worked there from (22) the 1960's through the early 1980's? Page 44 (1) one way or the other to your opinion? (2) A. No. If there were a lot of claims, that (3) would tell me something, but the absence of claims (4) doesn't tell me anything. (5) Q. Why not? (6) A. Because of the long latency of the disease, (7) the fact that the typical doctor doesn't know much (8) about occupational disease. You see people who come (9) in with lung cancer, and most of them are smokers, and d o ) as soon as the doctor hears that the guy was a smoker, (11) he doesn't ask any more question about asbestos (12) exposure. Again, I am talking about typical doctors, (13) not doctors who have any special knowledge about (14) occupational diseases or asbestos disease. (15) I can easily imagine mesothelioma being (16) misdiagnosed. It's typically underdiagnosed in the (17) studies that have been published about the prevalence (18) of mesothelioma even today. I'm sure you have d 9) mesothelioma cases where the surgeons do the (20) operations and nobody ever asks a family or tells the (21) family, by the way, this is a disease that is caused (22) by asbestos. Page 41 to Page 44 BSA Missik vs. Owens Corning, et ai. Page 45 (1) Doctors are not exactly eager to involve (2) themselves in legal proceedings. We can go on and on (3) about the reasons for it, but it's easy to imagine (4) that there are plants that produce a lot of asbestos (5) disease that don't have much in the way of workers' (6) compensation claims. (7) Q. And you base that statement upon what? (8) A. Well, the railroads, for example, don't (9) appear to have - at least nothing they produce in (10) discovery indicates that they have had many workers' (11) comp claims relating to asbestos disease, and (12) obviously a lot of asbestos exposure took place in the (13) maintenance of the steam locomotives. That is just (14) one example. (15) Q. Do you know what products were made at the (16) Masury/Sharon facility? (17) A. What products were made? (18) Q. Yes. (19) A. Tank cars. (20) Q. Would the absence of workers' compensation (21) claims, In your opinion, be of any significance (22) regarding GATX's knowledge of the potential risks of Barry L Castleman, Sc.D. 1/15/99 Page 47 (1) But I will ask you, sir, does that refresh (2) your recollection as to when General American (3) Transportation Corporation joined the Industrial (4) Hygiene Foundation and resigned from the Industrial (5) Hygiene Foundation? (6) A. Yes. (7) Q. What were those dates? (8) A. The date joined is given as 10/6/37 and the (9) resign date 1/4/39, and in addition there is a note on (10) the card to the effect that an inquiry was received (11) about membership from Mr. P. H. Gatte, Director of (12) Safety, in June of 1953. (13) Q. If General American rejoined the (14) foundation, would that also have been noted on this (15) card? (16) A. I would think so. (17) Q. So we can safely assume they did not rejoin (18) the foundation despite the inquiry; is that a fair (19) assumption? (20) A. I would assume. (21) Q. During the time of their membership, is it (22) your understanding that General American would have XMAX(12) Page 46 (1) asbestos related disease at its plant? (2) A. No. (3) Q. Why not? (4) A. Well, I don't think that a company the size (5) of this company with the technical and medical and (6) scientific resources the company employed had to await (7) the filing of workers' compensation claims to know (8) that they had a problem with asbestos exposure, and if O) that was the case, you give the company a 30-year (10) headstart on exposing people to these risks before (11) they are considered responsible for knowing about (12) them. From a public health point of view, that is (13) unsettling. (14) MR. SWARTZ: Off the record. (15) (Discussion off the record.) (16) (Castieman Deposition Exhibit 2 was marked (17) for Identification.) (18) BY MR. DANIELS: (19) Q. Dr. Castleman, I am going to hand you what (20) has been marked as Deposition Exhibit 2, which is (21) subject to a protective order and, therefore, I am not (22) going to make it part of this record. Page 48 (1) received the monthly journal? (2) A. Yes. They would have received the (3) Industrial Hygiene Digest. (4) Q. Do you have copies of the Industrial (5) Hygiene Digest from that period of time or the (6) relevant dates? (7) A. I think so. (8) MR. DANIELS: I would just ask that he look (9) through his files, and if there are digests through (10) those relevant dates, I would like to take a look at (11) those. (12) MR. SWARTZ: The general procedure is if he (13) can do that with a minimal expenditure of time, he (14) will do it, but if it takes any great deal of time, (is) you will compensate him for the time he does this (16) research. (17) MR. DANIELS: I absolutely agree with you. (18) BY MR. DANIELS: (19) Q. Doctor, we have talked about the affidavits (20) that you reviewed, and those, as I understand it, (21) essentially gave you a picture of the conditions at (22) the Masury facility; is that a fair statement? i Page 45 to Page 48 BSA Missik vs. Owens Corning, et al. Page 49 (1) A. Yes. (2) Q. And described to some measure the products (3) that were being used; is that correct? (4) A. Yes. (5) Q. Do you know how these products were used in (6) the tank cars? You got a description of the products, (7) but do you know where they went in the tank cars or (8) how they were used? (9) A. I don't have any better picture of it than d 0) what there is in the affidavits. (11) Q. W e also talked about or you identified for (12) me excerpts of the deposition of Mr. Berg. What (13) significance, if any, did that deposition excerpt play (14) in your opinions in this case? (15) A. I am just surprised that to so many of (16) these questions, the answer was "I cannot answer (17) that." I just find it somewhat remarkable that no one (18) that the company was able to produce appeared to be (19) able to answer basic questions about events from the (20) not very distant past. (21) Q. Did you understand that the reason this (22) person wasn't able to answer all these questions was Barry I. Castleman, Sc.D. 1/15/99 XMAX(13) Page 51 (1) access to expertise in such things as dust and fume (2) collection. (3) BY MR. DANIELS: (4) Q. Do you know whether respirators were (5) available at the Masury facility? (6) A. I understand that there were some primitive (7) respirators that some of the workers would use, (8) sometimes wearing half a dozen of them on top of each (9) other in order to protect themselves from the dust. (10) Q. What use, if any, are the primitive (11) respirators in protecting against asbestos related (12) diseases? (13) A. Just about none. (14) Q. Was that known in the '60s? (15) A. It was known in the '60s that you should (16) use Bureau of Mines recommended or Bureau of Mines (17) approved respirators for pneumoconiosis producing (18) dusts and that other kinds of respirators were not (19) considered suitable. (20) Q. When did that become known? (21) A. It goes way back. I don't know how far (22) back, but certainly before the '60s. Page 50 (1) because he wasn't there during the period of time (2) being asked? (3) A. Right. (4) Q. So you are surprised that the company (5) couldn't produce anybody who was there at the relevant (6) time period? (7) A. Or who knew a little bit more about what (8) was going on, who had discussions with people who were (9) there longer than they had been there, things like (10) that. (11) Q. The next item in Deposition Exhibit 1 that (12) we identified was the General American Transportation (13) Corporation annual report from 1957. What (14) significance, if any, did that have in connection with (15) your opinions? (16) MR. SWARTZ; For the record, it's an (17) excerpt. (18) MR. DANIELS: I'm sorry, an excerpt. I (19) meant to say that. (20) THE WITNESS: It talks about how they (21) purchased the Dracco Corporation specializing in dust (22) and fume collecting fields, so they certainly had Page 52 (1) Q. W e also identified as part of Exhibit 1 the (2) history of General American Transportation Corporation (3) by Ralph Epstein. (4) A. Right. (5) Q. What significance, if any, was that excerpt (6) in connection with your opinion? (7) A. It talks about having a corporate medical (8) director, Dr. Edward Lewis. It talks about O) laboratories that they had, a central engineering do) office, research and development laboratories, and (11) different capacities they had to test and analyze all (12) the materials that were used in constructing these (13) products, and manufacturing these products was a (14) pretty sophisticated scientific and engineering (15) activity and they had people that could do that. They (16) had a lot of technical expertise. They mentioned that (17) the engineering department employed 225 people. (18) Q. In connection with your opinions in this (19) case, that is significant why? (20) A. It's significant because this is how you (21) find out about the hazards of materials. It wasn't (22) just in the medical and scientific literature; it was Page 49 to Page 52 BSA Missik vs. Owens Corning, et al. Page 53 0 ) also in engineering and safety publications that (2) asbestos was deadly. (3) Q. Next I am showing you a 1954 brochure, (4) again excerpts, I believe. This may be the whole (5) thing. It is the whole brochure. Page 47. I think (6) It is excerpts. There is a gap here, so it is (7) excerpts from Services and Products of General (8) American Transportation Corporation. (9) Doctor, what is the significance, if any, (10) of that portion of Exhibit 1 in connection with your (11) opinions? (12) A. I think this just generally explains this (13) is the biggest company of its kind in the United (14) States. (15) Q. So, again, this would be significant (16) because of the level of sophistication you expect the (17) company to have; is that correct? (18) Ai Right. I don't see anything else. (19) Q. Finally, I am showing you the last portion (20) of Exhibit 1, which is the Legal Requirements for the (21) Prevention and Control of Industrial Public Health (22) Hazards, Division of Industrial Hygiene, Ohio Barry I. Castleman, Sc.D. 1/15/99 XMAX(14) Page 55 (1) process, material, or condition known to have an (2) adverse effect on health unless reasonable provisions (3) have been made to prevent injury to the health of the (4) employees and of the public." Then they go on and (5) recommend maximum allowable concentrations for (6) eight-hour exposure to different substances including (7) asbestos. (8) Q. What were those concentrations with respect (9) to asbestos? (10) A. 5 million particles per cubic foot. (11) Q. Do you have any reason to believe that the (12) levels at Masury during the '60s were above or below (13) that 5 million particles per cubic foot? d4) A. I'm sure they exceeded 5 million in some d5) cases, but it's a little hard to come up with any kind (16) of quantitative estimate of what the exposures were. (17) Q. Because It's difficult to come up with a (18) quantitative assessment, why are you sure they did in (19) some cases exceed 5 million particles? (20) A. Because the cutting of these kinds of (21) materials and the mixing of the powders are things (22) that have been documented as being very high exposures Page 54 (1) Department