Document jyn6gvbLQjVk7nLDEbdpao0XQ

933 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 3 4 IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY 5 LITIGATION {NO. VI) 6 CIVIL ACTION NO. MDL 875 7 CIVIL ACTION NO. 5-92-88 8X 9 This Document Relates To: 10 CONNED CORPORATION,. Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 UNION CARBIDE CHEMICALS AND 13 PLASTICS COMPANY, INC., Defendant and 14 Third-Party Plaintiff, 15 v. 16 OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION, ET AL., 17 Third-Party Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x 18 KELLEY, DRYE & WARREN, L.L.P. 19 101 Park Avenue New York, New York 10178 20 July 7, 1999 21 10:35 a.m. 22 DEPOSITION OF DR. EDWARD ILGREN 23 PRIORITY-ONE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC. 24 899 Manor Road Staten Island, New York 10314 25 (718) 983-1234 Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 DUPLICATE FILE COPY UGAREF00009590 934 1 APPEARANCES: 2 STICH, ANGELL, KREIDLER, BROWNSON & BALLOU, P.A. 3 The Crossings, Suite 120 250 Second Avenue South 4 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 BY: ROBERT D. BROWNSON, ESQ. 5 Attorneys for the Plaintiff, Conwed Corporation 6 RUDNICK & WOLFE, ESQS. 7 203 N. Lasalle Street, Suite 1800 Chicago, Illinois 60601 a BY: MICHAEL R. GOLDMAN, ESQ. Attorneys for the Plaintiff, 9 Conwed Corporation 10 FOLEY & LARDNER, ESQS. Firstar Center 11 777 East Wisconsin Avenue Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202-5367 12 BY: TREVOR J. WILL, ESQ. Attorneys for the Defendant and 13 Third-Party Plaintiff, Union Carbide Chemicals and Plastics Company, Inc. 14 KELLEY, DRYE & WARREN, L.L.P. 15 101 Park Avenue New York, New York 10178 16 BY: ALAN J. GERSON, ESQ. Attorneys for the Defendant and 17 Third-Party Plaintiff, Union Carbide Chemicals and Plastics Company, Inc. 13 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009591 935 1 INDEX 2 WITNESS NAME PAGE NO. 3 DR. EDWARD ILGREN 4 5 Direct Examination by Mr. Brownson Cross-Examination by Mr. Will 6 937 1043 7 EXHIBITS 8 EXHIBIT NO. PAGE NO. 9 P-39 10 P-40 11 Copy of "The American Journal of Pathology" Copy of Dr. Kent Pinkerton's 1982 thesis 953 976 12 P-41 13 P-42 14 15 P-43 16 17 Copy of "The Annals of Occupational Hygiene" Copy of "Effects of Electrostatic Charge on the Pathogenicity of Chrysotile Asbestos" Copy of "Comparisons of the Pathogenicity of Long and Short Fibres of Chrysotile Asbestos in Rats" 980 999 1000 18 P-44 19 20 Copy of "The Sizes, Shapes and Mineralogy of Asbestos Structures that Induce Lung Tumors or Mesothelioma in AF/HAN Rats Following Inhalation" 1010 21 P-45 22 Copy of "American Review of Respiratory Disease" Volume 123 dated April 1981 1043 23 P-46 24 Copy of "American Review of Respiratory Disease" Volume 121 dated April 1980 1043 25 Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009592 936 1 REQUESTS 2 PAGE NO. * 3 1025 Insert number of anomalous rat 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009593 937 1 DR. EDWARD ILGREN, 2 called as a witness, having been first duly 3 resworn according to law, testifies as 4 follows: 5 6 7 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BROWNSON: 8 9 Q Good morning, Dr. Ilgren. We are 10 continuing here. Let me ask you, since last we 11 spoke, have you been out to Kings City or the 12 Coalinga deposit or Calidria mine? 13 A No. 14 Q Have you had an opportunity to see or 15 review any new information, since the time of our 16 last deposition, from the mine or the area out there? 17 A Say that again. New information from where? 18 Q From out of the Calidria mine or mill or 19 the deposit out there. I'm thinking in terms of any 20 medical records, any reports, any air sampling, 21 anything like that? 22 A No. 23 Q Have you read any information about any 24 cases of mesothelioma in the Kings City area? 25 A No. Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009594 Ilgren 938 1 Q Have you examined or worked on any other 2 cases for Union Carbide, other than this particular 3 case involving Calidria exposure, since we last 4 spoke? 5 A Yes. 6 Q Do you know where that exposure arose 7 from. Was it a plant? 8 A Allegedly the ore bodies. 9 Q Was this any kind of an injury case or 10 did it involve a worker of some sort? 11 A A policeman. 12 Q And this was a policeman where, in Kings 13 City? 14 A Highway patrol. 15 Q Now, I had heard something about a case 16 involving a policeman, and this must be the one; but 17 I confess to you, I don't have any particulars. 18 Is this a highway patrolman who alleges 19 he somehow got sick from working in the area of the 20 Coalinga ore deposit? 21 A You are asking me what healleged? 22 Q Well, what he is contending. 23 A As I recall, he alleges to have gotten 24 his mesothelioma from Coalinga fibers that drifted 25 twenty miles through the air into his highway patrol Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009595 Ilgren 939 car as he drove up and down Route 5 between 1978 and 1983 and also from two days of pig hunting on the ore body. Q Do you know, has this highway patrolman' filed a lawsuit? A Yes. Q Do you know what his name is? A Waggoner. Q Do you know who his lawyer is? A Wartnick, Chaber. Q Do you know how his name is spelled? A I think it's W-a-g-g-o-n-e-r. Q Is Union Carbide a defendant in that suit or is someone else the defendant; do you know? A Union Carbide was a defendant and settled out. Q Are there any remaining defendants, as far as you know? A There is one but I don't recall what the name is. Q Do you know if KCAC was a defendant? A No, I don't know. Q This highway patrolman Waggoner, is he dead or alive, as far as you know? A He died in January. Q January of 1999? Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009596 Ilgren 940 1A Yea. 2 Q Do you know if this was a pleural 3 mesothelioma or a peritoneal? 4 MR. WILL: Objection. I object to the 5 form. He doesn't necessarily know it's a 6 mesothelioma. 7 Q Did Mr. Waggoner contend it was a pleural 8 or a peritoneal? 9 A I can't recall at the moment. 10 Q Do you know if any of his tissue was 11 preserved for examination? 12 A I don't know. 13 Q Are you still involved in the case or did 14 you cease your involvement? 15 A I'm still involved. 16 Q But you don't recall who this remaining 17 defendant in the case is? 18 A No. 19 Q Are you still involved for Union Carbide 20 or for somebody else? 21 A Somebody else. 22 Q Youjust can't recall who that is? 23 A I don't recall thename of the defendant. 24 Q Do you know, are there any other 25 exposures being alleged in this case, other than this Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009597 Ilgren 941 1 Calidria exposure? 2 A Yes. 3 Q Is this other defendant, whose name you 4 can't recall, are they in it as a result of some 5 other exposure? 6 A Not to my knowledge. 7 Q How do they come in it in terms of the 8 Calidria exposure; do you know? 9 A I don't recall. 10 MR. WILL: By Calidria, are you referring 11 to the entire ore deposit? 12 MR. BROWNSON: That's a goodpoint. 13 Q I should say Coalinga exposure. 14 A That's right. 15 Q Do you understand this other defendant to 16 be somehow a defendant related to the Coalinga ore 17 deposit, but it's not Union Carbide and it's not the 18 Calidria mine itself? 19 A I don't know if it's the deposit or some other 20 aspect. I don't know precisely how the exposure 21 arises. Still, it's Coalinga. 22 Q Do you know any other scientists or 23 physicians who are working on that case, either on 24 behalf of Mr. Waggoner or on behalf of Union Carbide 25 or anyone else? Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009598 Ilgren 942 1A In this case, the wrongful death case? 2 Q Yes, the Waggoner case. 3 A No. 4 Q Is there anyone who worked on it at any 5 time that you know that is no longer involved? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Who is that? 8 A MarkShanker, Davis and Bill Nickelson. 9 Q Now, you said Mark Shanker? 10 A Yes. 11 Q And then you said Davis. You mean from 12 the University of Davis? 13 A Right. 14 Q And Nickelson? 15 A Right. 16 Q What had Nickelson done on that case? 17 A I don't remember. 18 Q Do you know, was heattempting tocontend 19 that there was some sort of fiber drift, as he likes 20 to call it? 21 A " I think so,yes. 22 Q Was he attempting to make any 23 calculations that you are aware of? 24 A I can't remember hisdisclosure. I read it. 25 I can't remember the details. Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009599 Ilgren 943 1 Q As far as you know, was there an expert 2 disclosure prepared by the lawyers that you read or 3 did you see any actual reports or depositions or 4 anything like that? 5 A From them? 6 Q From anybody else. 7A Yes. 8 Q Yes? 9A Yes. 10 Q What was it? 11 A An expert's disclosure. 12 Q So what you saw was an expert's 13 disclosure that the Wartnick firm prepared from 14 Nickelson? 15 A Yes, and Shanker. 16 Q You didn't see any of their actual work? 17 A No, I don't think so. 18 Q Are you aware of any pathologist who has 19 examined the case at any time for anybody? 20 A That case? 21 Q Yes. 22 A No. 23 Q Is Dr. Chatfield involved in that case at 24 all? 25 A At the present time? Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UGAREF00009600 Ilgren 944 1 Q Yes. 2 A No. 3 Q Do you know if heever was? 4 A I think so, but Ican't recall. 5 Q Do you know if he will be in the future? 6 MR. WILL: How can he know that? 7 MR. BROWNSON: He might have heard that 8 they were going to get some tissue and send it 9 to Dr. Chatfield. 10 Q I'm just asking if you know? 11 A I don't know. 12 Q Are you aware of any plans that Dr. 13 Chatfield will be involved in the case? That's all 14 I'm asking. 15 A No. 16 Q Now, let's turn to something a little 17 closer to your heart, which is your series of papers 18 in "Indoor Built Environment." 19 First of all, can you tell us anything 20 more about paper numbers 4 and/or 5? How are those 21 coming along? 22 Will those be published or when? Do you 23 have any information on that? 24 MR. WILL: Which one of those questions 25 are you asking him to answer? Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009601 Ilgren 945 1 MR. BROWNSON: I can break it down. 2 Q Where does paper number 4 stand? 3A Well, we hope to have it finished by the end 4 of the summer and the same with paper 5. 5 Q Is there any research ongoing at the 6 present time that you are doing in connection with 7 papers 4 or 5 or is your work done and you are now 8 just writing? 9A My work is done. I'm writing. 10 Q How about Dr. Chatfield, id he still 11 doing any work; do you know? 12 A Not to my knowledge. 13 Q Have you made any additional examination 14 of the archived material from Drs. McConnell and 15 Pinkerton that you had looked at before in connection 16 with papers 4 or 5? 17 A No. 18 Q Do you know when papers 4 and 5 might be 19 published? 20 A No. 21 Q Do you intend to publish them or have 22 them published in "Indoor Built Environment" or some 23 other -- 24 A Yes. 25 Q In "Indoor Built Environment"? Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009602 Ilgren 946 1 A Yes. 2 Q Now, I would like to turn your attention 3 to paper number 3 or installment number 3 of your 4 paper, which is entitled, "Lack of Biopersistence." 5 Do you have a copy there? 6A I don't have one with me. 7 MR. BROWNSON: Do you have one for him, 8 Trevor? 9 MR. WILL: Actually, no. 10 MR. BROWNSON: Let's mark it as Exhibit 11 39. 12 MR. WILL: It's already been marked. 13 MR. BROWNSON: Do you know what number it 14 was? 15 MR. WILL: Well, it's 38. 16 MR. BROWNSON: We will call it Exhibit 17 38. 18 MR. WILL: Document entitled, "Coalinga 19 Fibre: A Short, Amphibole-Free Chrysotile" 20 was marked Defendant's Exhibit 38 for 21 identification last time, so the record is 22 clear. 23 . Q You now have in front of you, Dr. Ilgren, 24 Exhibit number 38, which is the paper subtitled, 25 "Lack of Biopersistence," correct? Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009603 Ilgren 947 1 A Correct. 2 Q Authored by you and Dr. Eric Chatfield? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Now, I will try to move through this in 5 fairly short order; but let's turn first to the 6 materials and methods section, which is the second 7 page of the paper on page 99. 8 Do you see that section? 9A Yes. 10 Q First of all, are you the author of this 11 section? 12 A I can't remember. I wrote a substantial part; 13 but I can't remember what Eric -- Eric might have 14 added something to it. 15 Q Do you know what he -- if he added to it, 16 do you know what that might be? 17 A I can't remember. We traded drafts. 18 Q As you sit here today, do you know 19 anything that specifically could have been authored 20 by Dr. Chatfield? 21 A No. 22 Q Now, with respect to the materials and 23 methods, as I understand that section in a scientific 24 paper, that's the section that informs the reader, up 25 front or towards the start of the paper, the nuts and Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009604 Ilgren 948 1 bolts of the materials and methods, if you will; is 2 that correct? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Let me ask you this. Can you describe 5 for us specifically what you actually did; and by you 6 I mean you personally, in terms of the materials and 7 methods for paper number 3? 8 A Specifically with regards to what? 9 Q Well, anything that is described in the 10 materials and methods section. I'm trying to 11 understand the work that you did. 12 A Can youask me specifically what -- focus on 13 something and say that I do this, because I'm 14 confused. 15 Q Did you examine any tissue in connection 16 with paper number 3? 17 A No. 18 Q Did you do any microscopic analysis? 19 A No. 20 Q Do you know if Dr. ChatfieId did? 21 A I believe not. 22 Q Again, if we go to the materials and 23 methods section it states: "The methods used to 24 perform elemental analysis and the measurement of 25 asbestos fibre volume and density are as described by Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009605 Ilgren 1 Pinkerton et al. [10]." 949 2 Do you see that? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Now, does that sentence describe some 5 work that you did or some work that Pinkerton did? 6A At the end there I state, "All of the 7 morphometrical analyses were conducted by Professor 8 Kent Pinkerton." 9 Q So to speed this along, would it be fair 10 to say that all of the morphometrical analyses, which 11 is described in the materials section, was work done 12 by Pinkerton and not by you? 13 A Right. 14 MR. GERSON: We have to go off the record 15 for a moment. 16 MR. BROWNSON: Sure. 17 (A discussion is held off the record.) 18 Q The morphometrical analyses conducted by 19 Professor Kent Pinkerton, as described in the 20 materials and methods section of your paper, are 21 historical work by Pinkerton, aren't they? 22 A Historical? 23 Q In other words, they were done fifteen, 24 twenty years ago? 25 A Yes, that's true. Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 ' UCAREF00009606 Ilgren 950 1 Q They were not any new work done in 2 connection with this particular paper? 