of Health, 1946. W hatwasthe (2) significance, if any, of that document to your (3) opinions in this case? . <4) A. Well, this talks about the duties of (5) employers in the state of Ohio. (6) Q. Is there anything in there that you found (7) significant? First let me ask you, have you ever seen (8) that before this case? (9) A. Yes, I have seen this before, and I know (10) Dr. Mancuso, who was largely responsible for writing (11) it. (12) Q. Have you talked to Dr. Mancuso in (13) connection with this case? (14) A. No. (is) Q. Under what circumstances and when did you (16) first see that document? (17) A. I don't remember. It would have been a (18) long time ago. (19) As to regulation 247, for example, on page (20) 15, it says, "No employer shall use or permit to be (21) used in the conduct of his business, manufacturing (22) establishment, or other place of employment any Page 56 (1) In other circumstances. (2) Q. Let's take the powders out of the equation (3) for a moment. If you were simply cutting lubricated (4) packing, you wouldn't get those kinds of exposures, (5) would you? (6) A. You have got not just the cutting of the (7) packing, you have got the material around on the (8) floor, you have got the breezes blowing. It's hard to (9) pick numbers and say what the exposures were. (10) Q. So at least from your point of view, trying (11) to quantify the exposure would be a guess; is that a (12) fair statement? (13) A. I don't feel comfortable trying to quantify (H) the exposure. (15) Q. You gave me some statistics regarding the (16) disease potentials for occupational exposures at the (17) present levels. Are there similar statistics or (18) estimates for occupational exposures at any of the (19) preceding recommended levels from years past, going (20) from 12 at one point and then going down to 2 and 1 (21) and 0.2 and various others levels that we had during (22) various periods of time? Are there any other risk i Page 53 to Page 56 BSA Missik vs. Owens Corning, et al. Page 57 d) analyses, one out of so many people is potentially (2) going to get this disease at this particular level? (3) A. OSHA published figures in 1983 in which (4) they estimated what the risks would be at 2 fibers per (5) cc, which was then the legal limit, and other levels (6) that they were considering. (7) Q. Do you recall what the risk estimates were (8) of 2 fibers per cc? O) A. I think at 2 fibers per cc, they estimated (10) that there would be - let me check. (11) Q. You are referring to your book? (12) A. Yes. (13) Q. I assume you consider your book an (14) authoritative source? (15) A. Yes, but it doesn't have everything, and I (16) don't know if it has the answer to this question or (17) not. (18) What OSHA wrote when they issued their (19) emergency standard in 1983 was that at the 2 fiber per (20) cc level, 6.4 percent of the people exposed would die (21) from asbestos related cancer, and this is on page 358 (22) of the current edition of my book. Barry I. Castleman, Sc.D. 1/15/99 XMAX(15) Page 59 (1) really telling you about the asbestos exposures. (2) Q. Are you familiar with any similar dose (3) response risk assessments for the 12 fibers per cc (4) standard that was briefly enacted? (5) A. I know that the one reason it was briefly (6) used was because people were discrediting it within a (7) short time after it was used, so there was a need to (8) lower it, and I think that was based on the prevalence (9) of asbestosis among people in asbestos manufacturing (10) plants. (11) Q. Do you recall any statistical risk analysis (12) as we have been discussing, one or some percentage of (13) people who would be expected to get asbestos related (14) disease? (15) A. The Public Health Service had something to (16) say about that. I am checking my book again to see if (17) I can find it. (18) The only thing I see on this is on page (19) 330, and the Public Health Service was commenting (20) on - this is based on studies in 1964 or started in (21) 1964 and reported in 1971, and they are talking about (22) cumulative exposures that were associated with damage Page 58 (1) Q. Were there ever any similar risk (2) assessments done for the 5 million particles per cubic (3) foot threshold limit value in the literature that you (4) have read? (5) A. The 5 million particle guideline was a (6) surrogate for a real asbestos exposure limit because (7) it was a total dust count and it used a primitive (8) instrument that only measured magnification up to 100 (9) power. Phase-contrast microscopy goes up to 430 do) power. (11) All the studies that have ever been 0 2 ) published show that the vast majority of the particles (13) that were counted by these dust counting instruments (14) were not asbestos particles, even in asbestos texts on (15) manufacturing plants, and so what they were using was (16) a surrogate measure of the asbestos exposure in its (17) total dust count which might range very widely in the (18) percentage of asbestos fibers that were being sampled, (19) and so that just makes the kind of dose response (20) calculations we are talking about, it seems to me, (21) scientifically impossible, knowing that there is that (22) kind of instability of what the measurements are Page 60 (1) in lung function, and they said that the present (2) mandatory standard of 12 fibers per cc appears to be (3) at least twice and more likely four to six times the (4) value it should be to prevent any health effect, and (5) they are just talking about asbestosis, not cancer. (6) Q. Are you aware of any data that suggests the (7) percentage of people exposed at that level who would (8) be at risk, not at risk but who actually would (9) contract asbestosis or cancer? (io> A. No, I'm not. I can't really tell you much (11) more than what is there. (12) Q. Similarly, I think I may have asked you (13) this in a different way, but I want to make sure I (14) understand your answer. With respect to the 5 million (15) particles per cubic foot, are you aware of any data (16) which would suggest what percentage of people exposed (17) at that level would be likely to contract asbestosis (18) or lung cancer or mesothelioma? (19) A. Asbestosis, you would expect a lot of (20) people to contract the disease. (21) Q. You are talking about a majority? (22) A. I think so. The Public Health Service Page 57 to Page 60 BSA______________ Missik vs. Owens Corning, et al. Page 61 (1) study only covered people whose average age was 32 and (2) whose time in the industry was very limited, but 0 ) taking a look at what they did find, they found what (4) they called numerous, well marked case of asbestosis (5) among people whose exposures were above 5 million <6) particles per cubic foot, and there were other (7) investigators who read the same report in Australia (8) who inferred that 25 million particles per cubic foot 0 ) years is a maximum that should be allowed for lifetime (10) exposure, because cases of disease were found among (11) people with more than that cumulative exposure, and (12) that is just five years of 5 million particles per (13) cubic foot. (14) There were cases presented in the 1938 (15) Public Health Service report with a picture of the (16) X-ray and a description of the case underneath, and (17) some of these people had cumulative exposures of only (18) about 88 or 103 million particles per cubic foot (19) years, roughly 20 years at 5 million, and these were (20) people with some pretty extensive asbestosis, and what (21) this showed was that people could go to work in this (22) industry at age of 18 and have a pretty bad case of Barry I. Castleman, Sc.D. 1/15/99 ______x m a x (i 6> Page 63 (1) The British approach was different from (2) ours. I have told you that they scoffed at the TLV (3) approach, but they did have regulations, the first in (4) the world, starting in the early '30s, and these were (5) regulations aimed at limiting the exposure of the (6) worker, and they had specifications for what needed to (7) be done on different processes of where asbestos (8) products were manufactured. (9) Q. So if someone were exposed at the 5 million (10) particles per cubic foot level for 20 years, you would d 1) expect a certain percentage of those people to (12) contract asbestosis; is that correct? (13) A. I would expect a large percentage. (14) Q. Do you have any ballpark as to what a large (15) percentage is? (16) A. I would expect half of them to have (17) asbestosis. (18) Q. How many would you expect to have asbestos (19) caused lung cancer? (20) A. That Is hard to say because the studies (21) weren't done. To the extent that any studies were (22) done, they were point prevalent studies of asbestosis Page 62 (1) asbestosis by the age of 40. (2) Q. What is the range of latency for (3) asbestosis? (4) A. Well, Merriweather found in England, he (5) didn't find any cases of asbestosis until after five (6) years, but between five and nine, he saw 25 percent of (7) the people had asbestosis. This is in the (8) uncontrolled, unregulated British asbestos industry O) surveyed in the late '20s, and above that the levels do) go up, and by the time you get to people with 20 or d 1) more years in the industry, he found four out of five (12) had asbestosis. These were people who were still d 3) coming to work and being examined on the job. This (U) doesn't count the ones who were too sick or a (15) housewife dying of asbestosis having worked in the (16) asbestos plant before she got married and had (17) children. (18) Q. Those levels of exposures were exceedingly (19) high, correct? (20) A. Some of them were. It's a little hard to (21) say because there wasn't much in the way of (22) measurement done in British plants. Page 64 (1) in work forces exposed to levels that were measured (2) and reported, but cancer is another story. It is not (3) so easy to do. (4) Q. It would be less than the asbestosis, I (5) assume? (6) A. At any given time you wouldn't find many (7) people that are still at the plant working who have (8) got lung cancer. They do pick lung cancer cases up on (9) these screenings but only one or two cases, if that, (10) but in the long run, we know that lung cancer is the (11) leading cause of occupational death among asbestos (12) exposed workers. (13) Q. But you don't have any ballpark as to what (14) percentage of those people would acquire lung cancer? (15) A. We know from insulation worker studies, the (16) good epidemiology studies by Selikoff, about one out (17) of five of these workers dies from lung cancer alone (18) in the total work force. Of all the deaths, one out (19) of five dies of lung cancer. (20) Q. Total asbestos workers? (21) A. Right. (22) Q. Those would be insulators, correct? i Page 61 to Page 64 bsa______________ Missik vs, Owens Corning, et al. Page 65 (1) A. Right, but I would expect a similar (2) situation would apply to asbestos factory workers (3) exposed to 5 million particle per cubic foot. (4) Q. Based upon your review of this file, do you (5) think that the exposure in the GATX plant was similar (6) to that of either Insulators or asbestos manufacturing (7) facility workers? (8) A. It's hard to answer that. There is no <9) measurement data. There is no medical data on the (10) prevalence of asbestos related X-ray abnormalities (11) among the work force. (12) If the employer had ever done systematic (13) medical examination of people who had been employed in (14) the place for 20,30 years, and this could have been (15) done in the 1970's and maybe should have been done (16) under the OSHA regulations that existed in this (17) country at that time, then we might be able to make (18) better guesses about the total that this work force (19) has been exposed to in terms of disease, patient (20) disease. (21) Q. And with respect to mesothelioma at, again, (22) the 5 million particles per cubic foot exposure for 20 Barry I. Castleman, Sc.D. 1/15/99__________ xmax(17) Page 67 (1) manufacturer of the gaskets went and vacuumed all the (2) stuff before they sent it out. So, when it came out (3) of the plant where they had just been punching the (4) stuff, it probably didn't have any dust controls and (5) there is dust all over these products, and it has been () commented upon with respect to brakes and automatic (7) transmission materials and other kinds of asbestos (8) products that there is a problem associated with just (9) removing some of these things from the packing boxes (10) in terms of measurable asbestos exposure. (11) Q. Other than the potential exposure of (12) removing it from the box, in terms of the gasket (13) itself if it is pre-cut and then putting it on a pipe (14) flange or some other place where it is supposed to go, (15) am I going to be exposed to asbestos if that is all I (16) am doing? (17) A. Probably. (18) Q. How? (19) A. Just handling these things. I mean, you (20) have got a surface that gets handled, that gets (21) manipulated, depressed, and it's hard for me to (22) imagine that that is done without any release of Page 66 (D years, do you have any idea of what percentage of (2) people might contract mesothelioma (3) A. No. (4) Q. - exposed at that level? (5) A. No. I don't know how I could come up with (6) numbers. (7) Q. Did you take into consideration in (8) connection with your analysis of this case any use or O) handling of gasketing material at the GATX plant? (10) A. Well, I understand that that was done, but (11) I don't have any information about the extent of it, (12) so I guess the answer would be no. 03) Q. In your opinion and based upon your (14) experience, if one installs a pre-cut gasket, takes it (15) out of the box and puts it where it belongs on a (16) flange or valve or wherever they put it, is there any (17) exposure to asbestos? (18) A. By removing the old gasket? (19) Q. Let's assume they are not. Let's assume (20) it's a new tank car construction. (21) A. Still, just taking these things out of the (22) box, they come with dust on them. It's not like the Page 68 d) fibers from the surface of the material. (2) Q. Have you ever seen any studies that (3) indicated that just handling a pre-cut gasket, again (4) not talking about any dust that may have been out (5) around the box, but just handling a pre-cut gasket or (6) installing a pre-cut gasket releases breathable or (7) respirable fibers? (8) A. I don't think I have ever seen anything on (9) that point specifically. (10) Q. In 1989, EPA considered a ban on asbestos (11) containing products, correct? (12) A. They did more than consider it; they issued (13) regulations. I attended the hearings in 1986, and (14) final rules were issued in 1989. As you also know, (15) I'm sure, there were some affected industry people who (16) challenged that and were successful in overturning the (17) rules in the Court of Appeals. (18) Q. Packing material was exempted from that (19) ban; is that correct? (20) A. Yes, but there is a dirty story there. (21) Q. I didn't manufacture packing material, but (22) my question is packing material was exempted, correct? Page 65 to Page 68 BSA Missik vs. Owens Corning, et al. Page 69 (1) A. It was exempted. The EPA didn't intend to (2) exempt it, but somebody visited the Office of (3) Management and Budget, and the Office of Management (4) and Budget sent the rules back to the EPA, and the (5) only thing they changed was allowing the exemption of (6) packing materials, which will struck me as most (7) curious since there were no longer any asbestos (8) containing packing m aterials manufactured in the O) United States at the time this happened. (10) Q. But certain types of gasket material was (11) also exempted, is that correct, from the ban? (12) A. I think there were some types of gaskets (13) that at least they put off until the last stage for (14) phaseout. I don't know if there were any that were (15) totally exempted. (16) There were three phases of the rule where (17) they would get rid of the stuff that nobody used in (ia) the first phase, and then they would actually do some (19) regulating a few years later and then more regulating (20) a few years after that. The regulations almost (21) amounted to closing the coffin after the industry was (22) dead, but there has been continuing use of asbestos by Barry I. Castleman, Sc.D. 1/15/99________ XMAX(18) Page 71 (1) they were a member of the National Safety Council (2) because the National Safety Council was based In (3) Chicago and the company was in Chicago. There are a (4) lot of railroads. There was a whole railroad section (5) for the National Safety Council. There was a whole (6) chemical industry section, a transportation section. (7) It's hard to imagine that this company wouldn't have (8) been a member of the National Safety Council, but i (9) don't have any information on that. Maybe it will be (10) forthcoming soon. (11) Q. That would have been another potential (12) source of information? (13) A. It certainly would have. The National (14) Safety Council published National Safety News as a (15) regular publication. They had annual meetings that (16) were published as the National Safety Congresses. As (17) far back as the 1930's they were talking about (18) asbestos in these National Safety Congresses, and the (19) inside covers indicate that copies were sent to all (20) member corporations. (21) Q. Other than that possibility that they were (22) a member of the National Safety Council, any other Page 70 (1) some rogue corporations like General Motors even to (2) this day. (3) Q. Are asbestos containing gaskets still (4) manufactured; do you know? (5) A. I believe they are. 1know that even (6) General Motors doesn't use engine gaskets containing (7 ) asbestos in the United States any more. They only do (8) that in Brazil. (9) Q. Other than the membership of GATX in the (10) Industrial Hygiene Foundation and its receipt during (11) that time period of the journal, the digest - and (12) it's my understanding that you believe that during (13) that time period when they received that digest, they (14) would have received information regarding asbestos (15) hazards; is that correct? (16) A. Yes. (17) Q. Do you have any other specific information (18) regarding any specific knowledge that would have been (19) received by General American Transportation in (20) connection with asbestos hazards between 1940 or (21) actually any time up until 1984? (22) A. Well, I would think it highly likely that Page 72 (1) specific information you have regarding specific (2) knowledge of asbestos hazards by General American? (3) A. The company lists that it had some material (4) from OSHA, some material from EPA. I don't know what (5) these materials were, but certainly OSHA and EPA dealt (6) with asbestos as a health hazard. (7) Given the use of asbestos products by the (8) company, I think they might well have been subject to (9) the OSHA asbestos regulations starting in 1972 when (10) the first round of those regulations was published as (11) final rules. (12) Q. Are you aware of any air monitoring that (13) was done at the Masury plant? (14) A. I am not, but, again, if the company was (is) subject to the OSHA asbestos standard in 1972, the (16) standard would have included a responsibility to do (17) periodic air monitoring every six months in the areas (18) covered or for the workers covered. (19) Q. Based upon your review of the file, do you (20) have any opinion regarding the conditions at the (21) Masury/Sharon plant in the early to mid '60s versus (22) the late 70s? Would the conditions have been the t Page 69 to Page 72 BSA Missik vs. Owens Corning, et al. Page 73 (1) same, worse, better, or do you not have an opinion one (2) way or the other? (3) A. I don't see a basis for an opinion one way (4) or the other. I don't see in there anything, for (5) example, in the statements of the company official (6) that suggests that at some point the company woke up (7) to the fact that there was an asbestos hazard and (8) started to reduce the extent of the risk. O) Q. I got off track a little bit. W e talked (10) about the National Safety Council, OSHA, and EPA. Any (11) other specific information that you have regarding (12) specific knowledge by General American Transportation (13) of asbestos hazards? (14) A. Well, since they were based in Chicago, I (15) think that they would probably have been aware, and (16) since they used asbestos materials, I think they would (17) probably have been aware that the Illinois (18) compensation law was changed in 1936 to make (19) asbestosis and silicosis compensable occupational (20) diseases. (21) Previous to that time there had been a (22) flurry of cases in the courts, and various courts had Barry l. Castleman, Sc.D. 1/15/99_________ XMAX(19) Page 75 (1) Q. Any other specific information you have (2) regarding GATX's knowledge of asbestos hazards? (3) A. I am not aware of any contact they had with (4) state government officials, so I don't know whether (5) they would have received any information through such (6) contacts. So, I guess the answer is I can't think of (7) anything else. (8) Q. As I understand it, Dr. Castleman, and I (9) understand you don't know what you are going to opine (10) until you are asked at trial, but the general subject (11) matter of your opinion is going to be the knowledge (12) available regarding asbestos hazards and GATX's (13) ability to get that knowledge; is that correct? (14) A. Right. (15) Q. Do you anticipate giving any opinions in (16) any other areas other than that? (17) A. No. I mean, that is basically what I will (18) testify about. Obviously I can imagine different 09) types of questions or hypotheticals that I might be (20) asked about this case, but what you have asked me is (21) basically the crux of what I would expect to testify. (22) Q. Just to confirm, you are certainly not Page 74 (1) decided that the workers who had occupational diseases (2) couldn't sue their employers and that workers' (3) compensation didn't cover occupational diseases (4) either, and so this led to the changing or expansion (5) of the workers' compensation law to include these (6) occupational diseases, and there was quite a reaction (7) to that. (8) I know that the railroads that operated in (9) the state of Illinois set up what they called a (10) general managers association and started thinking (11) about ways that they could better control the use of (12) asbestos in maintaining the steam locomotives. There (13) was stuff in the newspapers and the general media, (14) radio announcements and things like that, so that is (15) another thing that occurs to my mind