3A Not, not to my knowledge, though, I don't 4 recall. He might have done something in 1994 or 5 1995; but I don't recall. I don't know exactly when 6 he stopped doing these analyses; but they certainly 7 weren't done in the past couple years. 8 Q And they were not done in connection with 9 this particular paper, were they? 10 A Could you rephrase that? 11 Q Yes. Dr. Pinkerton's morphometrical 12 analyses, as the ones described in the materials and 13 methods section, were not done for purposes of this 14 paper, were they? 15 A Well, I don't know. He asked me to help him 16 write up the work. So to that extent, I guess -- I 17 mean, they were aimed at forming a publication, which 18 presumably would have taken this form. 19 Q Well, when you say he asked you to write 20 up the work, he never came to you and asked you to 21 publish data on the work he had done back in the late 22 '70s and early '80s, did he? 23 A No. In 1991, when we corresponded, he sent me 24 his data and said I'm free to write these up in 25 whatever form I want. So that's what I meant. Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009607 Ilgren 951 1 Q And then when you undertook that task to 2 write these series of papers, you described the 3 materials and methods we see here on page 99, 4 correct? 5A Right. 6 Q But you describe them as materials and 7 methods that had been done by Professor 8 Pinkerton at some point in the past? 9A Right. 10 Q And the topic of paper number 3 is 11 biopersistence, right? 12 A Right. ' 13 Q If we could generalize the theme of paper 14 number 3, would it be to go back to these old rat 15 studies that Dr. Pinkerton had done while a graduate 16 student and try to discern from these data the 17 biopersistence of these three kinds of asbestos in 18 the lungs of those rats? 19 A With the exemption that, I think, he did some 20 work subsequent to being a graduate student, that 21 would be correct. 22 Q As I read through paper number 3, you 23 argue that the three different types of chrysotile 24 asbestos have different biopersistence in the lungs 25 of these rats in Dr. Pinkerton's study, correct? Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009608 1 A Right. Ilgren 952 2 Q And you base that upon these various 3 measurements of silica found in the lung tissue of 4 those rats, correct? 5 A Partly. 6 Q Well, is there any -- was there any 7 measurement of actual asbestos fibers from the lungs 8 of those rats? 9 A Sure. 10 Q And where do we find that in your paper? 11 A Fiber volume and density. There are three 12 indices. There is the silica ashings, that's the 13 morphometric fiber volume density; and then there is 14 the stuff that I noticed on the presence and absence 15 of dust-laden macrophages, which is on page 102 16 column 2 paragraph 4. 17 Q Did anyone do any microscopic analysis of 18 asbestos fibers in the lungs of these rats? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Where do we find that in your paper? 21 A Well, it's table 2 and 3 and the column page 22 section I just told you about on page 102. 23 Q Where do I see in table 2 or 3 analysis 24 of asbestos fibers? 25 A All fibers. One is a fiber volume, the volume Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009609 Ilgren 953 1 of the tissue component under consideration occupied 2 by fiber and fiber density is the so-called density 3 or number of fibers present in, again, certain tissue 4 component as listed. 5 Q Let me ask this question. Did Dr. 6 Pinkerton actually count fibers in this tissue or did 7 he measure silica? 8A No, in tables 2 or 3 they would be "fiber 9 counts." 10 Q So as you understand, Dr. Pinkerton 11 actually counted asbestos fibers in the tissue in 12 table 2 and 3? 13 A Yes, per materials and methods citation, "The 14 methods used to perform elemental analysis and the 15 measurement of asbestos fibre volume and density are 16 as described by Pinkerton et al. [10]," which is his 17 1984 paper. 18 ' So the details of the manner in which the 19 fibers were counted were in the 1984 paper. 20 MR. BROWNSON: Let's mark this as Exhibit 21 39. 22 (A copy of "The American Journal of 23 Pathology" is marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 39 24 for identification, as of this date.) 25 Q I will show you, doctor, what we marked Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009610 Ilgren 954 as Exhibit 39, which is a paper of "The American Journal of Pathology" by Dr. Pinkerton and some other doctors entitled "Fiber Localization and Its Relationship to Lung Reaction in Rats After Chronic Inhalation of Chrysotile Asbestos." My first question will be, is that paper the reference 10 that is cited in your paper number 3, Exhibit 38? A Yes. Q So if I understand what you have told us, the analysis of actual asbestos fibers as opposed to measurements of silica that Dr. Pinkerton made in the lungs of rats comes out of this paper, Exhibit 39? A Yes. Q Is there anything in that paper, which is your reference, in Exhibit 39, which was published in 1984 by Dr. Pinkerton, that talks about the biopersistence of the three types of chrysotile asbestos to which these rats were exposed? A I don't recall. I think it may allude to the persistence of the Jeffrey fiber. I don't believe it mentions UICC/B and Coalinga. Q Now, going to your paper. Exhibit 39, let's start then with the -- MR. GERSON: Exhibit 39? Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009611 Ilgren 955 1 MR. BROWNSON: 38, sorry. 2 Q Let's start with the next heading after 3 materials and methods, which is entitled results. 4 Do you see that? 5 A Right. 6 Q Page 99? 7A Yes. 3 Q Again, to try to summarize this, what you 9 have done, you have drawn some conclusions about the 10 biopersistence of these three different types of 11 asbestos by looking at the silica content 12 determination in the lungs of these rats and the 13 specific fiber density and volume changes within 14 different compartments of the lungs of the rats; is 15 that right? 16 A And the presence and/or absence of 17 dust-related macrophages, but that's correct. 18 Q Let's start with the silica content 19 determinations of the lungs. First of all, did you 20 do any actual analytical work with respect to the 21 silica content determinations of the lungs of these 22 rats? 23 A No. 24 Q Again, this was work that Dr. Pinkerton 25 had done back in prior years? Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009612 1A Ilgren 956 Yes, plus -- there were other data that fall 2 into this table that may or may not have been 3 Pinkerton's that I found at the NTP archive, namely, 4 the Jeffrey fiber one-day exposure twelve-month 5 follow-up. That's on page 100 top of column 2. 6 Q And you found that in the archive, but 7 you are not sure who actually did it? 8A Yes, it was with the other raw data; but I'm 9 not sure whether -- Pinkerton did not send me the raw 10 data. The raw data, as enumerated in the table, came 11 out of the archive. 12 Q So this is some material that you found 13 in the archive; but you are not quite sure who 14 actually did it in the first place? 15 A That's right. 16 Q Now, with respect to the silica lung 17 content determination in these rats, as I understand 18 it, you looked at these various results that Dr. 19 Pinkerton had gotten back when he made the rats 20 inhale the three types of asbestos in the late '70s 21 and early '80s, correct? 22 A Right. 23 Q Again, you didn't actually look at any 24 rat lung tissue, you looked at the numbers generated 25 by Dr. Pinkerton when he did that work? Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009613 Ilgren 957 1 A Or whoever, but that's right. 2 Q With the exception of this one thing you 3 just told us about, it was work by Dr. Pinkerton? 4 A To my knowledge, that's correct. 5 Q And then you basically published that 6 data from Dr. Pinkerton and/or this other unknown 7 person in paper number 3; and then you drew some 8 conclusions from it, correct? 9A Right. 10 Q Again, focusing on the lung silica 11 content portion of this data, as I understand, what 12 that shows is how much silica was in the lungs of 13 these rats at different points of time, right? 14 A Right. 15 Q Silica is a component, if you will, of 16 chrysotile asbestos, right? 17 A Correct. 18 Q So at least with respect to the silica 19 lung content portion of your analysis, you are not 20 actually describing asbestos fibers per se, what you 21 are describing is the amount of silica which 22 presumably could have come from the asbestos fibers? 23 A Presumably, right. 24 Q Do you know, in fact, that all of the 25 silica in the lungs of these rats did come from the Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009614 Ilgren 958 1 asbestos fibers or could some of it have come from 2 other places? 3A It could have come from other places. I don't 4 know what they would have been. There is obviously 5 some in the control annals which weren't exposed. 6 So there is clearly some kicking around the lungs 7 which isn't asbestos derived. 8 Q Would you agree with me that a more 9 accurate way to determine how much asbestos is in the 10 lungs of rats would be to analyze the number of 11 asbestos fibers in those lungs as opposed to 12 measuring silica content? 13 A Yes, we state that in the paper. I mean, this 14 has just been the traditional methods used by Vogner 15 and Davis and others in the past who also conclude or 16 point out, as you do, that it would be, perhaps, more 17 accurate, if you are interested in fiber localization 18 and identification, to look at the individual fibers. 19 Q As I understand, there is nothing we can 20 determine from looking at silica content with respect 21 to fiber length, is there? 22 A No. 23 Q To do that, we actually have to look at 24 fibers, measure their lengths and count them and that 25 sort of thing? Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009615 Ilgren 959 1 A Right. 2 Q Now, is there anything in paper number 3, 3 the biopersistence paper, which describes the size 4 distribution of the asbestos fibers which were found 5 in the lungs of these rats exposed by Dr. Pinkerton? 6 A Not to my knowledge. 7 Q If you had the opportunity to actually 3 design a study where you were going to make rats 9 inhale asbestos and then determine biopersistence, 10 would you agree that it would be interesting to 11 determine the size distribution of the fiber in the 12 asbestos the rats were breathing and how the 13 different sizes of fibers stayed or were cleared from 14 the lungs over time? 15 MR. GERSON: What is your question? 16 MR. BROWNSON: Read it back. 17 (The record is read back.) 18 A He did it all in the '86 paper for Jeffrey, 19 but I don't know -- I couldn't find it for Coalinga 20 or UICC/B. 21 Q Just so the record is clear, by Jeffrey, 22 you mean the Jeffrey mine chrysotile asbestos? 23 A Right. 24 Q Which is one of the three types of 25 asbestos that Dr. Pinkerton made the rats breathe? Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009616 1A Right. Ilgren 960 2 Q So in a paper published by Dr. Pinkerton 3 in 1986, he shows how the different sizes or lengths 4 of the Jeffrey chrysotile asbestos persisted or was 5 cleared over time from the lungs of rats; but you 6 couldn't find that for the other two types, the 7 UICC/B chrysotile or the Coalinga chrysotile? a A Right. I'm referring to my reference 9. 9 Q So would you agree with me that, in your 10 paper number 3, you then took Dr. Pinkerton's data 11 and tried to make some effort to determine how all 12 three types of asbestos persisted in the lungs of the 13 rats over time? 14 A Right. 15 Q And you had to do that yourself, because 16 Dr. Pinkerton did not -- had not done that, he had 17 just done it with one of the three, the Jeffrey, 18 right? 19 A Maybe I don't quite understand your question. 20 MR. GERSON: I don't either. 21 Q Is there any published data anywhere, 22 other than what you show in your paper number 3, that 23 shows the biopersistence of the Coalinga asbestos 24 that these rats in Dr. Pinkerton's study breathed? 25 A No. Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009617 Ilgren 961 1 Q Is there any published data, other than 2 what you show in your paper number 3, that shows that 3 the biopersistence of the UICC/B asbestos that Dr. 4 Pinkerton's rats breathed? 5A Not to my knowledge. 6 Q Again, to try to summarize, if we look at 7 the state of the published data from this rat 8 inhalation study that Dr. Pinkerton did, before you 9 published your paper number 3, we can find 10 information about the biopersistence of the Jeffrey 11 asbestos but not the other two? 12 A No, I don't agree with that. 13 Q Where would we find the other two? 14 A In terms of -- well, your question was about 15 biopersistence. 16 Q Right. 17 A Can you read that question back? 18 (The record is read back.) 19 Q Now, I was excluding this paper. Maybe 20 the question was not clear. Let me ask a different 21 question. 22 Before you wrote your paper number 3 that 23 we are looking at, before then, was there any 24 published data showing the biopersistence of the 25 other two kinds of asbestos in the lungs of these Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009618 1 rata? Ilgren 962 2 MR. GERSON: Published data? 3 MR. BROWNSON: Right. 4 A The other two, either Coalinga and DICC/B? 5 Q Right. 6 A Yea. 7 8A Q Where would we find that? For Coalinga, it's the Muhle data and for 9 UICC/B it would be references in table 5 as they are 10 expressed in silica content, ashing and there may be 11 some other studies of UICC/B that I haven't come 12 across. 13 Q Well, there may be but - 14 A I'm not aware of. 15 Q So interms of published data concerning 16 the biopersistence of Coalinga asbestos, as I 17 understand it, this Dr. Muhle published about that 18 and you talk about that in your paper, correct? 19 A Right. 20 Q Because he also did a rat inhalation 21 experiment over in Germany, right? 22 A Right. 23 Q Again, I'm trying to get my arms around 24 the published data, if you will, showing 25 biopersistence of Coalinga asbestos in the lungs of Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009619 1 rats. Ilgren 963 2 A Right. 3 Q You have attempted to make some 4 calculations of your own, which we will get to in a 5 moment, in your paper number 3; and Dr. Muhle had 6 published some results from his rat inhalation study? 7 A Right. 8 Q Is there any others? 9 A To my knowledge, no. 10 Q Then with respect to UICC/B chrysotile 11 asbestos, which is another of the three types that 12 Dr. Pinkerton exposed his rats to, you reference some 13 studies of silica lung content in your table number 5 14 that other people had done, right? 15 A Right. 16 Q We will get to that in a minute; but does 17 that then constitute the published data concerning 18 biopersistence of Coalinga asbestos or UICC/B 19 asbestos in the lungs of rats that you are aware of? 20 A Yes -- wait. I reference another study by 21 Bellmann and I could never get those data. It's 22 referred to on page 105 column 2 paragraph 1 in the 23 -- starting the tenth line. That was an 24 intratracheal injection study, I believe. 25 Q So page 105 of your paper, column 2, the Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009620 Ilgren 964 1 first paragraph, you make a reference to a study by 2 Bellmann, at which is your reference number 23, and 3 this involved UICC/B chrysotile not Coalinga, right? 4A No, I believe he looked at both. I would have 5 to get the paper out and look at that again, the 6 Bellmann paper; but that was an intratracheal study. 7 Q That was an injection study where they 8 injected asbestos into the rats? The rats didn't 9 breathe it? 10 A No. 1 11 Q I don't want to get into this issue again 12 about injection versus inhalation studies. We talked 13 about that before. 14 A We did. 15 Q You are not a big proponent of injection 16 studies, I take it. You prefer the inhalation 17 studies? 18 A Well, to some extent it's all related; but I 19 obviously like to look at the inhalation studies. 20 Q Let me go back and try to summarize. If 21 we can get around the published data concerning 22 inhalation studies of Coalinga asbestos and UICC/B 23 chrysotile asbestos, those would be the ones that we 24 talked about a minute ago? 25 A Right. Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009621 Ilgren 965 1 Q Which would be Dr. Pinkerton's work and 2 Dr. Mulhe's work, right? 3A As I recall. 4 Q And also those things you talked about in 5 your table 5 that we will get to? 6 A Right. 7 Q Now, table 1 of your paper, which is at 8 page 100, let's go to that. I hope to be brief here. 9 Would it be fair to say that in table 1 10 you are attempting to present some of Dr. Pinkerton's 11 data about the lung silica changes over time with 12 respect to the three types of asbestos? 13 A That's correct. 14 Q And you also presented his data 15 concerning the control rats, too, correct? 16 A That's right. 17 Q Now, if we look at the data of Dr. 18 Pinkerton's that you presented in table 1 with 19 respect to the Coalinga, or for that matter, with 20 respect to either of the other two fiber types, I 21 don't see any data concerning the lung silica content 22 twenty-four months. 23 A They didn't do it. 24 Q With respect to the silica lung content, 25 are you aware of any data that exists where that Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009622 Ilgren 966 1 could be examined in the lungs of those now long dead 2 rats at twenty-four months? 3A For Pinkerton's study? 4 Q Right, or is that just something that is 5 not available? 6A It could be buried in the archives. 7 Q But you didn't find it, right? 8 Well, let me ask a different question. 9 You didn't present it in table 1, we know that. Does 10 that indicate you didn't find it? 11 A Are you asking me whether I looked for 12 twenty-four month data and I didn't find it or I made 13 an attempt to get tissues to do a twenty-four month 14 digestion to fill in the blank? 15 What are you asking? 16 Q Well, actually both are good questions. 17 Let's start with the easy part first. 18 We know that these rats, the lungs of 19 these rats, were examined at twenty-four months, 20 because, for example, we see that in table 2 with 21 respect to the fiber volume changes, right? 22 A Right. 23 MR. WILL: Some rats were examined. 24 Q The lungs of some rats were examined 25 twenty-four months after they first began exposure to Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009623 Ilgren 967 1 the asbestos, right? 2 A Right. 3 Q But with respect to the lung and silica 4 content, you don't present any data on that in your 5 paper, right? 6A Right. Pinkerton sent me, in 1991, a 7 histogram; and the histogram only had three and 8 twelve-month data; and I asked Kent did he have any 9 twenty-four month data and he said no. I didn't ask 10 him why. 11 I might have, but I don't recall why there 12 were no twenty-four month data sent to me; but there 13 were no twenty-four month data sent to me. So I went 14 back, and when I was in the archive, I found the raw 15 data and this is the presentation of the raw data, 16 which underlie the data that he sent me in histogram 17 form. 18 Q But even looking at that, you were unable 19 to present in this paper any twenty-four month data 20 concerning lung silica content? 21 A I didn't find it. I looked for it. 22 Q Now, would you agree with me that going 23 back these twenty years when this Pinkerton study was 24 designed, this was not designed to be a biopersistent 25 study? Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009624 1A Ilgren 968 No, that's not true at all. No, he had -- I 2 mean, case in point, per the 1984 paper, fiber 3 localization, and the 1986 paper, which is -- per his 4 1986 paper, they were looking at the manner in which 5 the fiber density and the fiber volume change over 6 time. 7 In Pinkerton's thesis, he talks, as I 8 recall, about the accumulation, the clearance, the 9 retention of three fiber types and the differences 10 between them. I mean, I think it was part and parcel 11 of the whole aim of the effort to look at persistence 12 and clearance. 13 Q Well, if that was part and parcel of the 14 whole aim and effort, would you agree with me that 15 there was no paper actually published by the studies' 16 designers which set forth the biopersistence of the 17 three types of asbestos in the lungs of these rats? 18 A Well, he sent me two manuscripts, which they 19 sent to some journal. I don't remember the name. It 20 was initially rejected, the data in that. 21 So there is nothing published, to my 22 knowledge, of fiber volume density change data in a 23 presently scientific peer reviewed paper, aside from 24 this one; but I wouldn't say that it wasn't their aim 25 from the outset to present data, not only on fibrosis Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009625 Ilgren 969 1 and tumora, but also on this particular aspect of the 2 work. So I wouldn't agree with that. 3 Q Do you know for a fact that there was an 4 intent of the study, back when it was originally 5 designed, to measure biopersistence? 6A Well, that presumes knowledge that I wouldn't 7 necessarily have, because I wasn't there in the 8 beginning of the study; but on the basis of the data 9 Kent sent me and the manuscripts he sent me and the 10 raw data, it would seem to be that that was part of 11 the aim of the work. 12 Q So you are drawing that conclusion, 13 correct? 14 A Right. 15 Q Now, if we look at your table 1, which is 16 the silica content changes in the rat and lungs over 17 time, what we see, if we focus on the Coalinga, what 18 we see is that the overall average goes from 610 19 micrograms per lung after three months of breathing 20 the Coalinga to 574 after twelve months, correct? 21 A Correct. 22 Q I don't have my calculator with me; but 23 would you agree that with respect to the 24 biopersistence of the Coalinga, it decreases between 25 three and twelve months about ten percent or less? Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009626 1A Ilgren I don't think you can say that. 970 I think you 2 can just look at this and say, there is some trends 3 here. You get the first -- I mean, trying to perhaps 4 move this along, I mean, you can say that you have 5 got clear deposition of fiber for all three fiber 6 types in the three months. 7 Secondly, at twelve months, there is 8 clearly much more Jeffrey deposited than the other 9 two. Beyond that, on the basis of the data that's 10 presented, I don't think you can say much. At the 11 twelve-month follow-up, with the one day exposure, 12 you get clearance; and that's something that X put in 13 as a kind of control; but beyond -- I mean, beyond 14 that, what I have just said, I don't think you can 15 say too much more. 16 Q Well, the fact of the matter is, from the 17 lung silica content data presented in your table 1, 18 we don't see much clearance of the asbestos from the 19 lungs of these rats by up to twelve months, do we? 20 A No, but if you look -- the text of the paper 21 directs the reader's attention to table 5; and the 22 discussion text also indicates that these are -- I 23 don't know if I would use the words crude 24 measurements, but crude measurements. If you look at 25 table 5 -- Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009627 # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ilgren 971 Q I will get to table 5 in a minute and I don't mean to cut you off. MR. WILL: You are. Q I'm trying to limit my question to table 1. I'm trying to do this table by table. With respect to silica, table 1, which is silica content over time, you will agree with me that that data does not show much clearance up to twelve months of the asbestos types, does it? A I don't think you can tell. I mean, it could be an equilibrium, as Pinkerton suggests. So there could be significant clearance and significant deposition. I think with respect to Jeffrey, we are comparing three to twelve months. You can have a deposition with much lower clearance; and I think that's what you see when you look at the 750 circa at three months and then you look at twelve months and you get a thousand. Q Let me ask you, with respect to the Coalinga asbestos, your table 1 indicates that after twelve months the rats had almost as much Coalinga asbestos in their lungs, as measured by lung silica content, as they did at three months, correct? A Right. . Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009628 Ilgren 972 1 MR. WILL: Well, I object to the question. 2 It measures silica micrograms per lung. As 3 you pointed out before, that is not an exact 4 measurement of asbestos fibers. 5 MR. BROWNSON: I was attempting to say 6 that. 7 Q Table 1, presumably, is presented in your 8 paper to show something, correct? 9A Right. 10 Q It does not support your hypothesis that 11 most of the Coalinga is cleared at least by -- over 12 time, does it? 13 A Well, there is a twelve-month time point. You 14 start the inhalation exposure at zero and you keep it 15 on to twelve months; and I believe what I said in the 16 paper, which is what basically Pinkerton says in his 17 papers and thesis, is that from the zero to three to 18 twelve months, during which these animals were being 19 exposed to very high doses of Coalinga, a steady 20 state has been established between the deposition of 21 the lungs and the clearance of the lungs. So the 22 clearance is very efficient. 23 If you look at the Jeffrey, and again, 24 Pinkerton points this out, it has a much higher 25 concentration of fiber and you have a significant Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009629 Ilgren 973 1 increase between 734 and 753 at three months up to a 2 thousand at twelve months; and all that is simply- 3 reflected in the other data. It's consistent with 4 what others have seen, such as Muhle, and it's 5 consistent with the fiber volume changes in table 2. 6 Q These rats were exposed to asbestos for 7 twelve months, correct? 8 A Right. 9 Q Then they were allowed to wander about in 10 their cages for another twelve months; and at 11 twenty-four months, their lungs were getting 12 examined, right? 13 A Right. 14 Q But we don't have that particular data 15 with respect to the lung content of silica expressed 16 in table 1. We will get to that in other tables, 17 right? 18 A Right. 19 Q So at least during the time they were 20 breathing the asbestos up to twelve months, what we 21 see is that they breathed, presumably, asbestos into 22 their lungs by three months and it pretty much stayed 23 that level through twelve months for the Coalinga and 24 the UICC/B and it increased by about twenty-five 25 percent for the Jeffrey; is that fair to say? Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009630 1 A Right. Ilgren 974 2 Q We glean that from table 1? 3 A Right. 4 Q What we can't glean from table 1 is what 5 happened over the next twelve months when they 6 weren't breathing asbestos. We have to look at other 7 things to findthat, correct? 8A Right, andI point that out in the paper. 9 MR. GERSON: This may be a good time to 10 take a five-minute break. 11 (A short recess is taken.) 12 Q With respect to the lung silica content, 13 do you know what the percentage of silica is in the 14 Coalinga fiber? 15 A No. 16 Q Is it different than in the Canadian 17 chrysotile? 18 A I don't know. 19 Q So I take it that you don't know what the 20 percentage of the silica is in the UICC/B or Jeffrey 21 Canadian fibers? 22 A No. These are in the standard tables; but I 23 don't have the numbers offhand. 24 You mean, the part per million per silica? 25 Q Whatever percentage or part silica is of Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009631 * 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ilgren 975 the asbestos. A -I don't know. Q So now the second thing you do after examining the lung silica content changes over time in table 1 is you then move to table 2 and examine the fiber volume changes over time, correct? A Right. Q Now, in reviewing table 2, I don't see reference to the control rats. Is that in here somewhere? A There were nocontrol data. Q For the lung volume changes? A Right, nor for thedensity. Q Which was table 3? A Right. Q Now, are there any other published asbestos biopersistence studies that use fiber volume changes, such as we see in table 2, that you can refer us to? A Well, there is Pinkerton '84, '86, and I think in Pinkerton '90, they certainly do that. I think there are some papers by Chang and Crapo, his group; and there may be other people who have also done other determinations of fiber volume and density, which I haven't read. Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009632 Ilgren 976 1 Q With respect to those Pinkerton papers, 2 that's this same study you are talking about in table 3 2, right? 4 A . Yes, though Crapo may not be. 5 Q But do you know what it is that Crapo did 6 or didn't examine concerning fiber volume changes? 1 A His specific study? 8 Q Right. 9 A No, I don't know. 10 MR. BROWNSON: Off the record. 11 (A discussion is held off the record.) 12 MR. BROWNSON: ` Why don't we mark as 13 Exhibit 40 this document. It is a copy of 14 Lung Reaction to Chronic Inhalation of Three 15 Types of Chrysotile Asbestos During the 16 Lifespan of the Fischer 344 Rat, University 17 Microfilms International, copyright 1982 by 18 Pinkerton, Kent Ed. 19 (A copy of Dr. Pinkerton's 1982 thesis is 20 marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 40 for 21 identification, as of this date.) 22 Q Dr. Ilgren, we marked as Exhibit 40 a 23 copy of the thesis by Dr. Kent Pinkerton for his Ph. D. 24 in 1982; and this is something that you have read, I 25 take it? . Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009633 1A Yes. Ilgren 977 2 Q At page 103 of the thesis, Dr. Pinkerton 3 writes: "Compared to the control value, the 4 interstitial matrix volume was 60 percent greater in 5 male rats exposed to Coalinga chrysotile, 54 percent 6 greater in males exposed to UICC/B chrysotile and 143 7 percent greater in male rats exposed to Jeffrey 8 chrysotile." 9 He is talking now about twelve months. 