as a way that (16) this very large employer might have become acquainted (17) with the problem of asbestos related disease. (18) Q. But you have no specific knowledge (19) regarding the manner in which that would have been (20) communicated to GATX or whether they, in fact, were (21) made aware of that? (22) A. That is correct. Page 76 (1) going to give any estimates of Mr. Missik's exposure; (2) is that correct? (3) A. That is correct. (4) Q. Your opinions are going to be a function of (5) what information was available and what was known at (6) various points in time? (7) A. Right. (8) Q. And to the extent that GATX may have been (9) involved in organizations, what those organizations (10) published and what they disseminated, right? (11) A. Correct. (12) MR. DANIELS: Just to make sure I have a (13) full record, let me mark these. (14) (Castleman Deposition Exhibits 3 and 4 were (15) marked for Identification.) (16) BY MR. DANIELS: (17) Q. Dr. Castleman, 1am handing you what has (18) been marked as Deposition Exhibit 3, which is entitled (19) Castleman Testimony in Trials and Depositions in (20) Asbestos Litigation, 1979 to 1982, and it appears to (21) be updated through 1998? (22) A. Right. Page 73 to Page 76 BSA Mlssik vs. Owens Corning, et al. Page 77 (1) Q. Would you identify that for the record? (2) A. Yes. Lawyers in litigation over the past (3) 20 years kept asking me for a list of trials, and so i (4) have over the years kept a fairly complete list of (5) trial and deposition testimony in which I have been (6) involved. (7) Q. Is that current through the end of 1998? (8) A. I believe it is. I don't think there was (3) anything after December 10 last year. (10) Q. What is your fee structure nowadays? (11) A. $300 an hour. (12) Q. Does that include everything, review, (13) testimony? (14) A. Yes. (15) Q. Travel time? (16) A. Yes. (17) Q. I am handing you what has been marked as (18) Deposition Exhibit 4. Is that a current copy of your (19) CV? (20) A. I believe so. Yes, it is. (21) Q. Are there any additional publications that (22) ought to be on there that are not? Barry I. Castleman, Sc.D. 1/15/99__________ XMAX(20) Page 79 (1) question. (2) Q. Given the levels of exposure described in 0 ) the affidavits that you have relied upon, I assume you (4) would have expected a number of asbestos related (5) diseases to arise from that plant, correct? (6) A. Yes. Yes, I would. (7) Q. I do have one more question. Doctor, would (8) you agree that there has generally been an evolution (9) in our knowledge of asbestos risks, that as we have (10) studied various exposure situations over the years, we (11) have gradually developed knowledge that risks existed (12) at levels of exposure which were not thought in (13) earlier times to cause those same risks? Is that a (14) fair statement? (15) A. Yes. (16) Q. So as we have learned more, we have (17) understood that what we thought in 1960 about (18) potential risks and safe levels are very different (19) from what we know In 1999; is that correct? (20) A. I think that this process took place prior (21) to 1960. I think what people might have thought was (22) okay in the 1930's didn't turn out to be so safe by Page 78 (1) A. No. This is everything or at least (2) everything that I thought was worth listing here. (3) These are major publications. There are other things (4) I have written in magazines and stuff that aren't on (5) here, but this is scientific and medical journal (6) publications, public health publications, books, (7) chapters in books, things like that. (8) Q. Do you have any information that GATX was (9) aware of any asbestos related problems with any of its (10) workers prior to 1984? (11) A. I don't know. I don't know if they did any (12) air sampling, I don't know if they ever got visited by (13) OSHA, I don't know if they ever did any medical (14) monitoring of their employees for the types of X-ray (15) abnormalities you would see with asbestos. I don't (16) know what the company did. (17) Q. Are you aware that GATX was ever made aware (18) that any of its employees had acquired or suspected (19) asbestos related diseases at the Masury facility? (20) A. I don't know. I feel as if the company's (21) efforts to answer basic questions have been so (22) deficient that I am at a complete loss to answer the Page 80 (1) the time people realized the stuff was a carcinogen (2) too, but by 1960 with the reports of Wagner about the (3) neighborhood mesothelioma cases in South Africa and (4) Newhouse and Thompson, the only thing that remained (5) was the quantification, but we already had the basic (6) picture of this stuff as a dreadful hazard that was (7) threatening whole communities, not just small groups (8) of heavily exposed asbestos workers. O) Q. But from a quantification point of view, as (10) we can see by the gradual reduction in the OSHA (11) standards, as time has gone on we have recognized that (12) there may be risks at lower levels than we previously (13) thought; is that correct? (14) A. Well, the OSHA standards cannot be taken as d 5 ) an indication of the progress of scientific knowledge (16) so much as - first of all, there was no OSHA until (17) the 1970's, and then OSHA got started, and their law (18) says that all standards have to be technologically (19) feasible, and every standard that OSHA publishes gets (20) challenged in the courts on the basis of technological (21) feasibility. (22) So, basically they have to weigh the i Page 77 to Page 80 bsa______________ Missik vs. Owens Coming, et al. Page 81 (1) economic impacts against the health impacts and try (2) and come up with something that the courts are going (3) to sustain, and it has been the process of 25 years of (4) the courts chewing on this and trying to figure out (5) where to draw the line, because it is not clear in the (6) law by a long shot where to draw the line. (7) Q. Then let's take OSHA out of my question. (8) Would you agree that there are risks at levels that we 0 ) recognize today that are substantially lower than we (1o) might have thought In terms of those levels that we (11) might have thought 20 years ago? (12) A. I don't think so. (13) Q. You think those levels were established In (14) 1960? (15) A. Not the numbers, but when Newhouse and (16) Thompson reported that you have got a statistically (17) significant excess risk of getting mesothelioma if you (18) live within a half a mile of an asbestos air pollution (19) point source, that tells you plenty. (20) Whether you have got measurements of (21) exposure or not, whether it's electron microscopy (22) measurements or phase-contrast microscopy measurements Barry I. Castleman, Sc.D. 1/15/99__________ xM A xgp Page 83 (1) peak use of asbestos in this country came in 1974. (2) Q. In the 1960's, was it thought that exposure (3) to asbestos at very low levels could cause asbestosls? (4) A. I don't know. Different people published (5) different things. We didn't have good information. (6) We had this old Public Health Service (7) study. We had a TLV that was published in 1946 based (8) on a 1938 Public Health Service study, and only around (9) 1971 did the Public Health Service return to the (10) subject and start coming up with more modern type of (11) information using phase-contrast, fiber counting (12) measurement, and doing more careful examinations of (13) the work force to try and develop some dose response (14) information. (15) Q. So there may have been some confusion (16) regarding the potential for asbestosis at very low (17) levels in the 1960's? (18) A. Oh, sure. We didn't have much in the way (19) of good information. It was just developing, but I (20) think by the 1960's it was clear that the thing you (21) really had to worry about with asbestos exposure was (22) cancer. Asbestosis was certainly a mortal threat, but Page 82 (1) or total dust counts, the idea that the whole (2) community that is living within that radius of an (3) asbestos air pollution point source is at risk of this (4) dreadful disease, this to me was the death knell of (5) the asbestos industry. (6) This should have made it very clear that (7) eventually this was going to have to stop, and it (8) didn't stop right away because there really wasn't any (9) government process to make it happen, and so the use (10) of asbestos in this country kept going on, the use of (11) asbestos in England where those studies were published 0 2 ) in the Times of London, not just the British Journal (13) of Industrial Medicine, the continuing use of asbestos (14) went up in Britain as well, and finally in the 1970's (15) we had a greater public awareness with the (16) environmental movement, more publicity about things (17) like asbestos, all these laws created. (18) In our country, there was a tremendous (19) flurry of laws to protect workers from environmental, (20) occupational, and consumer hazards between 1969 and (21) the early '70s, and all these factors together were (22) what really started to turn this thing around, but the Page 84 (1) the use of asbestos in our society was such that from (2) a public health standpoint, cancer was really the (3) larger concern. (4) Q. And that was a risk at low levels? (5) A. Yes. By the time that people really (6) started looking at mesothelioma in the early '60s, (7) they kept on coming up with all these low level (8) exposures. (9) Q. So that information was really developed (10) throughout th e '60s? (11) A. Right. (12) MR. DANIELS: That is all I have. (13) MR. SWARTZ: Based upon my representation (14) Mr. Page is the Michael Jordan of court reporters, (15) Dr. Castleman has indicated to me that he will waive (16) his signature. (17) (Whereupon, signature having been waived, (18) the deposition of BARRY I. CASTLEMAN was (19) concluded at 12:00 p.m.) (20) (21) (22) .............. Page 81 to Page 84 BSA______________ Missik vs. Owens Corning, et al. ___Barry I. Castleman, Sc.D. Page 85 (1) CERTIFICATE OF STENOTYPE REPORTER - NOTARY PUBLIC (2) (3) I, RUSSELL L. PAGE, JR., Court Reporter, (4) the officer before whom the foregoing deposition was (5) taken, do hereby certify that the witness, BARRY I. (6) CASTLEMAN, was duly sworn by me; that the foregoing (7) transcript is a true, correct, and complete record of (8) the testimony given; that said testimony was taken by (9) me stenographically and thereafter reduced to (10) typewriting by me; and that I am neither counsel for, d 1) related to, nor employed by any of the parties to this (12) litigation and have no interest, financial or d3) otherwise, in its outcome. (U) IN W ITNESS WHEREOF, l have hereunto set my (15) hand and affixed my notarial seal this 27th day of (16) January, 1999. (17) ( 18) i RUSSELL L. PAGE, JR. (19) Notary Public in and for the District of Columbia (20) (21) My Commission expires: (22) February 28,2002 1/15/99 XMAX(22) t Page 85 to Page 85 Basic Systems Applications Missile vs. Owens Corning, et al. Look-See Concordance Report 7:11, 13, 14; 9:15; 63:4 ____________________ -4 - UNIQUE WORDS: 1,503 Total occurrences: 4,718 NOISE WORDS: 385 TOTAL WORDS IN FILE: 13,838 SINGLE FILE CONCORDANCE 40s [1] 41:9 - 6- 60s [8] 41:5; 51:14, 15, 22; 55:12; 72:21; 84:6, 10 CASE SENSITIVE NOISE WORD LlST(S): NOISE.NOI -7 - 70s [4] 40:6; 41:7; 72:22; 82:21 COVER PAGES = 2 