10 Do you recall seeing those data? 11 A Yes. You said 143 percent. 12 Q Yes. 13 A Yes. 14 Q Then he continues at page 103 and writes: 15 "The total volume of the interstitial matrix continued 16 to increase during the postexposure period in control 17 and treatment groups of both sexes." 18 Do you recall that reference? 19 A I believe so. 20 Q Do you want to see it? 21 A No, that's okay. 22 Q What I'm kind of leading into is the lung 23 volume measurements which you - 24 A That doesn't talk about fiber. It's just the 25 matrix. Can you read it again? I don't think - Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009634 Ilgren 978 1 MR. WILL: Why don't you show it to the 2 3A witness? It's the interstitial matrix volume. That's 4 not fiber volume. 5 Q What is that? 6A That's the matrix within the interstitial, 7 which is collagen or precollagen. That's not fiber. 8 Q What causes the matrix in the 9 interstitial? 10 A There is an aging effect, because you see it 11 in the controls and it could also be and/or due to 12 fiber and/or due to non-specific things. The animals 13 get viruses -- you want me to show you the section? 14 Q You are correct. It's interstitial 15 matrix volume. So that's different than fiber 16 volume. 17 A Right. We address IMV in paper number 1. 18 Q Now, at page 104 of your paper, now, I'm 19 in the discussion section. 20 A Right. 21 Q At this point, what you have done is you 22 have set out in your tables the silica lung content 23 data from Dr. Pinkerton and the lung volume data from 24 Dr. Pinkerton that we have just looked at; and you 25 are now discussing what that means, correct? Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009635 1A Ilgren I guess so, right. 979 2 Q One thing you say on page 104, and I'm 3 looking under the discussion section in the second 4 column about a third of the way down. 5 You describe how the three-month and 6 twelve-month lung data of these rats exposed to 7 Coalinga and UICC/B asbestos are consistent with, and 8 I'm quoting from you, "were consistent with other 9 studies of these two same fibre types that made 10 silica content measurements in investigations 11 conducted under nearly identical exposure intensity 12 and duration conditions"; right? 13 A Right. 14 Q So what you are doing here, I take it, is 15 finding support or corroboration from these other 16 studies with respect to the Coalinga and the UICC/B, 17 right? 18 A Right. 19 Q And we talked earlier in the deposition 20 that these are other published data concerning 21 biopersistence of the Coalinga and the UICC/B 22 asbestos, right? 23 A Right. 24 Q Now, with respect to the other published 25 data concerning biopersistence of Coalinga, you told Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009636 Ilgren 980 1 us earlier that you found that in this rat inhalation 2 study by Dr. Muhle from Germany, right? 3 A Right. 4 Q And that's what you are now talking about 5 in page 104 of your paper we are looking at, right? 6 A Right. 7 Q And I will show you a photocopy of a 8 paper, which I believe is the paper by Dr. Muhle that 9 you are talking about. 10 Let me show it to you and I will ask you, 11 is this the Dr. Muhle page that shows the Coalinga 12 data that you reference in your paper as reference 13 number 15? 14 A Yes. 15 MR. BROWNSON: Why don't we mark that as 16 41. 17 {A copy of "The Annals of Occupational 18 Hygiene" is marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 41 19 for identification, as of this date.) 20 Q I will show you, Dr. Ilgren, what's been 21 marked as Exhibit 41. Just for the record, is this 22 the copy of the paper by Dr. Muhle referenced by 23 number 15 in your paper? 24 A Yes. 25 Q To try to move this along, this paper is Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009637 Ilgren 981 1 entitled, "Inhalation and Injection Experiments in 2 Rats to Test the Carcinogenicity of MMMF." 3 That means man-made mineral fibers, 4 correct? 5 A Yes. 6 Q And they are examining whether some 7 certain man-made mineral fibers can cause cancer in 8 rats; and they are comparing them, if you will, to 9 crocidolite asbestos from South Africa and chrysotile 10 asbestos, which is the Cali'dria asbestos, right? 11 A Right. 12 Q Now, in your paper at the bottom of the 13 second column of page 104 you state that: "The short 14 fibre Coalinga sample used by Muhle et al. were 15 cleared more than any other type of chrysotile and to 16 the same extent (about 90 percent)." 17 Did I read that right? 18 A "And the short fibre Coalinga sample used by 19 Muhle et al. were cleared more than any other type of 20 chrysotile and to the same extent (about 90 21 percent)." 22 Q Is that right? 23 A Yes. 24 Q And when you say "any other type of 25 chrysotile," I didn't see any other type of Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009638 Ilgren 1 chrysotile in Muhle's study. 982 2 Is there another type of chrysotile? 3A I think I was referring to my table 5. I have 4 to read it again. 5 Q And your table 5 references some other 6 studies? 7A Yes, a whole bunch of other studies. 8 Q So when you say it was cleared more than 9 any other type of chrysotile, you mean as compared to 10 these other types in the other studies in table 5? 11 A 12 Yes. Q Let's go back and look at Muhle's study 13 where you say the Calidria was cleared to about 90 14 percent. I want to look at that, okay? 15 A Okay. 16 Q If you would turn to page 759 of Muhle's 17 paper at table 4. This table is entitled "Fibers 18 (SEM) Retained in Lungs at Various Times From the 19 Start of the Inhalation Study (a) Number of Fibers 20 Per Lung, all sizes, and in Parenthesis, Fibers 21 Longer than Five Microns.n 22 A Okay. 23 Q I'm now looking at table 4 and they are 24 showing the clearance of four different things - 25 what table 4 shows is how much stuff is retained in Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009639 Ilgren 983 1 the lungs of the rats at different periods of time, 2 right? 3 A Right. 4 Q Andtheyare talking about four different 5 things. It's two man-made mineral fibers, which are 6 the glass fibers; and then the chrysotile asbestos 7 and then the crocidolite, right? 8 A Right. 9 Q Now, if you look at this, I'm focusing 10 now on the chrysotile, which is the Calidria. It 11 shows that at six months these rats retained 398, 12 which I assume, means 398 million fibers or does it 13 mean something else? 14 A No, that's whatit says, if you look at the 15 top header. 16 Q So with respect to the Calidria 17 chrysotile, these rats that breathed in Dr. Muhle's 18 study after six months retained 398 million fibers in 19 their lungs and at twelve months retained 347 million 20 and at twenty-four months retained 223 million fibers 21 in their lungs? 22 A Of all sizes. 23 Q I didn't bring my calculator along, but 24 the difference between 398 million fibers at six 25 months and 223 million at twenty-four months is about Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009640 Ilgren 1 forty percent, correct? 984 2 A But you didn't read my paper very carefully. 3 We address the issue of why that's not really so. He 4 analyzes the six and twelve months at SEM and 5 twenty-four months at TEM. So he is finding probably 6 ten to one hundred times more using a higher powered 7 methodology at twenty-four months. 8 Plus, for all sizes, I don't really know 9 what the lower end is; but I think if you actually 10 look at the fibers greater than five at six, twelve 11 and twenty-four months, it's going 39, 33 and then 12 11. If you adjust the 11 for the TEM, the first two 13 are done by SEM, the third one is done by TEM, you 14 are going to find ten to one hundred times more. 15 So, in fact, I would say you are probably 16 going from 39 to 33 to one or less than one and 17 that's a very substantial drop; and it comports well 18 with table 5 data. 19 Q Now, you say and you talk about that in 20 your paper, but I'm now examining table 4 of Dr. 21 Muhle's paper and Dr. Muhle does not say that, does 22 he? 23 He just presents these data. He didn't 24 say that in this paper that the twenty-four month 25 data ought to be reduced by one hundred times, does Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009641 1 he? Ilgren 985 2A That's just common knowledge. 3 Q Does he say that anywhere in his paper? 4A He actually does talk about the unreliability 5 of the measurements done with Calidria, I believe, 6 with TEM. So he alludes to that. Hang on a second. 7 I can find that. 8 Well, he is referring to injection study, 9 but that was with TEM and he says that sizing of the 10 fibers is very difficult resulting in numbers and 11 fiber dimensions. They are not very reliable. 12 Q Well, table 4 in this study, that's his 13 inhalation study where the rats are breathing, right? 14 A Right. 15 Q If we look at Dr. Muhle's published data 16 presented in table 4, what we see is that, from six 17 months to twelve months, there is less than a ten 18 percent reduction in the chrysotile, correct? 19 Those were using the same technique, 20 which is SEM, right? 21 A Right. 22 Q And then from six months to twenty-four 23 months, there is about a forty percent reduction. 24 You say, no, it should really be more 25 than that because he is using TEM? Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009642 1A It's obvious. Ilgren 986 2 Q That's what you say. 3A No, that's what the literature would say. Dr. 4 Langor would totally agree, if you are using SEM and 5 then you go to TEM. 6 Q Dr. Muhle does not say that anywhere in 7 this paper, does he? 8A No, he doesn't actually explicitly say that in 9 his paper. 10 Q Now, the only table that Dr. Muhle 11 presents, as I read it, which actually says there is 12 a significant reduction of the Calidria chrysotile 13 is, in fact, table 5. 14 Would you agree with me in that? 15 A It may also be reflected in table 6 where 16 Bellmann et al. '87 is cited. 17 Q But, again, I'm talking about Dr. Muhle's 18 rat inhalation study. 19 A Okay, that's right. 20 Q Table 5, unlike the first two tables in 21 table 4, rather than actual observed fibers, is a 22 calculated fiber mass per lung, right? 23 A Right. 24 Q And Dr. Muhle calculates the fiber mass 25 per lung using the technique in the King paper? Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009643 Ilgren 987 1A Just say that again. 2 Q Dr. Muhle calculates the fiber mass per 3 lung using the technique in King, by Dr. King, 4 correct? 5A King '55? 6 Q Right. 7A I have to check. I thought Pinkerton was the 8 one who -- I don't recall. 9 Q Well, if I represent to you - 10 A You want to show me where Muhle says how he 11 analyzed, through what method he used, because I 12 don't recall seeing that from Muhle. 13 Q Well, let me ask you a different 14 question. Do you know by which method Dr. Muhle 15 calculated these fiber mass per lung data in table 5? 16 A I have to read this for a second. 17 I think he just says, after low 18 temperature ashing. He doesn't given any reference. 19 Q So do you know, then, how he calculated 20 that or by what method he calculated it? 21 A If it's not cited, no. 22 Q Are you aware what you cite in your paper 23 number 3, the studies by Dr. King in 1955? 24 A I think it's what Pinkerton used. That should 25 be in materials and methods on page 99, column one Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009644 Ilgren 988 1 paragraph 1, "The silica content in lung tissue was 2 determined after ashing by the method of King et al. 3 1955. " 4 That's what Pinkerton used or whoever was 5 working with Pinkerton. 6 Q So if I could summarize the findings by 7 Dr. Muhle as published in his tables, which you say 8 supports your contention that the Calidria fibers are 9 not biopersistent, Dr. Muhle's data shows that when 10 he measures the fibers, there is about -- there is a 11 relatively small clearance; but when he calculates 12 the fiber mass per lung, that's a larger clearance? 13 A That's not what I'm saying. 14 Q That's what I'm asking. That's what the 15 table shows. 16 A Well, you can interpret the table for how you 17 want. 18 Q I'm not asking to interpret it. I'm 19 asking what does it show? 20 A Per the numbers in table 4, it shows for all 21 fiber sizes a drop at twelve to twenty-four months 22 from 347 to 223, which you gave me a percentage 23 before. 24 Q I said forty but we can calculate it. 25 A And for all fiber sizes greater than five Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 U CAR EF00009645 Ilgren 989 1 microns, it goes from 33 to 11, which is what? 2 Q That's about a two-third reduction? 3A So then there is almost a seventy percent 4 reduction, even using those numbers for greater than 5 five; but with table 5, if you look at the change in 6 the fiber mass going from six to twelve to 7 twenty-four months, you go from .31 to .29 to .03. 8 So that's the drop from .29 to .03. 9 Q That's a much larger drop? 10 A Right. 11 Q Again, that's the only one of the three 12 tables using a calculation as opposed to an actual 13 measurement of numbers, right? 14 A These are actual measurements. This is not a 15 calculated -- they ashed the tissue. They measured 16 the residue and this is what they got, as far as I 17 understand. 18 Q It's described as a calculated fiber mass 19 per lung, right? 20 A I know calculated is a funny word; but my 21 understanding is, per the methodology, they ashed the 22 tissues, they got the numbers and they are presenting 23 for a certain number of animals. It looks like for 24 three animals at each time point. 25 They have averaged them out and they got Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009646 Ilgren 1 0.31. As far as I can see, they are actual 990 2 measurements. 3 Q In any event, though, you don't know what 4 actual methodology was used for that calculation, 5 right? A No. 7 Q Now, would you agree with me. Dr. Ilgren, 8 though, if you go back looking at table 4 at 9 twenty-four months, using the TEM technique, which 10 you have told us about, what Dr. Muhle found was that 11 there were 223 million fibers in per lung of these 12 rats of Calidria chrysotile, right? 13 A Right. 14 Q Regardless of what technique you use or 15 how you measure it, 223 million fibers is a lot of 16 fibers in a rat'slung, isn't it? 17 A Well, on theassumption that they are all - 18 you know, I don't even know if his cut-off is at the 19 standard size, which would exclude things beneath 20 that limit that weren't even considered to be fibers; 21 but on the face of the statement 223 million 22 "fibers," that would seem to be a lot of fibers. 23 Q He doesn't say "fibers." He just says 24 fibers. 25 A Fine. Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009647 Ilgren 991 1 Q Do you know how much a rat'3 lung weighs? 2 A I can't remember. 3 Q Again, regardless of what technique he 4 uses; and, in fact, in twenty-four months he uses TEM 5 and in six and twelve he uses SEM, he finds Calidria 6 asbestos longer than five microns in the lungs of 7 these rats, doesn't he? 8 A Right. 