INCLUDES ALL TEXT OCCURRENCES DATES OFF IGNORES PURE NUMBERS POSSESSIVE FORMS OFF MAXIMUM TRACKED OCCURRENCE THRESHOLD: 50 NUMBER OF WORDS SURPASSING OCCURRENCE THRESHOLD: 3 LIST OF THRESHOLD WORDS: asbestos [144] exposure [77] people [66] ________ - $ $300 [1] 77:11 _______________- 1 - 1/100th [1] 35:16 1/4/39 [1] 47:9 10/6/37 [1] 47:8 12:00 [1] 84:19 1898-1948 [1] 13:12 2 20s [1] 62:9 27th [1] 85:15 ______ - 3 - 30-year [1] 46:9 30s [5] 80s [1] 41:7 - 8- - A- abatement [2] 36:17,21 ability [1] 75:13 able [11] 20:9; 31:14; 32:18; 38:16; 39:2; 42:20; 43:15; 49:18, 19,22; 65:17 abnormalities [2] 65:10; 78:15 abrasion [1] 18:11 absence [4] 32:2; 43:21; 44:3; 45:20 Absent [1] 32:14 absent [3] 19:14; 31:5; 32:5 absolutely [1] 48:17 abstracted [1] 9:8 abstracts [5] 6:12; 9:11, 17, 18; 14:13 abundance [1] 38:15 abundantly [2] 24:8; 30:12 abuses [1] 21:4 accepted [2] 20:16; 37:8 access [1] 51:1 account [1] 27:4 ACGIH [2] 23:3, 6 acquainted [3] 24:7, 16; 74:16 acquire [2] 39:20; 64:14 acquired [1] 78:18 acronym [1] 24:18 act [1] 21:18 Barry I. Castleman, Sc.D. activities [2] 10:22; 35:3 activity [3] 19:14; 27:2; 52:15 add [2] 23:10; 37:9 addition [4] 8:6; 14:2; 26:14; 47:9 additional [1] 77:21 address [1] 3:16 Administration [1] 27:18 adopted [1] 23:3 adverse [1] 55:2 affected [1] 68:15 affidavit [4] 12:16, 19, 22; 17:2 affidavits [8] 11:11; 15:7; 16:13; 17:15; 42:3; 48:19; 49:10; 79:3 affixed [1] 85:15 Africa [2] 33:2; 80:3 age [7] 22:19; 30:3, 6; 31:18; 61:1, 22; 62:1 agencies [1] 27:20 agree [6] 21:21; 29:18; 32:7; 48:17; 79:8; 81:8 aimed [2] 22:20; 63:5 air [9] 26:20; 34:8; 35:1; 38:12; 72:12, 17; 78:12; 81:18; 82:3 al [1] 3:12 alarming [1] 20:2 allowable [5] 23:7, 18; 26:9; 40:22; 55:5 allowed [1] 61:9 allowing [2] 36:21; 69:5 alone [1] 64:17 AMERICAN [1] 3:6 American [13] 13:6, 11, 15; 22:22; 47:2, 13, 22; 50:12; 52:2; 53:8; 70:19; 72:2; 73:12 Americans [1] 25:16 amounted [1] 69:21 analyses [1] 57:1 analysis [3] 35:8; 59:11; 66:8 analyze [1] 52:11 animal [1] 1/15/99 Concordance by Look~See(23) 24:11 animals [3] 38:21; 39:2, 8 announcements [1] 74:14 annual [5] 8:6; 13:7; 23:6; 50:13; 71:15 answer [14] 11:5; 19:10; 36:11; 49:16, 19, 22; 57:16; 60:14; 65:8; 66:12; 75:6; 78:21,22 answers [1] 12:13 anticipate [4] 4:5; 5:8, 10; 75:15 anybody [3] 24:16; 28:19; 50:5 Anywhere [1] 15:9 apologize [1] 11:16 Appeals [1] 68:17 appear [3] 28:13; 34:4; 45:9 appeared [1] 49:18 appears [2] 60:2; 76:20 applications [1] 16:15 applied [1] 30:7 apply [1] 65:2 appreciate [1] 7:7 approach [3] 25:20; 63:1, 3 approved [1] 51:17 areas [3] 15:17; 72:17; 75:16 aren't [2] 11:10; 78:4 arise [1] 79:5 arising [1] 43:11 arrived [1] 4:17 article [3] 9:3, 5; 26:4 articles [7] 6:12, 13; 9:4, 7, 10; 14:12; 28:6 artificial [1] 37:1 Asbestos [3] 5:2; 9:6; 76:20 Asbestosis [2] 60:19; 83:22 asbestosis [27] 19:22; 22:5, 11, 20; 28:18; 29:22; 41:16; 42:13; 59:9; 60:5, 9, 17; 61:4, 20; 62:1, 3, 5, 7, 12, 15; 63:12, 17, 22; 64:4; 73:19; 83:3, 16 ascribe [1] 42:20 asking [3] From $300 to ascribe Basic Systems Applications Missik vs. Owens Corning, et al. 3:11:37:1; 77:3 asks [1] 44:20 Aspects [1] 5:2 assessment [1] 55:18 assessments [3] 41:6; 58:2; 59:3 associated [8] 8:10; 19:13; 24:9; 29:7; 34:5; 35:3; 59:22; 67:8 association [1] 74:10 assume [9] 4:6; 29:4; 47:17, 20; 57:13; 64:5; 66:19; 79:3 assuming [1] 28:22 assumption [1] 47:19 assumptions [1] 38:7 assure [1] 11:18 attached [1] 11:11 attended [1] 68:13 attitude [2] 25:17; 26:6 attribute [1] 7:18 Austin [2] 13:1; 15:7 Australia [1] 61:7 author [1] 9:5 authoritative [1] 57:14 authorities [4] 22:16; 25:4; 37:9; 41:14 automatic [1] 67:6 available [6] 14:8; 24:16; 31:16; 51:5; 75:12; 76:5 average [2] 22:19; 61:1 await [1] 46:6 aware [10] 60:6, 15; 72:12; 73:15, 17; 74:21; 75:3; 78:9, 17 awareness [1] 82:15 axis [1] 39:13 - B- background [11] 14:8, 16; 33:17; 34:10, 15, 20; 35:17; 36:14, 15, 20; 37:3 ballpark P] 29:15; 63:14; 64:13 Baltimore [1] 3:17 ban [3] 68:10, 19; 69:11 BARRY [3] 3:3; 84:18; 85:5 Barry [2] 3:15; 5:3 base [1] 45:7 Based [6] 28:6; 42:3, 17; 65:4; 72:19; 84:13 based [19] 8:1; 17:17; 21:18; 22:17; 28:17, 18; 31:15; 37:4; 38:3; 39:3; 40:15; 42:8, 19; 59:8, 20; 66:13; 71:2; 73:14; 83:7 basic [3] 49:19; 78:21; 80:5 basically [7] 6:5; 10:10; 21:2; 41:10; 75:17, 21; 80:22 basis [5] 24:17; 28:10, 22; 73:3; 80:20 Bear [1] 14:6 BEHALF [1] 3:6 behind [1] 40:20 believe [8] 9:3; 28:3; 53:4; 55:11; 70:5, 12; 77:8, 20 belongs [1] 66:15 benzine [1] 24:21 Berg [2] 13:4; 49:12 biggest [1] 53:13 biological [1] 40:1 bit [2] 50:7; 73:9 blowing [1] 56:8 body [2] 38:8; 41:1 book [10] 4:19; 5:6, 16; 6:8; 14:7, 15; 57:11, 13, 22; 59:16 books [2] 78:6, 7 box [4] 66:15, 22; 67:12; 68:5 boxes [1] 67:9 brake [2] 33:15; 35:2 brakes [1] 67:6 Brazil [1] 70:8 breathable [1] 68:6 breathe [1] 39:10 breathing [2] 26:18; 27:3 breezes [1] 56:8 Brian [1] Barry I. Castleman, Sc.D. 25:10 brief [1] 7:11 briefly [2] 59:4, 5 Britain [1] 82:14 British [10] 25:3, 4; 26:5, 6; 30:5; 22; 63:1; 82:12 brochure [3] 13:14; 53:3, 5 brothers [1] 31:7 brushing [1] 30:22 Budget [2] 69:3, 4 building [3] 36:17, 19, 21 buildings [1] 35:3 bunch [2] 27:19; 41:2 Bureau [2] 51:16 business [2] 11:1; 54:21 butts [1] 11:8 bystander [3] 20:17; 30:21; 32:14 62:8, _____- c - _____ calculations [1] 58:20 call [1] 18:9 Cancer [1] 9:6 cancer [30] 19:21; 20:14; 22:12; 28:13, 20, 22; 29:1, 8; 30:10; 37:4, 6, 12, 13, 16; 42:14; 44:9; 57:21; 60:5, 9, 18; 63:19; 64:2, 8, 10, 14, 17, 19; 83:22; 84:2 capacities [1] 52:11 car [1] 66:20 carbon [1] 24:1 carcinogen [1] 80:1 card [3] 6:5; 47:10, 15 careful [1] 83:12 cars [3] 45:19; 49:6, 7 case [22] 3:11, 21; 4:2, 10, 18; 5:16; 7:21; 10:5; 12:9; 14:10; 43:15; 46:9; 49:14; 52:19; 54:3, 8, 13; 61:4, 16, 22; 66:8; 75:20 cases [21] 20:7; 30:1,2; 31:9, 14, 15; 32:17, 21, 22; 33:2, 7; 44:19; 1/15/99 Concordance by Look-See(24) 55:15, 19; 61:10, 14; 62:5; 64:8, 9; 73:22; 80:3 CASTLEMAN [3] 3:3; 84:18; 85:6 Castleman [13] 3:9, 15, 19; 5:3; 7:6; 11:20; 46:16, 19; 75:8; 76:14, 17, 19:84:15 caused [5] 19:21; 32:3, 15; 44:21; 63:19 CC [7] 22:9; 57:5, 8, 9, 20; 59:3; 60:2 centimeter [3] 35:6, 17; 36:13 central [1] 52:9 certainty [1] 40:1 CERTIFICATE [1] 85:1 certify [1] 85:5 challenged [2] 68:16; 80:20 change [1] 21:17 changed [2] 69:5; 73:18 changing [1] 74:4 chapter [1] 6:8 chapters [1] 78:7 check [1] 57:10 checking [1] 59:16 chemical [1] 71:6 chewing [1] 81:4 Chicago [4] 8:2; 71:3; 73:14 children [2] 31:7; 62:17 chlorine [1] 23:22 circumstances [2] 54:15; 56:1 citations [1] 28:11 cited [1] 28:14 City [1] 35:12 city [1] 35:2 claims [8] 43:20,22;44:2, 3; 45:6, 11, 21; 46:7 Clarence [1] 12:22 clarification [1] 34:18 clarity [1] 11:17 clear [8] 11:13; 24:8; 28:16; 30:12; 31:3; 81:5; 82:6; 83:20 From asks to clear Basic Systems Applications Missik vs. Owens Corning, et al. clinical [1] 40:19 closing [1] 69:21 co-workers [1] 11:5 coach [1] 11:18 coacher [1] 11:19 coat [1] 30:22 coffin [1] 69:21 collecting [1] 50:22 collection [1] 51:2 Columbia [1] 85:19 comfortable [3] 19:10; 43:1; 56:13 coming [5] 20:2, 4; 62:13; 83:10; 84:7 commented [1] 67:6 commenting [1] 59:19 Commission [1] 85:21 committee [1] 23:10 communicated [1] 74:20 communities [1] 80:7 community [1] 82:2 comp [1] 45:11 companies [3] 8:5, 7; 29:4 company [27] 4:12, 14; 10:17, 18; 11:6; 21:15, 17, 19; 29:13; 43:13; 46:4, 5, 6, 9; 49:18; 50:4; 53:13, 17; 71:3, 7; 72:3, 8, 14; 73:5, 6; 78:16, 20 compared [1] 31:10 comparisons [1] 31:21 compensable [1] 73:19 compensate [1] 48:15 compensation [10] 43:9, 16, 20,22; 45:6, 20; 46:7; 73:18; 74:3, 5 competing [2] 29:21; 30:10 complete [5] 11:4; 28:10; 77:4; 78:22; 85:7 completely [1] 15:15 complicated [1] 39:5 compound [2] 17:9; 18:20 concentration [3] 26:20; 27:6; 38:12 concentrations [7] 23:8, 18,21; 26:10; 40:22; 55:5, 8 concept [2] 23:12; 40:13 concern [1] 84:3 concerned [2] 20:22; 40:10 concerning [1] 10:6 concluded [1] 84:19 condition [1] 55:1 conditions [5] 26:16; 42:5; 48:21; 72:20,22 conduct [1] 54:21 Conference [1] 23:1 confirm [2] 40:4; 75:22 confusion [1] 83:15 Congress [1] 27:19 Congresses [2] 71:16, 18 connection [15] 4:1, 9; 7:20; 10:4; 12:9; 14:4, 14, 15; 50:14; 52:6, 18; 53:10; 54:13; 66:8; 70:20 consider [3] 35:16; 57:13; 68:12 considerable [1] 18:17 consideration [1] 66:7 considered [3] 46:11; 51:19; 68:10 considering [1] 57:6 constantly [1] 25:12 constructing [1] 52:12 construction [1] 66:20 consumer [1] 82:20 contact [9] 15:21; 20:11; 30:18,22; 31:5; 32:2, 5; 75:3 contacts [1] 75:6 contain [1] 21:13 contained [4] 6:12; 8:19,22; 21:9 containing [5] 21:8; 68:11; 69:8; 70:3, 6 continual [1] 16:4 continually [1] 16:2 continue [1] 25:22 continuing [2] 69:22; 82:13 Barry I. Castleman, Sc.D. continuous [1] 8:4 contract [5] 60:9, 17, 20; 63:12; 66:2 Control [2] 13:21; 53:21 control [3] 19:15:31:10; 74:11 controlling [2] 27:22; 41:12 controls [2] 30:7; 67:4 copies [6] 9:10, 14, 17,21; 48:4; 71:19 copy [1] 77:18 Corning [2] 3:12,21 corporate [2] 6:11; 52:7 CORPORATION [1] 3:7 Corporation [9] 3:12; 13:7, 11, 15; 47:3; 50:13,21; 52:2; 53:8 corporations [2] 70:1; 71:20 cost [1] 41:12 Council [8] 8:1; 71:1, 2, 5, 8, 14,22; 73:10 counsel [2] 6:4; 85:10 count [3] 58:7, 17; 62:14 counted [2] 31:3; 58:13 counting [2] 58:13; 83:11 countries [3] 21:5; 26:9; 30:7 country [9] 20:21; 21:5; 27:9, 17; 34:4; 65:17;82:10, 18; 83:1 countryside [1] 35:15 counts [1] 82:1 course [1] 39:11 Court [2] 68:17; 85:3 court [1] 84:14 courts [5] 73:22; 80:20; 81:2, 4 cover [1] 74:3 covered [3] 61:1; 72:18 covers [1] 71:19 created [2] 40:6; 82:17 critiques [1] 27:9 crux [1] 75:21 cubic [18] 22:17; 27:13; 35:6, 10, 13, 1/15/99 Concordance by Look-See(25) 17; 36:13; 55:10, 13; 58:2; 60:15; 61:6, 8, 13, 18; 63:10; 65:3, 22 cumulative [3] 59:22; 61:11, 17 curious [1] 69:7 current [4] 42:10; 57:22; 77:7, 18 curve [2] 38:4; 40:9 curves [1] 40:2 CUt [5] 16:18; 17:4, 6,21; 18:5 cutting [10] 16:11, 16; 18:17,21; 19:1, 14, 18; 55:20; 56:3, 6 CV[1] 77:19 cycle [1] 18:16 D damage [1] 59:22 DANIELS [17] 3:8; 7:5, 10; 8:16; 11:14, 22; 34:16, 19; 46:18; 48:8, 17, 18; 50:18; 51:3; 76:12, 16; 84:12 Daniels [1] 3:9 data [5] 39:19; 60:6, 15; 65:9 date [2] 47:8, 9 dates [3] 47:7; 48:6, 10 David [1] 13:4 day [3] 20:14; 70:2; 85:15 days [1] 29:21 dead [1] 69:22 deadly [1] 53:2 deal [1] 48:14 dealt [1] 72:5 death [4] 30:2; 31:18; 64:11; 82:4 deaths [3] 22:9; 42:13; 64:18 decedent [1] 33:14 December [1] 77:9 decided [1] 74:1 declared [1] 30:14 defendant [4] 4:11; 10:16; 12:13; 43:17 defendants [1] 5:15 deficient [1] From clinical to deficient Basic Systems Applications M is s ik v s . O w ens Corning, et al. 78:22 define [2] 34:14; 36:19 defined [1] 36:15 demolition [1] 35:2 Department [1] 54:1 department [2] 10:20;52:17 Depending [1] 18:4 depends [2] 21:22; 40:8 Deposition [9] 11:20; 12:2; 16:21; 46:16, 20; 50:11; 76:14, 18; 77:18 deposition [6] 13:4; 49:12, 13; 77:5; 84:18; 85:4 Depositions [1] 76:19 depressed [1] 67:21 describe [1] 23:17 described [8] 6:8, 15; 9:4; 16:13; 17:1; 25:13; 49:2; 79:2 describing [2] 10:16; 17:18 description [3] 15:13; 49:6; 61:16 descriptions [2] 15:1, 5 despite [1] 47:18 detailed [1] 33:1 determine [2] 41:11; 43:10 determined [1] 26:21 determines [1] 27:3 determining [1] 22:20 develop [3] 20:9; 40:18; 83:13 developed [2] 79:11; 84:9 developing [1] 83:19 development [1] 52:10 device [1] 16:13 die [1] 57:20 died [1] 30:2 dies [2] 64:17, 19 difference [2] 18:5; 21:12 difficult [4] 