9 Q So although you haveconsistently 10 stated that Calidria is ashortasbestos, you would 11 agree that some portion of Calidria asbestos is 12 greater than five microns in length and that some 13 portion of Calidria asbestos greater than five 14 microns in length got into the lungs of Dr. Muhle's 15 rats and stayed in the lungs of Dr. Muhle's rats for 16 twenty-four months? 17 MR. WILL: Objection. That's four 18 questions. State them one at a time. 19 . MR. BROWNSON: Well, let him answer that. 20 MR. WILL: Well, it's four questions. 21 MR. BROWNSON: You can answer. 22 MR. WILL: Read the question back. 23 (The record is read back.) 24 MR. WILL: As to my objection as 25 multiple, it's also argumentative. Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009648 Ilgren 992 1 Doctor, feel free to ask him to rephrase 2 it. 3A I'm focusing on two -- the first part of your 4 question says I have consistently said something; and 5 the second part alludes to the presence of claimed 6 fibers greater than five. 7 Not to be a major pain in the ass, but 8 would you like to ask the first part of your 9 question? 10 Q You would agree with me. Dr. Ilgren, that 11 Calidria asbestos has fibers that are greater than 12 five microns in length? 13 A 14 Yes, there is a small percentage. Q Do you know what percentage that is in a 15 sample of Calidria? 16 A In water, it would be generally less than four 17 or five percent. 18 Q Now, in Dr. Pinkerton's thesis at page 23 19 he describes the Coalinga asbestos, which is the same 20 as the Calidria asbestos, that he looked at as having 21 forty-eight percent fibers greater than five microns. 22 You are familiar with that reference? 23 A Well, in error. 24 Q Well, it's in the air that the rats 25 breathed, right? Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009649 1A Ilgren Well, that the fibers - 993 2 Q The rat breathes the asbestos out of the 3 air and when that rat breathes it, according to Dr. 4 Pinkerton, forty-eight percent is greater than five 5 microns? 6A Well, as an aerosol. He assumes he is 7 measuring the fiber and his cut-off for short versus 8 long, which is between thirty and forty microns, as 9 indicated in his thesis. 10 Q Well, Dr. Pinkerton states that 11 forty-eight percent of the Coalinga asbestos his rats 12 breathed was greater than five microns in length, 13 right? 14 A You are asking if it's correct that Dr. 15 Pinkerton stated that? 16 The structures that he was measuring, 17 yes, that's correct that he stated that. 18 Q Well, I can show you where he stated it. 19 MR. WILL: For the record, what is the 20 reference? 21 MR. BROWNSON: The reference is at page 22 23 of the thesis. 23 MR. WILL: Which is Exhibit 40. 24 Q In fact, in the thesis, Dr. Pinkerton 25 actually presents tables showing the size Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009650 Ilgren 994 1 distribution of the three asbestos, including the 2 Coalinga, right? 3 A Right. 4 Q And you are familiar with the fact that 5 some portion of the Coalinga chrysotile asbestos from 6 the Union Carbide mine is greater than five microns 7 in length? 8 A Yes. 9 Q If we then look at Dr. Muhle's rats that 10 were made to breathe the Coalinga asbestos, their 11 lungs contain some of those fibers that are greater 12 than five microns in length, right? 13 A Again, I don't know if he is measuring fibers, 14 pseudo-fibers, which are not really fibers. There is 15 a possibility that there are some long fibers there. 16 Again, it's apples and oranges. He does 17 six and twelve months with SEM and then he goes to 18 twenty-four months and looks at the things using an 19 instrument that is tremendously more powerful. 20 Q Let's just focus on this twenty-four 21 month measurement, which is using this TEM. 22 Using that powerful transmission electron 23 microscope, Dr. Muhle reports at page 759 in his 24 paper, that you cite in your paper, that he is 25 finding in lungs of his rats Coalinga asbestos Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009651 Ilgren 1 greater than five microns in length, right? 995 2A Right. 3 Q And he doesn't say these might be pseudo-fibers. He reports them as fibers, right? MR. GERSON: Well, hold on. I just want to make it clear for us, as well as the record. You are asking Dr. Ilgren to state what Dr. Pinkerton has stated? MR. WILL: No, Dr. Muhle. MR. GERSON: Dr. Muhle, rather. You are just asking him to affirm or deny that's what is in the report, right? MR. BROWNSON: Right. A Right. Q In short, using the transmission electron microscope, Dr. Pinkerton reports that his rats that breathed Coalinga asbestos have Coalinga asbestos in their lungs greater than five microns, right? A Because he couldn't see them with SEM. Q Well, with SEM, he reports them too, doesn't he? Look at six and twelve months. He finds that using that technique as well, right? A Well, that's when the animals are being continuously exposed to very high doses of Calidria. Q And Dr. Muhle's rats, after six months of Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (715) 983-1234 UCAREF00009652 Ilgren 996 1 exposure of Coalinga asbestos, using his SEM 2 technique, had 39 million fibers greater than five 3 microns in length in their lungs? 4A Right. 5 Q After twelve months, they had 33 million 6 Coalinga fibers greater than five microns in their 7 lungs? 8A Right, fibers, as hesays, fibers. 9 Q And at twenty-four months, using a 10 different technique, which is now the TEM, he 11 measures 11 million Coalinga fibers greater than five 12 microns in the lungs of those rats? 13 A Right. 14 MR. BROWNSON: Let's take a lunch break 15 here. 16 (A lunch recess is taken at 12:35 p.m.) 17 (Afternoon session resumes at 1:45 p.m.) 18 Q If we turn our attention, Dr. Ilgren, to 19 part 3 of your paper, the other study that I 20 understand you relied upon to support your belief of 21 the Coalinga studies that we see at table 5; and I'm 22 now looking at table 5, which is on page 106 of your 23 paper. 24 As I understand, from your text, you find 25 support for the notion of clearance of Calidria in Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009653 Ilgren 997 1 the Muhle study, which we already talked about, and 2 that's the first part of table 5; and then you also 3 find support in the studies of the short fiber 4 immediately beneath that; is that right? 5 A Yes. 6 Q Now, I'm looking at the category in table 7 5 which you have labeled as short, which is the 8 second category there. Do you seethat? 9A You mean this? 10 Q Right. 11 A Again, from reading the text of your paper, I 12 understand you to say that the studies of the short 13 fiber will lend credence to the idea that the short 14 fiber clears more rapidly. 15 Is that a correct statement? 16 A 17 Where are you reading? Q Well, I'm paraphrasing from the text. T 18 can go to areference, if you would like? 19 A Page 104, column two? 20 Q Exactly. So then, going to table 5 on 21 page 106, I'm looking at your column headed clearance 22 percentage. Do you see that one? 23 A Yes. 24 Q You cite Davis et al., which is a 25 published paper in 1988, your reference 33, for a Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009654 Ilgren 998 1 clearance percentage of 89.2. 2 Do I have that right? 3A Yes. . 4 Q Now, in the Berman et al. paper, which is 5 the Berman 1995 paper and your reference 29, you 6 don't put a clearance percentage. Why is that? 7A That was a study they did where they 8 reanalyzed the dust clouds using TEM; and I think I 9 put that in there just because it reassessed the same 10 studies that Davis had originally done. 11 I think they gave some additional 12 measurements for fibers per CC; but I don't think 13 Berman has clearance. I have to go and double check. 14 Q But at least as far as your paper, you 15 don't report a clearance percentage for that Berman 16 cite? 17 A Right. 18 Q So in terms of actually getting a number, 19 we need to look at Davis' study for a clearance 20 percentage, right? 21 A Right. 22 MR. BROWNSON: Let's do that. Off the 23 record. 24 {A discussion is held off the record.) 25 Q Your table 5 at page 106 of your paper Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009655 Ilgren 999 1 talks about a study of Davis et al. published 1988 in 2 the "British Journal of Industrial Medicine." That 3 is your reference 33; and I have just showed you the 4 paper, which is your reference 33, and you are saying 5 that's an error? 6A Yes. The electrostatic charge pertains to 7 this one at the bottom. You see normal charge, the 8 very last one on that page. It says normal charge 9 and draft 33. That's the one. 10 MR. BROWNSON: Okay, mark that paper. 11 MR. WILL: Is it supposed to be 28? 12 THE WITNESS: Ye3. 13 MR. WILL: Reference 33 in the paper 14 should be reference 28. 15 MR. BROWNSON: Let's mark that. 16 (A copy of "Effects of Electrostatic 17 Charge on the Pathogenicity of Chrysotile 18 Asbestos" is marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 42 19 for identification, as of this date.) 20 Q I show you, doctor, what was marked as 21 Exhibit 42, and this is a study by J.M.G. Davis and 22 other authors and this is the reference described as 23 reference 33 in your paper, right? 24 A Yes. 25 Q When you state at table 5 that reference Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009656 Ilgren 1000 1 33 in the short fiber type category, you are not 2 telling us that that's an error, there's really a 3 different reference that supports that? 4 A Yes. 5 Q And the different reference that supports 6 it is reference 28 in your paper? 7A 8 Yes. MR. BROWNSON: Let's mark that as Exhibit 9 43 . 10 (A copy of "Comparisons of the 11 Pathogenicity of Long and Short Fibres of 12 Chrysotile Asbestos in Rats" is marked as 13 Plaintiff's Exhibit 43 for identification, as 14 of this date.) 15 Q I show you what's been marked as Exhibit 16 43, and I will ask you if this is the paper which is, 17 in fact, reference 28 in your paper? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Can you show us where in reference 28 of 20 your paper, which is Exhibit 43, we find data that 21 shows that 89.2 percent of the short asbestos was 22 cleared in the lungs of rats? 23 A I think I just calculated that from the data. 24 I don't think it's stated, though it might be stated. 25 I don't remember. Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009657 Ilgren 1001 1 Q Well, if it ia stated, are you telling us 2 that it would be found somewhere in that paper, 3 Exhibit 43, your reference 28? 4A Yes, you saw the lung burden data. 5 MR. WILL: Why don't you state that for 6 the record. 7 THE WITNESS: It looks like 732 table 5. 8 Q So you are saying that the 89.2 clearance 9 percentage that you report on table 5 of your paper 10 for short fiber type is derived from table 5 at page 11 732 of Exhibit 43, which is your reference 28? 12 A I think so. 13 Q Now, one thing I do observe is that it 14 appears as though the inhalation study of asbestos on 15 rats referenced in both Exhibits 42 and 43, which are 16 your references 33 and 28, involve the same group of 17 forty-eight rats; is that right? 18 A No, I don't think so. 19 Q So these are different groups of 20 forty-eight rats? 21 A Well, I think we are talking about -- you are 22 saying my reference 28 and reference 33 -- 23 Q Is that the same group of rats? That's 24 all I'm asking. 25 A No, I don't think so. Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009658 Ilgren 1002 1 Q So those are two different inhalation 2 studies on two different groups of rats? 3A Yes, short, long, discharged and 4 non-discharged. - 5 Q Were both of those studies using the same 6 type of chrysotile asbestos? 7A I don't remember. I think so, but I don't 8 remember. X have to look. You want me to look? 9 Q Sure. 10 A Both studies meaning the twodifferences? 11 Q Right. 12 A I don't think so. The materials and methods 13 in the reference 28 said that they used a grade 4T-30 14 sample, whereas in the other electrostatic charge 15 paper they are using, I believe, a UICC/A. 16 Q Would you call that a short chrysotile, 17 an intermediate or a long? 18 A Which? 19 Q The UICC/A. 20 A The UICC/A? 21 Q Right. 22 A I think the UICC/Aissimilar to UICC/B; but 23 I'm not entirely sure. I think it's an intermediate 24 to long. 25 Q Well, your reference number 33, which is Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 U CAR EF00009659 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ilgren 1003 Exhibit 42, is a study by Dr. Davis and others where they are making rats inhale this UICC/A chrysotile asbestos, right? A Right. Q You don't know, as you sit here, whether that would be what you would call a short., intermediate or long fiber? A I believe it's intermediate to long. It's not short. It's just a standard UICC/A sample. Q Do you know how its size distribution compares to that of Calidria asbestos? A I mean, there is more long fibers. I can't give you the exact percentages in each size category as I sit here. Q And what type of chrysotile asbestos are the rats in Dr. Davis' study, which is your reference 28, Exhibit 43, exposed to? A I think the 4T-30 is a derivation of Jeffrey, but I'm not sure. Q Do you know if that is a short, intermediate or long? A That's long. Q Do you know how its size distribution compares to that of Calidria? A I can't remember the percentile break down off Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009660 Xlgren 1004 1 the top of my head. It's clearly termed in page 720. 2 The long fiber dust cloud was generated directly from 3 the 4T-30. 4 Q And just so we are clear now, going back 5 to table 5 of your paper on page 106, the short, 6 what you describe as short chrysotile study, is 7 Berman et al., but that one doesn't have any 8 clearance percentage data, correct? 9A Right. I think 1 just put that in, the Berman 10 et al. study, for the reader if they wanted to get 11 more information about those particular Davis 12 studies, because Berman et al. really looked at the 13 Davis et al. studies; but you are right, it didn't 14 have any clearance, as I recall. 15 Q So are you now telling us that the Davis 16 study, which is your reference 33 and Exhibit 42, 17 does not, in fact, involve short fiber? 18 A They didn't involve short fiber. 19 Q So when you place it in the short fiber 20 category in your table 5, that's simply an error? 21 A No, reference 28 involves short -- the 22 reference 28 is short versus long fiber and the 23 second study I put down in table 5 is the fiber type 24 that I label short; and that should refer not to 25 Davis et al. 1988 (33), but it should refer to Davis Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009661 Ilgren 1005 1 et al. 1988 (28). 2 Q So what you call Davis et al. 1988 (33), 3 a short fiber type study, that is an error? It is 4 not short? 5A That's right. 6 MR. GERSON: But the error is the 33? 7 THE WITNESS: Right. 8 Q The error is you put the wrong study in 9 the short fiber category, right? 10 A Right. 11 Q Just so I'm clear here, are you telling 12 us that your reference 28, which is Exhibit 43, 13 that's not short fiber either? 14 A Right. 15 Q So inorder tofix your short fiber 16 category on table 5, you can't just plug in your 17 reference 28, Exhibit 43, because that's not short 18 either? ' 19 A Sure you can. You just put a 28 here instead 20 of a 33. ` 21 Q And if you do that, though, you just told 22 us that was long to intermediate fiber in that study. 23 A No. We weretalking about --we are mixing, I 24 think, exhibit numbers and reference numbers. 25 Q Then let's clearly go through them. We Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009662 Ilgren 1006 1 have established that Exhibit 42, your reference 33, 2 which your table 5 says is short, is not, in fact, 3 short. We have got that much established, right? 4A Right. 5 Q Now, I thought you were telling us that 6 what should be in that short fiber category is your 7 reference 28? 8 A Yes, which is Exhibit 43. 9 Q But I thought you told us that that study 10 also was intermediate to long fiber? 11 A No, we were talking at that point, as far as I 12 was concerned, about reference 33, Exhibit 42. 13 Q So if we looked, then, at your reference 14 28, which is Exhibit 43, that study involves some 15 short chrysotile; is that correct? 16 A Yes, short compared to long. 17 Q You would put that - 18 A Well, that's just in the title. 19 Q If you were to correct your table 5, you 20 would put that study in the short category, right? 21 A Yes, I would just put a 28 instead of a 33. 22 MR. GERSON: Does it still accurately 23 describe Davis et al.? 24 THE WITNESS: Yes. 25 MR. WILL: Off the record. Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009663 Ilgren 1007 1 (A discussion is held off the record.) 2 THE WITNESS: Actually, I misspoke. When 3 you said is it still Davis et al., it's 4 actually Davis and Jones. 5 Q You would agree with me, again, that your 6 paper, part 3 of your paper, the purpose is to 1 convince the reader that short, in general, and 8 Calidria asbestos, in particular, is cleared from the 9 lungs of rats more quickly than long? 10 A Reference 28. 11 Q Would you agree with me that your paper, 12 part three of your paper, the purpose of part three 13 of your paper is to convince the reader that short, 14 in general, and Calidria asbestos, in particular, is 15 cleared more quickly from the lungs of rats or more 16 completely from the lungs of rats than long asbestos? 17 A Yes. 18 Q Would you agree with me that table 5 in 19 your paper on page 106 is offered in support of that 20 proposition? 21 A Yes,to some extent, yes. 22 Q Now, looking at Exhibit 43, which is your 23 reference 28, this is the study by J.M.G. Davis and 24 A.D. Jones where they made rats inhale both short 25 fiber chrysotile and long fiber chrysotile? Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009664 Ilgren 1008 1 A Right. 2 Q At table 5, which is that table you 3 pointed to us a moment ago, they report on the 4 clearance of both the short fiberand the long fiber, 5 correct? 6 A Right. 7 Q Do you anywhere in your table 5 describe 8 what they reported as theclearance of the long fiber 9 chrysotile? 10 A 11 12 A 13 It's on page 107. Q Where do I find it on page 107? It's the third one down. Q That's in the category entitled long? 14 A Yes. 15 Q And you report the clearance percentage 16 as 54., 1 percent? 17 A Yes. 18 Q And you report it as coming from that 19 Davis et al . reference 33? 20 A Right. 21 Q But really it's the Davis and Jones 22 reference 28? 23 A Right. 24 Q So that's just an error you made in your 25 ' column of references there? Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009665 Ilgren 1009 A Yes. Q Now, even though this Bertnan et al. paper does not contain actual clearance percentages, you still cited it in your short category? A I have to see it. Do you have a copy there? Do you have Berman's paper? Q Yes, I do. A Let me look at that, because I don't remember. MR. BROWNSON: Off the record. (A discussion is held off the record.) Q I have showed you, Dr. Ilgren, my working copy of the Berman paper. Just for the record, is that the Berman paper? A Yes. MR. BROWNSON: Even though I have got some highlighting on it, why don't we mark it as an exhibit. MR. GERSON: If you want, I can make a copy without the highlights. MR. BROWNSON: Can we take a moment and do that? MR. GERSON: Sure. MR. BROWNSON: Let's do that. (A short recess is taken.) MR. BROWNSON: Mark that as Exhibit 44. Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009666 Ilgren 1010 1 (A copy of "The Sizes, Shapes and 2 Mineralogy of Asbestos Structures that Induce 3 Lung Tumors of Mesothelioma in AF/HAN Rats 4 Following Inhalation" is marked as Plaintiff's 5 Exhibit 44 for identification, as of this 6 date.) 7 Q Before we go to the Berman paper, Dr. 8 Ilgren, I'm going to go back to this Davis and Jones 9 paper, which is your reference 28, Exhibit 43, which 10 is the one that should be in the short chrysotile 11 category of your table 5, okay? 12 A Yes. 13 Q I was just noticing in that paper at page 14 730 there is a table 3 entitled, "Pulmonary Tumors 15 and Mesotheliomas Found in Animals Treated with Long 16 and Short Fibre Samples of Chrysotile Asbestos and in 17 a Control Group of Rats." 18 Do you see that? 19 A I have a copy here. What's your question? 20 Q According to that table, it indicates 21 that the forty rats that were exposed to long 22 chrysotile had twenty-three tumors, forty rats 23 exposed to short chrysotile had eight tumors and the 24 forty-seven control rats not exposed to any asbestos 25 had two tumors, right? . Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009667 Ilgren 1011 1 A Right. 2 Q So even though the short chrysotile had 3 less tumors than the long chrysotile, it had four 4 times as many as the control rats. 5A Right. Is there a question? 6 Q No. Now, let's move to the - 7 MR. WILL: Just to be clear, that's not 8 Coalinga chrysotile in that experiment, is it? 9 THE WITNESS: No. 10 Q Exhibit 44, this is the paper by Dr. D. 11 Wayne Berman and other authors that you talk about at 12 your table 5, right? 13 A Right. 14 Q I see one of those authors is Eric 15 Chatfield. That is the same guy who is your 16 co-author? 17 A Right. 18 Q And this paper has studies of the 19 inhalation of nine different types of asbestos by a 20 bunch of rats? 21 A The phraseology ofthequestion, there were 22 thirteen inhalation studies analyzed. 23 Q But different rats were exposed to nine 24 different types of asbestos, right? 25 A Well, it lookslike four chrysotile - Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009668 Ilgren 1012 1 Q Well, I'm looking at the first line of 2 the abstract where it says they were exposed to nine 3 different types of asbestos dusts. 4A Well, I don't know how he gets nine. If you 5 look at table 1, there are four types. 6 MR. GERSON: What page is table 1? 7 THE WITNESS: 183. 8 Q If you look at the description, though, 9 the chrysotile are broken down and so are the amosite 10 and - 11 A Well, as far as I'm concerned, there are kind 12 of sub-types and sub-variations to a type of 13 asbestos. Not to be semantical, but in column one, 14 table 1, fiber type, asbestos type. So anyway, it's 15 semantical. 16 Q Are you saying this group of authors 17 should not call this nine different types of 18 asbestos, as they do in their abstract? 19 They should only call it three types with 20 sub-groups? 21 A I would say they used four different types of 22 asbestos of varying -- prepared in different ways. I 23 would just have said it differently, that's all. 24 MR. GERSON: In fact, there are two 25 columns. Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 U CAR EF00009669 Ilgrerx 1013 1 Q Well, whatever the columns are, you agree 2 with me in their abstract they call it nine different 3 types of asbestos? 4A Right, in their abstract. 5 Q And you don't agree with that 6 terminology? Would you call it something else? 7A I would have just worded the sentence 8 differently, that's all. 9 Q If you look at their table 1, that's the 10 table where they summarizes the data for animal 11 inhalation experiments conducted by Davis and 12 co-workers, right? - 13 A Yes. 14 Q If you look at what they describe as the 15 short chrysotile, that's that same short chrysotile 16 that we were just looking at a moment ago in Dr. 17 Davis' paper, which is Exhibit 43 and your reference 18 28; is that right? 19 A Right. 20 Q If you look at table 1 again under their 21 category of short chrysotile, we see again, just like 22 we saw in Exhibit 43, that that short chrysotile 23 caused seven pulmonary tumors and one mesothelioma, 24 correct? 25 A Right, being seriously contaminated with 1,170 Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009670 . Ilgren 1014 .1 long fibers per CC, which is discussed in Davis and 2 Jones 1988 on page 733, I think, in adequate detail. 3 Q So you are saying that even though they 4 call it short fiber, Davis calls it short fiber and 5 you call it short fiber, it's seriously contaminated 6 with long fiber? 7A Well, that's what he says in his paper. 8 Q So it's really not short fiber? 9A They made an attempt to make it short fiber, 10 but they couldn't get out a lot of long fiber. 11 Q When you say a lot of long fiber, do you 12 speak about fiber greater than five microns in 13 length? 14 A Yes. 15 Q What percentage of this short fiber is 16 greater than five microns in length? 17 A Say that again. 18 Q What percentage of that short fiber is 19 greater than five microns in length? 20 A What they began with as the hand sample or in 21 air. 22 Q What the rats inhaled? 23 A I don't know. I just know that as they 24 indicate there. Despite their attempts to develop a 25 method or to apply a method, that under other Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009671 Ilgren 1015 1 circumstances were smaller amounts of fiber, despite 2 that method to separate out long versus short, it 3 just didn't work here. 4 So they had left over a large number of 5 long fibers. Basically, he says, that while this 6 certainly applies the samples of a few milligrams, it 7 was not practical for the 1.5 kilograms needed for 8 long term inhalation studies. 9 Q So the asbestos fiber Drs. Davis and 10 Jones in Exhibit 43 described as short is, in fact, 11 you are telling us, not all short. Some of it is 12 long? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Nevertheless, Dr. D Wayne Berman, Kenny 15 S. Crump, Eric J. Chatfield, John M.G. Davis and Alan 16 D. Jones in their paper at page 183 table 1 call it 17 short chrysotile, don't they? 18 A It's the same paper. They cross reference. 19 In their table 1, they cross reference a reference, 20 which is Davis and Jones 1988. 21 Berman et al. 1995 is merely a 22 re-examination of all the Davis studies. So they are 23 stating their reference 13 in Berman et al. 1995 is 24 Davis and Jones 1988 comparisons of the pathogenicity 25 of long and short fibers. Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009672 r Ilgren 1016 1 Q Let me ask it again. Drs. Berman, Crump, 2 Chatfield, Davis and Jones, Davis and Jones being the 3 original authors of Exhibit 43, and Chatfield being 4 your co-author, in their paper. Exhibit 44, they 5 don't make all these distinctions you do in table 1. 6 They call it short chrysotile, correct? 7A What do you mean? 8 Q What do they call that fiber in table 1 9 of their paper? Please read to me what they call it? 10 A Short, but they refer to reference 13, which 11 is the paper in which the various distinctions are 12 made by the same authors. 13 Q So a reader reading table 1 of their 14 paper at page 183 would be told that that chrysotile 15 is short; but if the reader bothered to go and read 16 the reference 13, he might learn that some of that 17 chrysotile was, in fact, long; right? 18 A No, you could see it in the fourth column, 19 fifth column from left to right, it is fiber type, 20 description, abbreviations, mass concentration and 21 PCM. Under PCM is 1,170 fibers per milliliter there. 22 ` The reader, I think, would immediately 23 realize that there was a significant number of long 24 fibers in that short preparation, even if they didn't 25 go back to reference 13 Davis and Jones of 1988. Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009673 Ilgren 1017 1 Q Would that be obvious to the reader from 2 looking at your table 5 as well? 3A Yes. 4 Q Where does your table 5 show that those 5 1,170 fibers are greater than five microns in length? 6A 7 They are because they are PCM. Q Where does it say that in your table 5? 8A It says it in the footnote on page 107, two 9 lines down. 10 Q So if a reader goes down to your second 11 footnote, he would learn that some of the chrysotile 12 fibers that you categorized as short are, in fact, 13 long, correct? 14 A Right. 15 Q And he would also learn that some of the 16 Coalinga fibers, which you were calling short in your 17 paper, are also long? 18 A Right. 19 Q If a reader read the paper by Drs. Berman 20 Crump, Chatfield, Davis and Jones, they might pick up 21 that what those authors describe as short chrysotile, 22 in fact, contains long chrysotile, even though it 23 doesn't say that, because there is a reference that 24 reads, PCM f/ml, right? 25 A Right. Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009674 Ilgren 1018 1 Q And if a reader then went to Dr. Davis 2 and Jones' paper, which is Exhibit 43, your reference 3 28, and read the paper closely, they would learn that 4 what Dr. Davis and Jones called short chrysotile, in 5 fact, contains some long chrysotile? 6 MR. GERSON: You said "some," right? 7 MR. BROWNSON: Right. 8A Right. 9 Q And if a reader reading your part three 10 paper went back to Dr. Pinkerton's original thesis, 11 which describes the research upon which your part 12 three paper is written, they would discover that some 13 of that Calidria fiber you described as short is also 14 long, wouldn't they? 15 A What would they be looking at to get that 16 information? 17 Q Well, they could find that information 18 from Dr. Pinkerton's thesis, couldn't they? 19 A Just sort of ask the question so it's kind of 20 joined up into one question. 21 Q Well, they could find from Dr. 22 Pinkerton's thesis that some of the Calidria asbestos 23 you describe as short in your series of three papers 24 is, in fact, long? 25 A And you would be citing what for that? Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009675 Ilgren 1019 1 Q Dr. Pinkerton'3 thesis. 2A What specific part of the thesis? 3 Q Please answer the question. 4A I am. I'm just trying to -- you are referring 5 to a thesis, which is a big piece of work; and you 6 are saying somewhere in there he is saying something. 7 Can you just specify where in the thesis? 8 Q Okay, page 23 of the thesis. 9A Okay, let's see page 23. 10 MR. WILL: It's a deposition exhibit. 11 MR. BROWNSON: It's Exhibit 40. 12 Q Dr. Pinkerton's thesis reads at page 23 13 and I quote - 14 MR. WILL: Why don't you show it to the 15 witness? 16 Q "Combined fiber and fiber cluster length 17 in Coalinga chrysotile shows a distribution with many 18 fibers exceeding thirty microns in length." 19 Dr. Pinkerton reported that, correct? 