35:19; 38:18; 39:20; 55:17 Digest [7] 6:10, 17; 8:18; 9:9, 15; 48:3, 5 digest [7] 6:11; 8:6; 9:1, 17, 22; 70:11, 13 digests [1] 48:9 direction [1] 43:5 Director [1] 47:11 director [2] 10:18; 52:8 directors [1] 29:6 dirty [1] 68:20 discovery [1] 45:10 discrediting [1] 59:6 discussing [2] 33:6; 59:12 Discussion [2] 8:15; 46:15 discussions [2] 4:17; 50:8 disease [29] 6:13; 14:9; 15:19; 20:3, 9; 22:4; 29:19; 33:9; 34:5; 40:19; 41:17; 43:18, 19; 44:6, 8, 14, 21; 45:5, 11; 46:1; 56:16; 57:2; 59:14; 60:20; 61:10; 65:19, 20; 74:17; 82:4 diseases [11] 21:22; 42:7; 43:11; 44:14; 51:12; 73:20; 74:1, 3, 6; 78:19; 79:5 disseminated [1] 76:10 distant [1] 49:20 District [1] 85:19 Division [1] 53:22 Doctor [3] 48:19; 53:9; 79:7 doctor [3] 26:11; 44:7, 10 doctoral [1] 14:7 Doctors [1] 45:1 doctors [2] 44:12, 13 document [3] 6:3; 54:2, 16 documentation [1] 28:8 documentations [1] 28:15 documented [2] 25:1; 55:22 documents [10] 10:8, 10; 11:2; 12:3, 6, 8, 12; 14:3, 4, 13 Doesn't [1] 33:8 doesn't [9] 21:17; 33:18; 43:20; 44:4, 7, 11; 57:15; 62:14; 70:6 Barry I. Castleman, Sc.D. dose [13] 37:21; 38:4, 6, 22; 39:13; 40:2, 5, 8, 13; 41:5; 58:19; 59:2; 83:13 downward [1] 25:12 dozen [1] 51:8 Dr [10] 3:9, 19; 7:6; 46:19; 52:8; 54:10, 12; 75:8; 76:17; 84:15 Dracco [1] 50:21 draw [5] 35:19; 41:14, 22; 81:5, 6 dreadful [2] 80:6; 82:4 drink [1] 39:11 Drinker [1] 25:7 drugs [1] 26:13 dry [2] 16:6; 18:15 drying [1] 17:10 duly [2] 3:4; 85:6 dust [16] 16:2, 3; 22:17; 24:1; 41:13; 50:21; 51:1, 9; 58:7, 13, 17; 66:22; 67:4, 5; 68:4; 82:1 dusts [1] 51:18 duties [2] 10:13; 54:4 dying [2] 29:22; 62:15 - E- eager [1] 45:1 early [9] 20:16; 29:21; 30:12; 35:11; 42:22; 63:4; 72:21; 82:21; 84:6 easily [1] 44:15 easy [2] 45:3; 64:3 eat [1] 39:10 economic [1] 81:1 edition [4] 5:3, 5, 13; 57:22 editions [1] 5:9 educated [1] 40:3 Edward [1] 52:8 effect [4] 28:2; 47:10; 55:2; 60:4 effects [3] 24:4; 25:1; 28:4 efforts [1] 78:21 eight-hour [1] 1/15/99 Concordance by Look-See(26) 55:6 electron [3] 32:12; 35:9; 81:21 emergency [1] 57:19 employ [1] 29:6 employed [6] 16:8; 27:1; 46:6; 52:17; 65:13;85:11 employees [3] 55:4; 78:14, 18 employer [3] 54:20; 65:12; 74:16 employers [3] 10:13; 54:5; 74:2 employment [2] 30:6; 54:22 enacted [1] 59:4 end [6] 20:22; 38:5, 6; 40:2, 8; 77:7 engaged [1] 3:19 engagement [3] 4:1, 9; 5:18 engagements [1] 14:15 engine [1] 70:6 engineering [6] 10:20,21;52:9, 14, 17; 53:1 England [5] 20:21; 25:6; 30:1; 62:4; 82:11 entirety [1] 14:4 entitled [2] 5:2; 76:18 environment [9] 15:2, 13; 16:1; 26:17, 18,22; 32:8, 16; 35:14 environmental [3] 8:3; 82:16, 19 environments [2] 15:4, 5 EPA [6] 68:10; 69:1, 4; 72:4, 5; 73:10 epidemic [2] 33:20; 34:5 epidemiological [2] 20:8; 24:12 epidemiology [2] 39:4; 64:16 Epstein [2] 13:12; 52:3 equation [1] 56:2 equipment [1] 16:4 essentially [2] t 39:19; 48:21 established [5] 20:1,5, 16; 27:18; 81:13 establishment [1] 54:22 estimate [3] 29:16; 42:16; 55:16 estimated [4] 22:7; 42:9; 57:4, 9 estimates [3] From define to estimated Basic Systems Applications Missik vs. Owens Corning, et al. 56:18; 57:7; 76:1 et [1] 3:12 events [1] 49:19 eventually [1] 82:7 evidence [1] 33:12 evolution [1] 79:8 exactly [6] 5:22; 8:12; 11:15; 14:22; 15:22; 45:1 EXAMINATION [1] 3:6 examination [1] 65:13 examinations [1] 83:12 examined [2] 3:5; 62:13 example [6] 27:10; 36:16; 45:8, 14; 54:19; 73:5 exceed [1] 55:19 exceeded [1] 55:14 exceedingly [1] 62:18 except [2] 30:14; 37:11 excerpt [4] 49:13;50:17, 18; 52:5 excerpts [7] 13:3, 7, 10; 49:12; 53:4, 6, 7 excess [3] 31:9; 32:4; 81:17 exempt [1] 69:2 exempted [5] 68:18,22;69:1, 11, 15 exemption [1] 69:5 exhaust [1] 19:15 Exhibit [12] 11:20; 12:2; 14:2; 16:21; 46:16,20; 50:11; 52:1; 53:10, 20; 76:18; 77:18 Exhibits [1] 76:14 exist [1] 34:4 existed [2] 65:16; 79:11 existence [2] 9:19; 27:13 existing [1] 41:1 expansion [1] 74:4 expect [8] 53:16; 60:19; 63:11, 13, 16, 18; 65:1; 75:21 expected [2] 59:13; 79:4 expenditure [1] 48:13 expensive [1] 38:18 experience [2] 37:5; 66:14 experimental [2] 38:21; 39:8 expertise [3] 29:6; 51:1; 52:16 experts [1] 39:16 expires [1] 85:21 explained [1] 28:10 explains [1] 53:12 exposed [22] 15:18; 22:10; 27:7; 37:2, 14, 15; 38:11; 39:6; 42:2, 12; 43:6; 57:20; 60:7, 16; 63:9; 64:1, 12; 65:3, 19; 66:4; 67:15; 80:8 exposing [1] 46:10 exposures [22] 17:17; 19:13; 24:2; 28:3; 29:13; 39:9; 40:14; 41:4, 14, 17; 55:16, 22; 56:4, 9, 16, 18; 59:1,22; 61:5, 17; 62:18; 84:8 expressed [1] 26:6 extensive [1] 61:20 extent [5] 7:5; 63:21; 66:11; 73:8; 76:8 extrapolations [2] 38:3, 5 extremely [2] 38:17; 43:14 - F- facility [10] 21:9; 29:10; 42:5, 21; 43:12; 45:16; 48:22; 51:5; 65:7; 78:19 fact [3] 44:7; 73:7; 74:20 factories [1] 26:7 factors [2] 26:14; 82:21 factory [2] 25:6; 65:2 fair [8] 17:12; 34:9, 11; 40:6; 47:18; 48:22; 56:12; 79:14 fairly [1] 77:4 familiar [3] 4:13; 23:12; 59:2 family [2] 44:20, 21 feared [1] 33:19 feasibility [1] 80:21 feasible [1] 80:19 February [1] 85:22 Barry I. Castleman, Sc.D. fee [1] 77:10 Feel [1] 16:21 feel [5] 19:10; 43:1, 4; 56:13; 78:20 fiber [6] 18:6; 19:2, 19; 35:17; 57:19; 83:11 Fiberglas [2] 3:12,21 fibers [11] 22:9; 35:5; 36:13; 57:4, 8, 9; 58:18; 59:3; 60:2; 68:1, 7 fields [1] 50:22 fifth [1] 5:13 figure [2] 10:2; 81:4 figures [1] 57:3 file [2] 65:4; 72:19 files [6] 6:5; 7:16; 10:5; 12:8; 14:3; 48:9 filing [1] 46:7 final [2] 68:14; 72:11 financial [1] 85:12 find [11] 5:22; 32:12, 20; 35:13, 15; 49:17; 52:21; 59:17; 61:3; 62:5; 64:6 finding [1] 7:15 First [1] 54:7 first [11] 3:4; 23:7, 9; 25:20; 28:8; 30:1; 54:16; 63:3; 69:18; 72:10; 80:16 five [9] 22:11; 23:10; 42:13; 61:12; 62:5, 6, 11; 64:17, 19 five-year [1] 9:1 flange [2] 66:16; 67:14 floor [1] 56:8 floors [1] 16:4 Flory [1] 5:1 flow [1] 8:4 flurry [2] 73:22; 82:19 focus [2] 18:19,21 follows [1] 3:5 font [1] 8:2 foot [13] 22:17; 27:13; 55:10, 13; 58:3; 60:15; 61:6, 8, 13, 18; 1/15/99 Concordance by Look-See(27) 63:10; 65:3, 22 force [5] 22:21; 64:18; 65:11, 18; 83:13 forces [1] 64:1 foregoing [2] 85:4, 6 forgotten [1] 6:22 form [2] 14:16; 34:13 forthcoming [1] 71:10 forward [1] 43:17 found [8] 6:1; 31:8; 33:3; 54:6; 61:3, 10; 62:4, 11 Foundation [13] 4:15; 6:2, 6, 21; 7:20, 22; 9:19; 10:7; 12:7; 27:11; 47:4, 5; 70:10 foundation [4] 8:8, 19; 47:14, 18 founded [1] 6:8 founder [1] 10:16 four [2] 60:3; 62:11 four-inch [1] 17:2 fourth [2] 5:2, 11 fraction [1] 42:1 free [2] 16:21; 37:12 frequent [1] 15:16 full [1] 76:13 fume [2] 50:22; 51:1 function [2] 60:1; 76:4 future [1] 5:8 -G - gap [1] 53:6 gas [1] 23:22 gasket [7] 66:14, 18; 67:12; 68:3, 5, 6; 69:10 gasketing [1] 66:9 gaskets [4] 67:1; 69:12; 70:3, 6 Gatte [1] 47:11 GATX [21] 5:15, 20; 6:20; 7:16, 19; 8:12; 9:22; 10:6; 12:14; 21:9; 29:11; 45:22; 65:5; 66:9; 70:9; 74:20; 75:2, 12; 76:8; 78:8, 17 From et to GATX Basic Systems Applications Missik vs. Owens Corning, et al. gave [2] 48:21; 56:15 generated [1] 16:3 generic [1] 23:19 German [1] 9:5 gets [4] 35:19; 67:20; 80:19 give [3] 14:11; 46:9; 76:1 Given [2] 72:7; 79:2 given [6] 38:15;41:11, 12;47:8;64:i 85:8 giving [1] 75:15 glance [1] 28:20 gleaned [1] 9:18 goes [4] 41:8; 51:21; 58:9 gotten [3] 15:9; 34:6, 8 government [2] 75:4; 82:9 Governmental [1] 23:1 governmental [2] 21:4; 27:16 gradual [1] 80:10 gradually [1] 79:11 great [1] 48:14 greater [1] 82:15 Greer [3] 12:17; 15:7; 17:2 group [3] 12:3, 12; 23:16 groups [1] 80:7 growing [1] 21:1 guarantee [1] 24:19 guess [5] 17:16; 36:11; 56:11; 66:1i 75:6 guesses [2] 40:3; 65:18 guideline [3] 22:15; 23:4; 58:5 guy [3] 25:5, 10; 44:10 - H- hadn't [1] 24:10 half [4] 30:15; 51:8; 63:16; hand [2] 46:19; 85:15 handing [2] 76:17; 77:17 81:18 handled [1] 67:20 handling [4] 66:9; 67:19; 68:3, 5 hard [8] 33:12; 55:15; 56:8; 62:20; 63:20; 65:8; 67:21; 71:7 harmful [2] 24:3; 28:4 Harvard [1] 25:7 Harvey [1] 25:10 haven't [2] 32:18; 43:15 hazard [4] 19:12; 72:6; 73:7; 80:6 hazardous [5] 8:10; 10:12; 25:19, 21; 26:1 Hazards [2] 13:22; 53:22 hazards [13] 19:19; 21:15, 16; 24:9; 27:22; 52:21; 70:15, 20; 72:2; 73:13; 75:2, 12; 82:20 head [1] 9:2 headstart [1] 46:10 Health [14] 13:22; 22:18; 23:5; 27:18; 28:18; 53:21; 54:1; 59:15, 19; 60:22; 61:15; 83:6, 8, 9 health [16] 6:14; 8:3; 19:11, 16; 24:3; 27:17, 22; 46:12; 55:2, 3; 60:4; 72:6; 78:6; 81:1; 84:2 heard [1] 43:15 hearings [1] 68:13 hears [1] 44:10 heat [2] 18:11; 26:16 heavily [1] 80:8 held [1] 8:6 hereby [1] 85:5 hereunto [1] 85:14 high [3] 38:5; 55:22; 62:19 highly [1] 70:22 Hine [1] 5:1 histories [2] 31:10, 11 history [7] 10:17; 13:10; 14:21; 32:19, 21; 33:3; 52:2 Hospital [1] 31:16 hospital [1] 31:18 hot [1] 26:18 hour [1] Barry I. Castleman, Sc.D. 77:11 hours [1] 26:16 household [6] 20:11; 30:18; 31:5, 6; 32:2, 5 housewife [1] 62:15 human [2] 26:13; 39:4 husband [1] 31:8 Hygiene [21] 4:15; 6:2, 6, 10, 17, 21; 7:19, 22; 8:18; 9:9, 15, 19; 10:7; 12:7; 27:11; 47:4, 5; 48:3, 5; 53:22; 70:10 hygiene [1] 40:21 hygienist [1] 36:8 Hygienists [1] 23:1 hygienists [1] 19:6 hypothetical [1] 75:19 - I- iced [1] 20:21 idea [6] 17:17; 25:11; 40:13, 20; 66:1; 82:1 identifiable [1] 33:5 Identification [3] 11:21; 46:17; 76:15 identification [1] 12:2 identified [3] 49:11;50:12; 52:1 identify [2] 32:18; 77:1 IHF [1] 6:11 Illinois [2] 73:17; 74:9 imagine [5] 44:15; 45:3; 67:22; 71:7; 75:18 immediate [1] 16:8 impacts [2] 81:1 impossible [1] 58:21 impression [1] 43:6 include [2] 74:5; 77:12 included [1] 72:16 increase [1] 30:17 index [1] 6:5 indicate [1] 71:19 indicated [3] 5:18; 68:3; 84:15 1/15/99 Concordance by Look-See(28) indicates [1] 45:10 indication [1] 80:15 Industrial [28] 4:15; 6:2, 6, 10, 17, 21; 7:19, 22; 8:18; 9:8, 14, 18; 10:7; 12:7; 13:22; 19:6; 23:1; 25:5; 26:5; 27:11; 47:3, 4; 48:3, 4; 53:21, 22; 70:10; 82:13 industrial [9] 6:7, 14; 8:10; 21:2, 4; 24:10; 27:22; 36:8; 40:21 industry [13] 21:1; 29:22; 30:5; 41:12; 61:2, 22; 62:8, 11; 68:15; 69:21; 71:6; 82:5 infer [1] 34:22 inferred [1] 61:8 information [30] 5:20; 7:4, 6, 15; 8:2, 5, 19, 22; 10:6; 11;9; 15:10; 42:4; 43:10, 14; 66:11; 70:14, 17; 71:9, 12; 72:1; 73:11; 75:1, 5; 76:5; 78:8; 83:5, 11, 14, 19; 84:9 initial [1] 18:17 injury [1] 55:3 inquiry [2] 47:10, 18 inside [2] 36:17; 71:19 inspector [1] 26:7 inspectorate [1] 25:6 instability [1] 58:22 installing [1] 68:6 installs [1] 66:14 instances [1] 32:15 instrument [1] 58:8 instruments [1] 58:13 insulation [1] 64:15 insulators [2] 64:22; 65:6 integral [1] 10:22 intend [1] 69:1 i intended [1] 28:21 interest [1] 85:12 international [1] 37:9 interrogatories [1] 12:14 interrupting [1] 11:16 From gave to interrupting Basic Systems Applications Missik vs. Owens Corning, et al. intervention [1] 40:20 investigators [1] 61:7 24:12, 13; 29:5; 33:6; 38:20; 63:13, 14; 74:16 largely [1] 54:10 involve [1] 45:1 involved [3] 17:17; 76:9; 77:6 irresponsible [1] 21:3 issue [1] 23:6 issued [3] 57:18; 68:12, 14 issues [2] 8:4, 9 item [1] 50:11 - J- January [1] 85:16 job [4] 16:1; 27:20; 33:14; 62:13 jobs [1] 14:21 joined [2] 47:3, 8 Jordan [1] 84:14 Journal [3] 25:4; 26:5; 82:12 journal [3] 48:1; 70:11; 78:5 JR [2] 85:3, 18 Jr [1] 13:1 judgment [4] 11:12; 36:12; 37:19; 41:18 June [1] 47:12 - K- keep [1] 25:18 kept [7] 21:1; 24:22; 41:15; 77:3, 4; 82:10; 84:7 kinds [11] 6:13; 18:6; 27:9; 33:6; 39:1, 8,20; 51:18; 55:20; 56:4; 67:7 knell [1] 82:4 knowing [3] 38:1; 46:11; 58:21 knowledge [17] 14:9; 17:13; 19:17; 21:18; 41:12; 44:13; 45:22; 70:18; 72:2; 73:12; 74:18; 75:2, 11, 13; 79:9, 11; 80:15 ______ - L - laboratories [2] 52:9, 10 Lancet [1] 26:8 large [8] larger [2] 17:3; 84:3 last [3] 53:19; 69:13; 77:9 late [5] 6:9; 7:14; 9:8; 62:9; 72:22 latency [2] 44:6; 62:2 latest [1] 28:14 law [7] 10:11, 13; 27:18; 73:18; 74:5; 80:17; 81:6 laws [4] 36:16, 19; 82:17, 19 Lawyers [1] 77:2 lead [4] 24:1, 3; 41:1, 13 leading [1] 64:11 learn [1] 8:8 learned [1] 79:16 learning [1] 10:5 Legal [3] 5:2; 13:20; 53:20 legal [5] 8:9; 36:18, 22; 45:2; 57:5 level [27] 22:3, 10, 13, 22; 25:22; 27:5; 29:2; 30:13; 33:9; 35:1, 16; 36:14, 16, 18; 37:6, 11; 41:4, 15; 42:10; 53:16; 57:2, 20; 60:7, 17; 63:10; 66:4; 84:7 levels [37] 19:13; 22:1; 24:3; 25:2; 28:4; 29:10, 18; 33:17; 34:3, 10, 15,21; 36:5, 20; 37:3, 15,22; 39:21; 55:12; 56:17, 19,21; 57:5; 62:9, 18; 64:1; 79:2, 12, 18; 80:12; 81:8, 10, 13; 83:3, 17; 84:4 Lewis [1] 52:8 library [1] 5:1 life [2] 18:16; 39:11 lifetime [4] 22:10; 24:11; 42:12; 61:9 limit [14] 22:8; 23:13, 15; 25:18; 28:17, 21; 36:2, 4; 40:21; 42:12; 57:5; 58:3, 6 limited [3] 24:17; 43:14; 61:2 limiting [3] 28:17; 30:5; 63:5 limits [5] 23:20; 24:21; 25:11; 40:12, 14 line [6] 25:20; 39:13; 41:14,22; 81:5, 6 Barry I. Castleman, Sc.D. lining [1] 35:2 list [4] 23:9, 11; 77:3, 4 listing [1] 78:2 lists [2] 23:7; 72:3 literature [9] 6:16; 17:18; 20:1, 3; 26:12; 40:16; 41:1; 52:22; 58:3 Litigation [1] 76:20 litigation [2] 77:2; 85:12 live [5] 30:4, 8, 9, 15; 81:18 living [5] 30:22; 31:6; 32:8, 16; 82:2 local [1] 19:14 locomotives [2] 45:13; 74:12 London [2] 31:16; 82:12 long-term [1] 24:11 looks [3] 13:14; 37:22; 38:5 loss [1] 78:22 lot [10] 15:14; 24:8; 33:19; 43:6; 44:2; 45:4, 12; 52:16; 60:19; 71:4 low [8] 37:22; 38:6; 39:20; 40:2; 83:3, 16; 84:4, 7 lower [6] 25:1, 2; 29:18; 59:8; 80:12; 81:9 lubricant [1] 18:10 lubricated [5] 18:2, 8, 22; 19:18; 56:3 lubrication [1] 18:12 lung [16] 22:11;37:4, 6, 13, 16; 42:14; 44:9; 60:1, 18; 63:19; 64:8, 10, 14, 17, 19 lungs [2] 32:9, 13 -M - machine [1] 26:11 magazines [1] 78:4 magnification [1] 58:8 maintaining [1] 74:12 maintenance [1] 45:13 major [1] 78:3 majority [3] 33:7; 58:12; 60:21 malignancies [1] 1/15/99 Concordance by Look-See(29) 39:14 man [2] 25:6; 26:10 Management [2] 69:3 managers [1] 74:10 Mancuso [2] 54:10, 12 mandatory [1] 60:2 manipulated [1] 67:21 manipulations [1] 17:19 manner [4] 15:16; 17:14; 21:18; 74:19 manufacture [1] 68:21 manufactured [3] 63:8; 69:8; 70:4 manufacturer [3] 28:2; 29:2; 67:1 manufacturing [7] 20:13; 31:4; 52:13; 54:21; 58:15; 59:9; 65:6 mark [2] 4:22; 76:13 marked [8] 11:20; 12:1; 46:16,20; 61:4; 76:15, 18; 77:17 married [1] 62:16 Maryland [1] 3:17 Masury [10] 29:10; 42:5,21; 45:16; 48:22; 51:5; 55:12; 72:13, 21; 78:19 material [20] 16:17; 17:10; 18:2, 8; 19:1; 25:19; 26:1; 31:16; 35:4; 55:1; 56:7; 66:9; 68:1, 18, 21,22; 69:10; 72:3, 4 materials [18] 8:11; 10:12; 16:7, 9; 18:18; 23:22; 24:10; 25:21; 39:10; 43:16; 52:12,21; 55:21; 67:7; 69:6, 8; 72:5; 73:16 mathematical [3] 38:7; 39:12, 19 matter [2] 14:5; 75:11 matters [1] 6:14 maximum [8] 23:7, 18,21; 26:9; 27:6; 40:22; 55:5; 61:9 mean [6] 34:14, 20,22; 43:3; 67:19; 75:17 meant [1] 50:19 measurable [1] 67:10 measure [4] 21:22; 40:4; 49:2; 58:16 measured [4] 36:5; 41:4; 58:8; 64:1 measurement [3] 62:22; 65:9; 83:12 From intervention to measurement Basic Systems Applications Missik vs. Owens Corning, et al. measurements [6] 29:12; 43:4; 58:22; 81:20, 22 measuring [1] 35:20 media [1] 74:13 Medical [1] 5:2 medical [12] 6:15; 8:9; 10:18; 26:7; 29:6; 46:5; 52:7, 22; 65:9, 13; 78:5, 13 Medicine [3] 25:5; 26:5; 82:13 meetings [2] 8:7; 71:15 member [9] 4:14; 6:1, 20; 7:12; 8:5; 71:1, 8, 20, 22 members [2] 6:11; 8:7 membership [6] 7:19; 8:13; 10:6; 47:11, 21; 70:9 memory [1] 7:2 mentioned [3] 5:16; 17:7; 52:16 mentioning [1] 10:18 Merriweather [1] 62:4 mesothelioma [32] 20:1, 3, 5, 7, 15; 30:11, 14, 17; 31:9, 13, 14, 15; 32:1, 3, 15, 17; 33:5, 17, 20; 34:6, 8, 11; 37:16; 44:15, 18, 19; 60:18; 65:21; 66:2; 80:3; 81:17; 84:6 mesotheliomas [2] 42:15, 16 meter [2] 35:10, 13 method [1] 35:20 methods [1] 19:15 m ice [1] 39:3 Michael [1] 84:14 microscope [2] 32:12; 35:9 microscopy [5] 35:20; 36:7; 58:9; 81:21, 22 mid [2] 20:4; 72:21 mile [2] 30:16; 81:18 million [19] 22:16; 27:12; 38:11, 13; 55:10, 13, 14, 19; 58:2, 5; 60:14; 61:5, 8, 12, 18, 19; 63:9; 65:3, 22 mind [2] 14:6; 74:15 mine [1] 4:13 Mines [2] 51:16 minimal [1] 48:13 minimum [1] 22:3 misdiagnosed [1] 44:16 Missik [8] 3:11, 20; 11:7; 14:20; 16:1; 76:1 mixed [3] 17:8; 18:13; 39:9 mixing [2] 16:6; 55:21 model [2] 39:12, 19 models [2] 38:7; 40:5 modern [1] 83:10 moment [3] 18:19, 21; 56:3 monitoring [3] 72:12, 17; 78:14 monoxide [1] 24:1 Monthly [1] 6:19 monthly [1] 48:1 months [1] 72:17 mortal [2] 43:7; 83:22 motion [1] 11:11 Motors [2] 70:1, 6 moved [1] 17:5 movement [1] 82:16 Mrs [1] 3:20 15:21; - N- name [4] 3:9, 13; 4:11; 25:10 nanograms [2] 35:10, 13 National [11] 8:1; 71:1, 2, 5, 8, 13, 14, 16, 18, 22; 73:10 neighborhood [5] 20:10; 31:1; 32:5, 14; 80:3 Newhouse [5] 20:18, 19; 31:2; 80:4; 81:15 News [1] 71:14 news [1] 33:22 newspapers [1] 74:13 nine [1] 62:6 nobody [2] 44:20; 69:17 Nordmann [1] 9:4 notarial [1] 85:15 NOTARY [1] Barry I. Castleman, Sc.D. 85:1 Notary [2] 3:4; 85:19 note [1] 47:9 noted [2] 4:14; 47:14 nowadays [1] 77:10 Number [1] 16:22 number [7] 6:12; 9:7; 21:2; 24:21; 25:5; 38:20; 79:4 numbers [10] 19:9; 24:12, 13; 35:22; 43:2, 7; 56:9; 66:6; 81:15 numerous [2] 14:12; 61:4 -o oath [1] 3:5 object [1] 34:13 Obviously [2] 10:21; 75:18 obviously [1] 45:12 Occupational [2] 9:6; 27:17 occupational [27] 8:2, 3, 20; 22:8; 23:20; 27:5, 16; 29:8; 30:18; 31:3, 5, 22; 32:2, 6; 36:1, 4; 40:11; 44:8, 14; 56:16, 18; 64:11; 73:19; 74:1, 3, 6; 82:20 occurring [1] 18:6 occurs [1] 74:15 offer [1] 14:10 offering [1] 4:6 Office [2] 69:2, 3 office [1] 52:10 officer [1] 85:4 official [1] 73:5 officials [1] 75:4 Oh [1] 83:18 Ohio [4] 10:11; 13:20; 53:22; 54:5 okay [1] 79:22 old [3] 22:18; 66:18; 83:6 ones [1] 62:14 open [1] 17:6 operated [1] 74:8 operations [2] 1/15/99 Concordance by Look-See(30) 10:17; 44:20 opine [1] 75:9 opinion [13] 14:16; 21:13; 22:3; 29:9; 33:16; 44:1; 45:21; 52:6; 66:13; 72:20; 73:1, 3; 75:11 opinions [14] 4:2, 6; 7:20; 10:4; 12:9; 14:11; 26:2; 49:14; 50:15; 52:18; 53:11; 54:3; 75:15; 76:4 opportunity [2] 15:17; 39:7 optic [1] 35:20 optical [1] 36:6 order [3] 40:19; 46:21; 51:9 ordinary [1] 39:11 organization [1] 6:7 organizations [2] 76:9 originally [1] 23:4 OSHA [17] 22:8; 42:11; 57:3, 18; 65:16; 72:4, 5, 9, 15; 73:10; 78:13; 80:10, 14, 16, 17, 19; 81:7 ought [1] 77:22 ours [1] 63:2 outcome [1] 85:13 overturning [1] 68:16 Owens [2] 3:12,21 - P- p.m. [1] 84:19 Packing [1] 68:18 packing [11] 18:2, 8, 22; 19:19; 56:4, 7; 67:9; 68:21, 22; 69:6, 8 pad [2] 18:22; 19:1 pads [7] 16:5, 20; 17:3, 4, 6, 20; 18:1 PAGE [2] 85:3, 18 Page [2] 53:5; 84:14 page [4] 28:12; 54:19; 57121; 59:18 pages [4] 9:16,21; 12:14; 28:9 paper [1] 16:15 papers [1] 5:19 part [3] 10:22; 46:22; 52:1 particle [2] From measurements to particle Basic Systems Applications Missik VS. Owens Corning, et al. 58:5; 65:3 particles [15] 22:17; 27:13; 55:10, 13, 19; 58:2, 12, 14; 60:15; 61:6, 8, 12, 18; 63:10; 65:22 parties [1] 85:11 partly [1] 26:21 paste [2] 17:9; 18:20 pastes [2] 16:5; 18:14 pathologically [1] 31:15 patient [1] 65:19 patients [3] 31:11, 13, 17 peak [1] 83:1 People [2] 40:9; 42:8 percent [2] 57:20; 62:6 percentage [9] 58:18; 59:12; 60:7, 16; 63:11, 13, 15; 64:14; 66:1 period [7] 9:1; 28:1; 48:5; 50:1, 6; 70:11, 13 periodic [1] 72:17 periods [2] 29:11;56:22 permit [1] 54:20 person [1] 49:22 persuasive [2] 20:2; 32:4 phase [1] 69:18 Phase-contrast [1] 58:9 phase-contrast [3] 36:6; 81:22; 83:11 phaseout [1] 69:14 phases [1] 69:16 PhD [1] 13:12 Phil [1] 25:7 Philip [1] 12:16 physical [1] 27:2 pick [3] 43:1; 56:9; 64:8 picked [1] 31:17 Pickwick [1] 3:17 picture [5] 38:4; 48:21; 49:9; 61:15; 80:6 pipe [1] 67:13 Pittsburgh [1] 6:7 place [7] 41:7; 43:7; 45:12; 54:22; 65:14; 67:14; 79:20 places [1] 38:16 plaintiff [3] 3:20; 6:4; 12:13 plant [14] 20:13; 30:16; 31:1; 33:15; 43:3; 46:1; 62:16; 64:7; 65:5; 66:9; 67:3; 72:13,21; 79:5 plants [4] 45:4; 58:15; 59:10; 62:22 play [2] 26:15;49:13 please [2] 3:14, 16 plenty [2] 43:19; 81:19 pneumoconiosis [1] 51:17 point [11] 35:21; 36:18; 46:12; 56:10, 20; 63:22; 68:9; 73:6; 80:9; 81:19; 82:3 points [2] 17:4; 76:6 poisoned [1] 41:3 poisoning [1] 41:1 pollution [2] 81:18; 82:3 population [2] 33:20; 42:2 portion [2] 53:10, 19 position [2] 8:8; 42:19 possibility [1] 71:21 postulated [1] 37:11 potential [6] 19:19; 45:22; 67:11; 71:11; 79:18; 83:16 potentially [1] 57:1 potentials [1] 56:16 powder [1] 17:8 powders [4] 16:6; 18:14; 55:21; 56:2 power [2] 58:9, 10 pre-cut [5] 66:14; 67:13; 68:3, 5, 6 preceding [1] 56:19 preparation [1] 4:16 presence [1] 21:4 present [3] 22:7; 56:17; 60:1 presentations [1] 27:10 presented [1] Barry I. Castleman, Sc.D. 61:14 pretty [5] 4:15; 30:19; 52:14; 61:20, 22 prevalence [5] 22:20; 24:13; 44:17; 59:8; 65:10 prevalent [1] 63:22 prevent [2] 55:3; 60:4 Prevention [2] 13:21; 53:21 Previous [1] 73:21 previously [3] 4:12; 23:17; 80:12 primitive [3] 51:6, 10; 58:7 prior [2] 78:10; 79:20 problem [4] 33:18; 46:8; 67:8; 74:17 problems [1] 78:9 procedure [1] 48:12 proceedings [1] 45:2 process [10] 20:13; 22:4; 24:7; 33:9; 41:10, 18; 55:1; 79:20; 81:3; 82:9 processes [1] 63:7 produce [5] 43:15; 45:4, 9; 49:18; 50:5 producing [1] 51:17 product [3] 18:4, 16; 31:4 production [1] 20:12 Products [2] 13:16; 53:7 products [21] 16:5; 17:13, 14, 19; 20:13; 21:3, 8; 22:21; 29:5; 45:15, 17; 49:2, 5, 6; 52:13; 63:8; 67:5, 8; 68:11; 72:7 professional [1] 14:14 progress [1] 80:15 proposed [1] 22:22 protect [5] 28:21; 29:1; 42:1; 51:9; 82:19 protecting [1] 51:11 protective [1] 46:21 provide [3] 7:3, 7; 9:21 provided [2] 7:6; 8:4 provisions [1] 55:2 PUBLIC [1] 85:1 Public [14] 1/15/99 Concordance by Look-See(31) 3:4; 13:22; 22:18; 23:5; 28:18; 53:21; 59:15, 19; 60:22; 61:15; 83:6, 8, 9; 85:19 public [5] 46:12; 55:4; 78:6; 82:15; 84:2 publication [1] 71:15 publications [5] 53:1; 77:21; 78:3, 6 publicity [1] 82:16 publicly [2] 14:8; 24:15 publish [1] 26:2 published [22] 4:19; 6:9, 18; 8:18; 9:7, 15; 14:8; 17:18; 20:20; 23:4; 27:8; 28:9; 44:17; 57:3; 58:12; 71:14, 16; 72:10; 76:10; 82:11; 83:4, 7 publishes [1] 80:19 publishing [2] 5:8, 10 punching [1] 67:3 purchased [2] 21:8; 50:21 purpose [1] 36:20 puts [1] 66:15 putting [1] 67:13 -Q- qualitative [1] 43:5 quantification [2] 80:5, 9 quantify [4] 42:6, 18; 56:11, 13 quantitative [2] 55:16, 18 quantity [2] 19:4; 22:1 question [8] 34:14; 36:11; 44:11; 57:16; 68:22; 79:1, 7; 81:7 questioning [3] 32:20, 21, 22 questions [7] 3:11; 31:20; 49:16, 19,22; 75:19; 78:21 -R- radio [1] 74:14 radius [1] 82:2 railroad [1] 71:4 railroads [3] 45:8; 71:4; 74:8 Ralph [2] 13:12; 52:3 range [4] From particles to Ralph Basic Systems Applications Missik vs. Owens Corning, et al. 10:21; 24:1; 58:17; 62:2 rate [3] 26:19; 27:2, 3 rats [4] 38:11, 13, 15; 39:3 reaction [1] 74:6 reacts [1] 38:8 read [4] 28:16; 42:20; 58:4; 61:7 reading [1] 37:5 real [4] 27:15; 37:22; 58:6 realized [1] 80:1 reason [6] 28:2; 36:3; 37:7; 49:21; 55:11;59:5 reasonable [1] 55:2 reasons [1] 45:3 recall [10] 7:13, 15; 9:2; 14:22; 15:22; 16:15; 22:13; 35:11; 57:7; 59:11 receipt [1] 70:10 received [8] 15:6; 47:10; 48:1, 2; 70:13, 14, 19; 75:5 recent [1] 5:5 recognize [1] 81:9 recognized [3] 19:11, 12; 80:11 recollection [2] 16:22; 47:2 recommend [1] 55:5 recommended [9] 23:6, 21; 24:21; 25:13; 27:5; 