20 A Yes, he reported that. 21 Q And his thesis atpage 23 also shows that 22 of the Coalinga asbestos thatthe ratsbreathed, 23 forty-eight percent was greater than five microns in 24 length, correct? 25 A Right. Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009676 Ilgren 1020 1 Q Do your series of three papers anywhere 2 make reference to the fact that some of the Calidria 3 Coalinga asbestos is greater than thirty microns in 4 length? 5A That's part four. I don't recall -- I would 6 have to go through the three papers. To my 7 recollection, it does not mention that; but as we 8 have discussed in the past, the issue of fiber size 9 length, width and purity is addressed in part four of 10 the paper. 11 Q Which may be published in the future? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Are you familiar with abstracts that Dr. 14 Kent Pinkerton, Dr. P. Pratt, A. R. Brody and J.D. 15 Crapo published in the "American Review of 16 Respiratory Disease," April of 1981? 17 A These are the three abstracts we talked about 18 before? 19 Q Right. 20 A I'm familiar -- well, you have to show them to 21 me again. 22 Q Okay. I'm only showing you the one 23 published which I just described. 24 A Okay. 25 Q Would you agree with me that in that Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009677 Ilgren 1021 1 abstract, those authors say that all three types of 2 chrysotile, including the Calidria caused 3 interstitial lung injuries after three months of 4 exposure by the rats? 5A Can I read this? 6 7A Q Can you answer the question? I can't remember the question. 8 MR. BROWNSON: Read it back. 9 MR. WILL: Let him read the abstract 10 first, and then we can have the question read 11 back. 12 A Yes, I see his statement here. After three 13 months' exposure, all fibers caused injury to the 14 epithelium and interstitium with the increase of the 15 volume of alveolar type II cells. I don't consider 16 those injuries. 17 Q So even though they call them injuries, 18 you don't consider them injuries? 19 A No, I don't consider them injuries. I don't 20 see any data, either. 21 Q Well, you don't see any data; but this are 22 the same rat inhalation studies that you are talking 23 about in your series of three papers, isn't it? 24 A Right. 25 Q And you have no reason to believe that Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009678 Ilgren 1022 1 Dr. Pinkerton would make that up, do you? 2A I'm just saying that he is citing an abstract 3 and there is no, to my knowledge, published data 4 prior to that point to support his contention; and I 5 don't see any intended data in which he is basing his 6 statement. 7 Q So if it is your contention, then, that 8 he if makes that statement, he is simply wrong? 9A I wouldn't call an increase in epithelium and 10 an increase in interstitium volume necessarily an 11 injury, because we see all that as rats age. That is 12 supported in his thesis, Pinkerton et al. 1982; and 13 Pinkerton's thesis demonstrates the same phenomena. 14 Q So you believe he was wrong? 15 A Well, I wouldn't use the word injury. 16 Q If he again uses the word "injury" in 17 another of his abstracts, would he be wrong again? 18 A It depends. Show me the abstract. 19 Q I show you the abstract published in the 20 "American Review of Respiratory Disease" at the 21 annual meeting of the American Lung Association, the 22 Canadian Lung Association, the American Thoracic 23 Society, the Canadian Thoracic Society and the 24 Congress of Lung Association Staff in 1980. 25 I have highlighted the sentences there. Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009679 Ilgren 1023 1A 2 Could we make a copy of this? Q Before we do, can you answer the 3 question? In that abstract, again, Dr. Pinkerton 4 describes what the lungs received from exposure to 5 all three types of asbestos as injury, doesn't he? 6A Yes, he refers to them again as injury and my 7 response would be the same again. He makes the same 8 statement, volume and thickness of epithelium and 9 interstitium increase, alveolar cell increase. 10 I don't think that's necessarily 11 indicative of injury. 12 (A short recess is taken.) 13 Q Going back to your paper, Dr. Ilgren, 14 part three that we have been talking about today, 15 page 102 in the second column at the bottom of the 16 first paragraph you write, "The average density of 17 Coalinga fibre in interstitial cells at three months 18 appeared to be three times greater than UICC/B and 19 Jeffrey, but this was due to one animal with an 20 anomalously high value, so the difference has 21 probably been significantly overestimated." 22 Do you see that? 23 A Yes. 24 Q So what you are saying is the references 25 or the data we see on table 3 of your paper showing Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009680 Ilgren 1024 1 that the average density of the Coalinga fiber in the 2 interstitial cells at three months to be greater than 3 the other two was due to one anomalous animal? 4A Yes. It's 21.8, isn't it? 5 Q If we look at table 3, can you show us 6 where that reference appears? 7A The reference or the animal? 3 Q The anomalous animal. 9A I think it's 21.8. I just mentioned it. 10 Q Where do we see that? 11 A Look here. If you look at table 3, you go to 12 the column Coalinga and go under alveolar 13 macrophages; and then you go to three months and you 14 see 8.52 plus or minus 4.69 then in brackets you have 15 0.5-21.8. 16 So I'm referring to that animal, 21.8. 17 If you look at the individual -- I don't have the raw 18 data here, but the 21.8 seems to be a major outlier, 19 greater than the other points. 20 Q Now, you had told us at an earlier 21 deposition that all of these animals in the raw data 22 from Dr. Pinkerton that you looked at had a number to 23 them. 24 A Right. 25 Q Can you tell us the number of that Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009681 Ilgren 1025 1 anomalous rat? 2A I could. I can't sitting here, but I could do 3 that. 4 Q That data is available to you? 5A Yes. 6 INSERT: 7 Q You described that as an anomalously high 8 value; but however you described it, that is an 9 actual value in a rat, right? 10 A Right. 11 Q In other words, what that indicates is 12 that there is one rat that breathed a lot of Coalinga 13 fiber and for some reason a lot of it -- or there was 14 a lot of fiber density change in that particular rat. 15 MR. WILL: Object to the form of the 16 question. Why don't we just stick with the 17 fiber density change? 18 Q One rat had a large fiber density change 19 following exposure to Coalinga? 20 A It had a fiber density, yes. 21 .Q And although you describe that as an 22 anomalous rat, that is a piece of real data? 23 In other words, that rat had a lot of 24 Coalinga fiber in its lungs, didn't it? 25 A Right. . Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009682 Ilgren 1026 1 Q I take it you don't know why that 2 particular rat had so much Coalinga in its lungs? 3 A No. 4 Q Could it be particularly susceptible or 5 the fact that it was so stupid it kept its mouth 6 opened when it breathed? It could be any number of 7 things, right? 8 A I imagine so. I don't know why. 9 Q Now, if you look at page 103 of your 10 paper in the second column about the bottom third you 11 again speak about an extremely high fiber density in 12 one Coalinga animal. 13 Is that the same one? That's the same 14 one that we were talking about on page 102 or a 15 different one? 16 A Let me check here. That's the same one, I 17 think. 18 Q Because now we are talking about fiber 19 density in the alveolar macrophages. 20 A I beg your pardon, I made a mistake. When we 21 were talking about the anomalous value on page 102, 22 that had to do with cellular interstitium and that 23 would be cellular interstitium; and that would be, 24 again, if you look at the table 2 on page 101 under 25 interstitial cells. Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009683 Ilgren 1027 1 Q Now, is this table 3 or table 2? 2A Wait a minute, hang on. I'm sorry. 3 Q Take your time, because I'm trying to 4 figure out who these anomalous rats are? 5A With reference to page 102 and our discussion 6 just a minute ago where you were reading the average 7 density of Coalinga fiber in interstitial cells in 8 three months appeared to be three times greater than 9 UICC/B and Jeffrey, but this was due to one animal 10 with an anomalously high value. So the difference 11 has probably been significantly overestimated, I 12 should have been referring to the portion of page 101 13 in table 3 under interstitial cells for a three-month 14 value of 1.98. 15 Q So is the anomalous rat described at page 16 102 of your paper seen in table 3 under interstitial 17 cells at 1.98? 18 A Yes. 19 Q And what is the anomalous rat described 20 at page 103 of your paper? 21 A That is the one that I formerly described as 22 under alveolar macrophages at three months referring 23 to 21.8. 24 Q So if we can summarize, the average 25 density of Coalinga fibers in the interstitial cells Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009684 Ilgren 1028 1 at three months is much higher in the Coalinga; but 2 you attribute that to an anomalous rat, right? 3 A Yes. 4 Q At least in part? 5 A Yes. 6 Q The fiber density leading to an increase 7 in the number of alveolar macrophages is, again, 8 higher than the Coalinga; but you attribute that to 9 another anomalous rat? 10 A Maybe. 11 Q It might be one reason forit? 12 A Might be. ` 13 Q Whatever the reason for it is, however, 14 the fact remains that the number of alveolar 15 macrophages is increased more in the Coalinga than 16 the UICC/B at three months? 17 A Right.. It'snot the number it's - 18 MR. GERSON: Off the record. 19 (A discussion is held off the record.) 20 A Are you referring to number of macrophages or 21 are you referring to fiber density in macrophages? 22 Q I don't know. You are calling it number 23 of macrophages in your paper? 24 A No, in table 3 it is not the number. The 25 number of macrophages is table 7. Table 3 refers to Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009685 Ilgren 1029 1 the density of fiber in macrophages, the number of 2 macrophages. 3 Q That's not what I'm talking about. 4 MR. WILL: The answer to your question is 5 no. That's what we are getting at. 6 MR. BROWNSON: Let's go back and start 7 over. 8 Q I'm reading at page 103 of your paper. 9 Under the heading of alveolar macrophages, that says 10 there was an increased number of alveolar macrophages 11 in the Coalinga versus the UICC/B; does it not say 12 that? 13 A Show me exactly where you are reading from. 14 Q Let me quote - 15 A No, just tell me in regards to where you are. 16 Q Right here. 17 A Inhalation of Jeffrey and Coalinga fiber for 18 three months led to a greater than 84 percent 19 increase in the number of alveolar macrophages, 20 compared with age-matched control animals, citing 21 table 4. 22 MR. WILL: But you were talking about 23 table 3. 24 MR. BROWNSON: We were talking about 25 something else then. Please, we need to Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009686 Ilgren 1030 1 listen closely to the questions. 2 MR. WILL: Let's go off the record for a 3 second. 4 (A discussion is held off the record.) 5 MR. WILL: Dr. Ilgren, let me ask you to 6 clarify. Does table 3 refer to the number of 7 macrophages? 8 THE WITNESS: No. 9 MR. BROWNSON: I never said it did. 10 Please listen to the question. 11 12 A Q What does table 3 refer to? Fiber density. 13 MR. WILL: In the macrophages? 14 THE WITNESS: Yes. 15 MR. BROWNSON: Now we have to start over. 16 Q The first anomalous rat described in your 17 paper is at page 102, correct? 18 A Right. 19 Q Andthat anomalous rat, in your view, 20 contributes or causes the increase in the average 21 density of Coalinga fiber in interstitial cells at 22 three months? 23 A Yes. 24 Q As shown in table 2? 25 A No, table 3. Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009687 Ilgren 1031 1 Q Table 3? 2 MR. WILL: Because table 2 is volume 3 changes. 4 Q Table 3 of your paper at page 101, right? 5A Right, and the anomalous animal there is 1.98 6 at three months and table 3 on page 101 under 7 interstitial cells. 8 Q Now, the second anomalous animal you 9 describe in your paper, you describe at page 103, 10 right? 11 A Right. 12 Q And that second anomalous rat caused the 13 difference in the number of alveolar macrophages at 14 three months of exposure? 15 A No. The anomalous value referred to on page 16 103, as far as I can see, refers to fiber density, not 17 cell number. 18 If you look on column two, page 103, five 19 lines up from the bottom it reads, "However, much of 20 the difference between UICC/B and Coalinga was due to 21 an extremely high fiber density reading of one 22 Coalinga animal." 23 Q Now, I will ask again, is that the same 24 anomalous rat as we were just talking about described 25 on page 102 or is that a different one? Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009688 Ilgren 1032 1A That, I don't know. 2 Q You will agree with me, at least, that 3 the anomalous rat described on page 103 is extremely4 confusing, because it's under the heading of alveolar 5 macrophages when you are talking about the increase 6 in number of them; but then when you get to this 7 anomalous rat, now we are suddenly talking about 8 fiber density. 9 MR. WILL: I object to the question. 10 It's argumentative. It's speculative and it's 11 multiple. 12 A I don't understand the question. 13 Q Under your heading of alveolar 14 macrophages on page 103 the first sentence reads, and 15 I quote, "Inhalation of Jeffrey and Coalinga fiber for 16 three months led to a greater than 84 percent 17 increase in the number of alveolar macrophages, 18 compared with age-matched control animals (table 4). 19 However, exposure to UICC/B did not increase 20 macrophage numbers significantly by this time." 21 Then you continue and down later in that 22 column we get to this anomalous rat. 23 A But it's apples and oranges again. The 24 beginning of the discussion on page 103 about 25 alveolar macrophages talks about cellular number and Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009689 Ilgren 1033 1 cellular volume changes. Later on page 103 we are 2 talking about fiber density. 3 Q Is that the same anomalous rat as you 4 were talking about on page 102? 5 MR. WILL: He told you twice now. He 6 doesn't know. Asked and answered. 7A The only way I can tell is if you put out the 8 raw data for all four or five animals. 9 Q And your paper doesn't tell you which 10 anomalous rat this is? 11 A No, just the raw data. 12 Q Is it fair to say, Dr. Ilgren, that all 13 three fiber types, including the Coalinga, caused 14 increased macrophage cell volume after three months, 15 as described in table 4? 16 A That's what I have said in my paper. 17 Q However, the density of the asbestos in 18 macrophages was higher for the Coalinga than the 19 UICC/B, correct? 20 A I just want to be sure I get your question. 21 Ask it again. 22 Q The density of Coalinga fiber in the rat 23 macrophages was more than twice the amount than after 24 the exposure to the UICC/B fiber, correct? 