41:10; 42:10; 51:16; 56:19 record [12] 3:14; 8:14, 15; 11:12, 15; 46:14, 15, 22; 50:16; 76:13; 77:1; 85:7 records [3] 4:13; 6:6; 31:18 reduce [1] 73:8 reduced [2] 24:20; 85:9 reduction [1] 80:10 refer [1] 40:22 reference [3] 28:11, 14, 15 referring [2] 20:17; 57:11 refresh [2] 16:22; 47:1 regard [1] 41:16 regarding [21] 3:11; 5:20; 7:16; 8:19; 10:11; 14:20; 17:13; 19:18; 29:9; 42:5; 45:22; 56:15; 70:14, 18; 72:1, 20; 73:11; 74:19; 75:2, 12; 83:16 regular [1] 71:15 regularly [1] 24:20 regulating [2] 69:19 regulation [2] 27:16; 54:19 regulations [7] 63:3, 5; 65:16; 68:13; 69:20; 72:9, 10 rejoin [1] 47:17 rejoined [1] 47:13 related [17] 15:19; 21:22; 42:7, 14; 43:11, 18, 21; 46:1; 51:11; 57:21; 59:13; 65:10; 74:17; 78:9, 19; 79:4; 85:11 relating [3] 12:6; 43:18; 45:11 relationship [2] 37:21; 39:1 relative [1] 33:13 relatives [3] 31:13, 19;33:13 release [5] 18:6, 15; 19:2, 20; 67:22 releases [1] 68:6 relevant [5] 9:20, 22; 48:6, 10; 50:5 reliable [1] 35:21 reliably [1] 36:5 relied [2] 39:16; 79:3 remained [1] 80:4 remarkable [1] 49:17 remember [3] 7:13; 33:2; 54:17 removed [1] 17:11 removing [3] 66:18; 67:9, 12 render [1] 4:2 rendering [1] 12:9 reoccupied [1] 36:19 rephrase [1] 4:5 report [7] 10:15; 13:7; 28:19; 34:1; 50:13; 61:7, 15 reported [7] 20:20; 30:1; 33:2; 35:7; 59:21; 64:2; 81:16 REPORTER [1] 85:1 Reporter [1] 85:3 Barry I. Castleman, Sc.D. reporters [1] 84:14 reports [2] 35:11; 80:2 representation [1] 84:13 reproducible [1] 35:21 requested [1] 4:10 Requirements [2] 13:21; 53:20 research [2] 48:16; 52:10 residue [1] 17:10 resign [1] 47:9 resigned [1] 47:4 resources [1] 46:6 respect [5] 37:4; 55:8; 60:14; 65:21; 67:6 respects [1] 15:20 respirable [1] 68:7 respirators [5] 51:4, 7, 11, 17, 18 response [13] 26:13; 37:21; 38:4, 22; 39:14; 40:2, 5, 9, 13; 58:19; 59:3; 83:13 responsibility [2] 21:17; 72:16 responsible [3] 21:18; 46:11; 54:10 restrain [1] 21:4 return [1] 83:9 reuse [1] 41:6; 36:21 review [7] 7:16; 10:7; 16:21; 42:3; 65:4; 72:19; 77:12 reviewed [8] 11:3; 12:8; 14:3, 4, 14, 20; 43:9; 48:20 reviewing [1] 10:5 revised [1] 25:12 Richard [1] 12:19 rid [1] 69:17 ridiculed [1] 25:11 Right [12] 13:19; 14:6; 52:4; 53:18; 75:14; 76:7, 17:16; 50:3; 64:21; 65:1; 22; 84:11 right [7] 5:13,21; 12:11; 16:12; 17:6; 76:10; 82:8 risk [24] 15:18; 20:14; 21:21; 28:17; 30:14; 37:12, 15; 38:6, 11; 1/15/99 Concordance by Look-See(32) 39:14; 41:6; 42:6; 43:7; 56:22; 57:7; 58:1; 59:3, 11; 60:8; 73:8; 81:17; 82:3; 84:4 risks [15] 19:16; 29:21; 30:10; 39:3; 42:20; 43:2; 45:22; 46:10; 57:4; 79:9, 11, 13, 18; 80:12; 81:8 Road [1] 3:17 rogue [1] 70:1 roughly [1] 61:19 round [1] 72:10 rule [1] 69:16 rules [4] 68:14, 17; 69:4; 72:11 run [2] 37:15;64:10 RUSSELL [2] 85:3, 18 -s- safe [7] 25:13, 15; 30:14; 79:18, 22 safely [1] 47:17 safer [1] 25:21 Safety [13] 8:1; 27:17; 47:12; 71:1,2, 5, 8, 14, 16, 18, 22; 73:10 safety [5] 6:14; 8:4; 27:16, 22; 53:1 sake [1] 11:17 sampled [1] 58:18 sampling [3] 35:8; 40:21; 78:12 satisfyingly [1] 38:1 sawed [2] 16:10, 18 sawing [3] 16:7, 12, 16 saying [1] 5:12 Sc.D. [1] 3:3 scale [2] 10:16; 29:5 scary [1] 30:19 Schuller [2] 12:20; 15:7 scientific [13] 6:15; 8:9; 24:17;{28:10, 22; 38:2; 40:15; 41:11; 46:6; 52:14,22; 78:5; 80:15 scientifically [1] 58:21 scoffed [1] 63:2 screenings [1] 64:9 seal [1] From rate to seal Basic Systems Applications Missik vs. Owens Corning, et al. 85:15 second [1] 12:13 section [4] 28:12; 71:4, 6 Selikoff [1] 64:16 sense [1] 35:5 serious [1] 20:6 seriously [1] 24:7 Service [10] smoker [1] 44:10 smokers [1] 44:9 so-called [1] 17:8 society [1] 84:1 solely [1] 17:15 somebody [2] 30:22; 69:2 someone [2] 11:8;63:9 22:18; 23:5; 28:18; 59:15, 19; 60:22; 61:15; 83:6, 8, 9 Services [2] somewhat [1] 49:17 son [1] 13:15; 53:7 sex[1] 31:18 shaped [1] 40:3 Sharon [4] 21:9; 29:10; 45:16; 72:21 shop [2] 17:5, 6 shot [1] 81:6 show [2] 43:20; 58:12 showing [4] 12:1; 30:16; 53:3, 19 sick [3] 40:16, 17; 62:14 signaled [1] 20:22 signature [2] 84:16, 17 significance [8] 7:18; 43:22; 45:21; 49:13; 50:14; 52:5; 53:9; 54:2 significant [11] 15:12; 19:2, 16; 30:17; 31:9; 32:4; 52:19, 20; 53:15; 54:7; 81:17 silicosis [1] 73:19 single [1] 39:6 Sir [1] 12:1 sir [3] 4:19; 5:22; 47:1 sisters [1] 31:7 sit [1] 8:13 situation [2] 37:1; 65:2 situations [1] 79:10 Six [2] 60:3; 72:17 six-month [1] 33:14 size [1] 46:4 slightly [1] 17:3 smelters [1] 41:13 10:15 sophisticated [1] 52:14 sophistication [2] 29:3; 53:16 sorry [1] 50:18 sort [2] 18:20; 35:4 sorts [1] 17:17 sounds [1] 15:14 source [4] 57:14; 71:12; 81:19; 82:3 South [2] 33:2; 80:3 space [2] 16:8; 28:9 special [1] 44:13 specializing [1] 50:21 specific [11] 15:3, 20; 19:9; 70:17, 18; 72:1; 73:11, 12; 74:18; 75:1 specifically [1] 68:9 specifications [1] 63:6 spent [1] 25:7 splatter [1] 17:9 sprayed [1] 35:12 square [1] 17:3 stage [1] 69:13 standard [7] 42:11; 57:19; 59:4; 60:2; 72:15, 16; 80:19 standardized [1] 26:11 standards [3] 80:11, 14, 18 standing [1] 20:12 standpoint [1] 84:2 start [7] 33:10; 35:22; 37:20; 40:6; 41:6, 17;83:10 Barry I. Castleman, Sc.D. started [17] 3:13; 20:1, 4; 23:6, 17; 30:4, 5, 8, 9; 41:9; 59:20; 73:8; 74:10; 80:17; 82:22; 84:6 starting [2] 63:4; 72:9 State [1] 13:20 state [8] 3:13; 10:11, 13; 27:19; 41:11; 54:5; 74:9; 75:4 statement [7] 32:7; 34:11; 40:7; 45:7; 48:22; 56:12; 79:14 statements [3] 11:5, 10; 73:5 States [5] 8:11; 30:2; 53:14; 69:9; 70:7 statistic [1] 32:4 statistical [2] 42:20:59:11 statistically [4] 30:16; 31:9; 32:3; 81:16 statistics [2] 56:15, 17 stayed [1] 27:13 staying [1] 18:19 steam [2] 45:13; 74:12 stenographicaliy [1] 85:9 STENOTYPE [1] 85:1 Steve [1] 3:9 stirred [1] 16:3 stop [2] 82:7, 8 story [4] 30:11; 43:8; 64:2; 68:20 straight [1] 39:13 strain [1] 39:1 strange [1] 25:17 struck [2] 15:1; 69:6 structure [1] 77:10 studied [1] 79:10 studies [18] 14:13; 20:7, 8; 24:10, 11, 12; 30:21; 42:9; 44:17; 58:11; 59:20; 63:20, 21, 22; 64:15, 16; 68:2; 82:11 study [13] 20:18; 22:18; 30:20; 38:13, 15, 17, 18; 39:7; 42:16; 61:1; 83:7, 8 Stuff [9] 16:6; 29:7; 67:2, 4; 69:17; 74:13; 78:4; 80:1, 6 subject [5] 46:21; 72:8, 15; 75:10; 83:10 subscribe [1] 1/15/99 Concordance by Look-See(33) 39:12 substance [2] 26:20; 39:6 substances [8] 23:9, 10; 24:14,22; 26:13; 28:11; 40:10; 55:6 substantial [1] 15:16 substantially [2] 15:18; 81:9 substitute [1] 25:20 successful [1] 68:16 sue [1] 74:2 suggest [3] 33:8, 11; 60:16 suggested [1] 22:13 suggests [2] 60:6; 73:6 suitable [1] 51:19 summary [1] 11:12 superficial [2] 27:20; 32:22 supplemental [1] 12:13 suppose [2] 4:4; 24:5 supposed [1] 67:14 surface [2] 67:20; 68:1 surgeons [1] 44:19 surprised [2] 49:15; 50:4 surrogate [2] 58:6, 16 survey [2] 22:18, 19 surveyed [1] 62:9 surveys [1] 24:13 surviving [3] 31:13; 33:13 susceptible [2] 34:7; 42:1 suspected [1] 78:18 sustain [1] 81:3 SWARTZ [11] 7:1, 9; 8:14; 11:8, 16; 34:13, 17; 46:14; 48:12; 50:16; 84:13 Swartz [1] 10:10 sworn [2] 3:4; 85:6 systematic [1] 65:12 systems [1] 40:1 -T - From second to systems Basic Systems Applications Missik vs. Owens Corning, et al. takes [2] 48:14; 66:14 thickness [1] 17:1 talk [3] 10:11; 26:15; 35:9 thinking [1] 74:10 talked [4] 48:19; 49:11; 54:12; 73:9 talking [13] 19:4; 23:20; 30:20; 35:22; 37:21; 40:9; 44:12; 58:20; 59:21; 60:5, 21; 68:4; 71:17 talks [5] 17:2; 50:20; 52:7, 8; 54:4 Tank [1] 45:19 tank [3] Thompson [6] 5:1; 20:18, 19; 81:16 thorough [1] 32:19 thousand [2] 22:10; 42:11 threat [2] 20:6; 83:22 threatening [1] 80:7 31:2; 80:4; 49:6, 7; 66:20 tasks [1] 15:3 tearing [1] 16:14 technical [2] 46:5; 52:16 technique [1] 36:7 technological [1] 80:20 technologically [1] 80:18 telling [2] 28:7; 59:1 tells [2] 44:20; 81:19 temperature [1] 26:22 tend [1] 18:14 tentative [1] 23:4 term [3] 23:16, 19 terms [9] 4:16; 18:5; 19:11, 19; 37:2; 65:19:67:10, 12; 81:10 test [1] 52:11 tested [1] 38:10 testified [1] 3:5 testify [3] 19:6; 75:18, 21 Testimony [1] 76:19 testimony [6] 13:4; 14:10; 77:5, 13; 85:8 text [1] 28:16 textile [1] 22:21 texts [1] 58:14 theories [1] 40:4 thereafter [1] 85:9 Thereupon [1] 3:2 theses [1] 14:7 thick [1] 16:14 three [3] 12:14; 17:15; 69:16 threshold [6] 23:13, 15; 37:5; 40:21; 41:17; 58:3 thresholds [1] 37:18 Times [1] 82:12 times [2] 60:3; 79:13 title [1] 9:5 TLV [4] 27:12; 28:1; 63:2; 83:7 TLVs [3] 24:17; 28:8; 41:9 Total [1] 64:20 total [5] 58:7, 17; 64:18; 65:18; 82:1 totally [1] 69:15 toxic [5] 23:22; 25:1; 26:13, 20; 40:10 toxicological [1] 8:9 track [1] 73:9 transcript [1] 85:7 translates [1] 9:6 transmission [1] 67:7 TRANSPORTATION [1] 3:7 Transportation [9] 13:6, 11, 15; 47:3; 50:12; 52:2; 53:8; 70:19; 73:12 transportation [1] 71:6 Travel [1] 77:15 tremendous [2] 10:21; 82:18 trial [3] 4:6; 75:10; 77:5 Trials [1] 76:19 trials [1] 77:3 trouble [1] 38:19 true [3] 32:10, 11; 85:7 Barry I. Castleman, Sc.D. twice [1] 60:3 type [1] 83:10 types [10] 16:5; 17:14, 18; 23:21; 24:9; 42:17;69:10, 12; 75:19; 78:14 typewriting [1] 85:10 typical [3] 33:4; 44:7, 12 typically [1] 44:16 -u- ultimately [1] 40:17 uncontrolled [2] 39:9; 62:8 uncounted [1] 39:9 underdiagnosed [1] 44:16 underneath [1] 61:16 understand [11] 34:20; 36:5; 42:18; 43:13; 48:20; 49:21; 51:6; 60:14; 66:10; 75:8, 9 understanding [3] 14:19; 47:22; 70:12 understood [1] 79:17 United [5] 8:11; 30:2; 53:13; 69:9; 70:7 units [1] 35:7 unnecessarily [1] 26:1 unregulated [1] 62:8 unsettling [1] 46:13 updated [1] 76:21 urban [7] 32:8, 16; 33:21; 34:3; 35:1, 14; 37:2 users [1] 21:2 - V- vacuumed [1] 67:1 Vadler [1] 9:3 value [4] 23:13, 15; 58:3; 60:4 values [1] 40:21 valve [1] 66:16 variability [2] 26:12, 14 vast [1] 58:12 ventilation [1] 19:15 venturing [1] 1/15/99 C onco rd a nce b y Look-S ee(34) 43:5 verify [1] 31:15 versus [3] 3:12, 20; 72:21 videotape [1] 13:3 view [3] 46:12; 56:10; 80:9 visited [2] 69:2; 78:12 volunteer [1] 23:10 - w- Wagner [1] 80:2 wait [2] 40:18; 41:2 waive [1] 84:15 waived [1] 84:17 wanton [1] 15:15 warnings [2] 21:10, 13 Washington [1] 38:16 water [3] 16:6; 17:8; 18:13 ways [1] 74:11 wear [1] 35:2 wearing [1] 51:8 weigh [1] 80:22 welding [1] 17:9 well-known [1] 26:12 weren't [2] 27:21; 63:21 whereas [1] 25:19 WHEREOF [1] 85:14 Whereupon [1] 84:17 wherever [1] 66:16 widely [2] 29:7; 58:17 wiped [1] 38:14 WITNESS [2] 50:20; 85:14 witness [1] 85:5 * wives [1] 31:7 woke [1] 73:6 word [2] 16:12; 28:13 work [16] 14:21; 15:13, 17; 16:8; 20:19; 22:21; 25:22; 26:16; From takes to work Basic Systems Applications Missile vs. Owens Corning, et al. 31:2; 61:21; 62:13; 64:1, 18; 65:11, 18; 83:13 worked [5] 15:2,6; 16:1; 42:21; 62:15 worker [9] 20:12; 26:22; 31:6, 8; 42:6, 21; 63:6; 64:15 Workers [1] 9:7 workers [30] 11:10; 21:16; 22:10; 24:12, 13; 28:21; 29:1; 41:2; 42:12; 43:9, 16,20, 22; 45:5, 10, 20; 46:7; 51:7; 64:12, 17, 20; 65:2, 7; 72:18; 74:1, 2, 5; 78:10; 80:8; 82:19 working [6] 5:13; 11:7; 30:9; 42:12; 43:2; 64:7 workplace [2] 23:22; 26:15 world [1] 63:4 worry [1] 83:21 worse [1] 73:1 worth [1] 78:2 wouldn't [4] 39:2; 56:4; 64:6; 71:7 writing [5] 14:15; 26:8; 27:4; 40:11; 54:10 written [6] 7:6; 10:15, 19; 14:7; 37:10; 78:4 wrote [4] 25:3, 4; 26:11; 57:18 -X- X-ray [3] 61:16; 65:10; 78:14 - Y- year [8] 23:9, 11;25:7, 14, 15; 77:9 years [27] 9:20, 22; 10:3; 21:2; 24:14, 22; 27:14; 33:11, 15, 19; 56:19; 61:9, 12, 19; 62:6, 11; 63:10; 65:14; 66:1; 69:19, 20; 77:3, 4; 79:10; 81:3, 11 yesterday [1] 4:17 York [3] 20:20; 35:11, 14 -Z- zero [2] 30:15; 37:11 Barry I. Castleman, Sc.D. 1/15/99 Concordance by Look-See(35) From worked to zero