25 MR. WILL: The Coalinga was more than Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009690 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 .11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ilgren 1034 twice the UICC/B? MR. BROWNSON: That'3 what I said. MR. WILL: You didn't say which one. MR. BROWNSON: Stop. Let me ask a question. Listen carefully to the question. MR. WILL: I was. That's why I interrupted. Q Listen carefully to the question. The density of the Coalinga fiber in the macrophages was more than twice that of the UICC/B fiber in the macrophages? A Yes. MR. WILL: At three months? MR. BROWNSON: At three months. Q And you attribute that density difference or much of it to one anomalous Coalinga rat? A Yes. Q Again, we don't know which Coalinga rat that was? A Right. Q But that is a real piece of data? A Sure, it's a real piece of data. Q Now, then turn to page 104 of your paper. In the first column at the last sentence of the first full paragraph, you again are describing anomalously Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009691 Ilgren 1035 1 high fiber density in a Coalinga rat. 2 Do you see that? ' 3A 4 5A Yes. Q Now, which rat is that one? Again, it's the same, unless I have the raw 6 data, I can't really identify which one it is. 7 Q Well, let me point out that here you are 8 talking about the density of Coalinga fiber after 9 twelve months'exposure. 10 A Right. 11 Q So can you tell from that if this is that 12 same anomalous rat we had seen earlier or if this is 13 a different one? 14 A No, we can't tell. 15 Q At twelve months' exposure, this 16 particular anomalous rat described on page 104 had 17 density of Coalinga fiber in its lungs more than six 18 times greater than that found in the Jeffrey treated 19 macrophages, right? 20 A Right. 21 Q Let me ask you this question. Dr. Ilgren. 22 Your paper at page 104 says that the density of 23 Coalinga fiber after twelve months' exposure appeared 24 to be more than six times greater than that found in 25 the Jeffrey-treated macrophages, right? Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009692 Ilgren 1036 1A Are you talking about the average of the 2 Jeffrey? 3 Q I'm quoting directly from your paper. I 4 quote, "Although the density of Coalinga fiber after 5 twelve months' exposure appeared to be more than six 6 times greater than that found in the Jeffrey-treated 7 macrophages, this was largely due to one exceedingly 8 high, anomalous fiber density reading in a 9 Coalinga-treated animal (table 3)." 10 Do you see that? 11 A 12 I see it. Q Can you show us which animal that is in 13 table 3? 14 A You want me to tell you which is the anomalous 15 reading that I'm referring to? 16 Q Yes. 17 A Well, I would say it's the 23.8reading. 18 Q And that isunder the heading Coalinga in 19 the first section at twelve months under alveolar 20 macrophages? 21 A Right. 22 Q So if I could summarize, Dr. Ilgren, 23 because I circled them as you gave your answers, 24 there appear to be three anomalous rats here. The 25 first is -- Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009693 Ilgren 1037 1A You can't say that. 2 Q Well, let me just finish. The first is 3 that under alveolar macrophages three months' exposure 4 in your table 3 at 21.8; the second one is at twelve 5 months' exposure at 23.8 and the third is three months' 6 exposure under interstitial cells at 1.98. 7 MR. WILL: Objection. He said there is 8 three anomalous readings, not three anomalous 9 rats. 10 He told you he couldn't answer the 11 question. Don't answer it. Let him fix it. 12 Q There are three anomalous readings. They 13 may or may not be one rat, two rats or three rats; is 14 that correct? 15 A That's correct, but that's not what you asked 16 me. 17 Q And you don't know if it was one rat, two 18 rats or three rats? 19 A That's correct. 20 Q Nor do you set forth any data information 21 or rat number in any of your three papers to tell the 22 reader this is one anomalous rat, two anomalous rats 23 or three anomalous rats? 24 A That's correct. 25 Q Nevertheless, it is upon this one, two or Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UGAREF00009694 Ilgren 1038 1 three anomalous rats that you report that the 2 Coalinga results are higher both at the three-month 3 alveolar macrophages, the twelve-month alveolar 4 macrophages and the three-month interstitial cells? 5 A Right. 6 Q Now, I would like to turn to page 105 of 7 your paper. On the first column about two-thirds of 8 the way down, you are talking about this 223 million 9 fibers that Dr. Davis found in that study that we 10 talked about earlier? 11 A Dr. Muhle. 12 Q Dr. Muhle? " 13 A Yes. 14 Q And you say that a substantial number of 15 fibers, 223 million, noted twelve months post 16 exposure in Dr. Muhle's inhalation study seems to be 17 at odds with some observation. 18 What observation was that? 19 A Six lines above that I note the very low (0.03 20 plus or minus 0.03 mg) post-ashing fiber mass 21 readings observed by these workers, which is Muhle et 22 al. 23 Q So in Muhle's rat inhalation study, when 24 he did this fiber ashing to come up with the asbestos 25 mass in the lungs, he got a low value; but when he Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009695  ^ 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Ilgren 1039 actually counted fibers, he got his 223 million; and you are saying that there seems to be some odds between those two things? A Right. Q And then you continue and I quote, "The most likely explanation for these apparently discordant findings is probably a trivial technical one," right? A Right. Q What do you mean by trivial technical explanation? A Well, if youread on -- Q I did read on but I couldn't figure it out. A Well, what I'm saying is that the 223 million all sizes or eleven times ten to the sixth is greater than five microns. The number is probably -- when you look at that with TEM, it's actually a relatively small number. Stated differently, it may also be that since long fibers contribute more to mass than short fibers, then what he is actually measuring as long fibers may not be long fibers. Q But when he is measuring them by TEM and counting fibers, he is actually seeing them. That Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009696 Ilgren 1040 1 was not a mass calculation, was it? 2A I know but it goes to the question as to what 3 he is actually counting, even by TEM, as a long 4 fiber. 5 Q Well, presumably, he is counting fibers, 6 because that's what people do with TEM, isn't it? 7A Well, one counts structures and the structure 8 may be a complex structure or it may be a single. I 9 don't think you can tell by this. 10 Q Whatever it was that Dr. Muhle saw under 11 this TEM, he reported it in his paper as fibers, 12 right; and you are now speculating, well, it might 13 have been something else? 14 A Well, let me read through this for one second 15 and then I will return to your question. 16 I think what's going on is there is a 17 discrepancy between what appears to be a very low 18 mass and a high fiber number; and I think one 19 explanation for that is that, as Muhle points out and 20 he says here, "considerable decrease of fiber 21 diameter observed for the Coalinga fibers in lungs 22 compared with fibers in the inhalation chamber, which 23 occurred because of splitting. The splitting 24 produced fibrils that were, in fact, too fine to 25 count and size reliably." Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009697 Ilgren 1041 1 Q Right, which he documented under his TEM, 2 correct? 3A Right, but the fibrils have very, very little 4 mass, per se. So I think what's happening is that 5 the very low mass dose does not necessarily reflect 6 the increase or this number of fibrils. 7 Q In the Muhle study the Coalinga fibers 8 seen under the TEM, Muhle thinks, might have been 9 much thinner, which attributes to their smaller mass; 10 is that what you are saying? 11 A Yes. 12 Q But nevertheless, the 223 million fibers 13 that he points out in his paper are counted fibers, 14 although they are thin? 15 A Right. 16 Q Going back to the anomalous rats whether 17 it's one, two or three, do you know if any of those 18 rats, rat or rats, were the ones that got tumors, as 19 you read in part 2 of your paper? 20 A I would have to go and check. You mean, of 21 the one or two tumors that came in the Coalinga 22 animals? 23 Q Part 2 of your paper is about the tumors 24 and some of the Coalinga rats had tumors. 25 My question is, do you know if any of the Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009698 Ilgren 1042 1 tumors in the Coalinga exposed rats were in those rat 2 or rats described as the anomalous rats in part 3 3 that got the high Coalinga fiber? 4A No. You mean just sitting here? 5 Q Can you tell by looking at the papers, 6 because paper 2 does actually list rats by rat 7 number? 8A I can't because I don't have the correlated 9 data in this paper. 10 Q In the abstract of paper number 3, I'm 11 going now to the abstract on the first page, on the 12 fourth line -- actually, the third and fourth line 13 you write, "A short amphibole-free chrysotile from 14 Coalinga, California failed to induce pathological 15 effects whilst the other two, both long fibers from 16 Canada, were both fibrogenic and tumourigenic." 17 Do you see that? 18 A Yes. 19 Q And you say you have demonstrated that in 20 papers 1 and 2? 21 A Yes. 22 Q Again, if you look at paper 2 table 1, 23 the Coalinga induced rats had two tumors and three 24 BAH, right; and wetalked aboutthat before? 25 A Yes, wehave gonethrough that. Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009699 Ilgren 1043 1 Q Basically, in order for the statement in 2 the abstract part 3 to be correct, there shouldn't be 3 the two tumors and the three BAHs in table 1 of part 4 2. 5A No, there were two tumors in the controls. I 6 have subsequently added that to-be two carcinomas 7 looking at the raw data. I don't think there is a 8 significant increase in tumors above the controls. 9 I don't think there is any difference 10 between the number of tumors in the controls of the 11 Coalinga-treated animals. 12 Q We have gone through that at length. We 13 will let that stand. We won't get into it again. 14 MR. BROWNSON: That's all I have. 15 MR. WILL: I have a couple questions. 16 17 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WILL: 18 MR. WILL: Mark these please. 19 (A copy of "American Review of 20 Respiratory Disease" Volume 123 dated April 21 1981 is marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 45 for 22 identification, as of this date.) 23 (A copy of "American Review of 24 Respiratory Disease" Volume 121 dated April 25 1980 is marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 46 for Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009700 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 IIgren 1044 identification, as of this date.) Q Dr. Ilgren, the first thing I want to ask you is, you were asked a question by Mr. Brownson about whether the anomalous rat at twelve months in terms of the fiber density and the alveolar macrophages that had been exposed to the Coalinga fiber whether that rat more than six times increased density compared to the Jeffrey; do you remember that question? A Yes. Q When you said six, is that comparing the averages of the two exposed groups? MR. BROWNSON: Objection, leading. You already clarified that. MR. WILL: That was a different question. MR. BROWNSON: I will agree with you. It was not the anomalous rat that had six times more. It's the Coalinga group which had six times more, which he attributes largely to that anomalous rat. MR. WILL: That's not the question you asked. - Q Let me put it this way. Look at table 3, alveolar macrophages. If you compare the average for the group Coalinga versus the average for the Jeffrey Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009701 Ilgren 1045 1 group, ia that where you get the six times difference? 2 A At twelve months? 3 Q Yes. 4 A Yes. 5 Q Obviously if we were comparing the 6 relationship between the value for the anomalous rat, 7 we could get a different number than six? 8A Yes. 9 Q You were asked whether the three 10 so-called anomalous readings came from the same rat 11 or different rats. 12 What, if anything, can you tell about 13 that question, based on the dates of the readings? 14 A You meanthree, twelve or twenty-four months? 15 Q Three or twelve months, yes? 16 A Well, the correct answer is that it would have 17 to be at least two rats, because you wouldn't have 18 the same rat at three months and twelve months. They 19 are killed at three months. 20 Q And with respect to the two rats that 21 were found to have the tumors, do you know anything 22 about what their sacrifice date was? 23 MR. WILL: I'm going back to page number 24 2, Mr. Brownson. 25 Q Do you know anything about the sacrifice Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009702 Ilgren 1046 1 date of those rats, just based on the fact that they 2 had tumors? 3A I don't believe any of the rats had tumors at 4 three or twelve months. So it couldn't have been 5 either of those. 6 Q So based upon those assumptions, the 7 anomalous rats would not be the ones that developed 8 tumors? 9A That's right. 10 Q Let me show you what I have marked as 11 Exhibit 45. Can you tell me briefly what that is? 12 A This is the abstract by Pinkerton et al., lung 13 injury patterns in rats. 14 Q And what's the date of that one? 15 A April 1981. 16 Q Is that the document Mr. Brownson showed 17 you earlier? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Let me show you what I had marked as 20 Exhibit 46 and ask you what is that? 21 A This is morphologic lung changes following 22 exposure to chrysotile asbestos fibers by Pinkerton 23 et al. published April 1980. 24 Q Now, Mr. Brownson asked you some 25 questions about the statements in the abstracts by Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009703 Ilgren 1047 1 Dr. Pinkerton that refer to injury. 2 Do you recall those questions? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Why is it that you would not call the 5 reported changes an injury? 6 A They are not irreversible. There is no 7 evidence that they are irreversible, nor is there 3 clear evidence that they manifest overt fibrosis and 9 tumor formation. 10 Q Are you doubting that Dr. Pinkerton, in 11 fact, observed the characteristics that he reports in 12 the abstracts? 13 A Not at all. 14 Q Have you observed and reviewed the same 15 tissue slides that he is talking about here? 16 A Yes. - 17 Q Did you observe the changes or the 18 conditions that he remarks upon? 19 A Well, let's step back. When you say I 20 observed the same slides and the same conditions, I 21 mean, X understand he is saying there is injury based 22 on an increase in value and number of alveolar type 23 II cells and an increase in interstitial matrix after 24 three months; but I didn't look at any of the 25 materials under a TEM microscope. So I haven't, to Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009704 Ilgren 1048 1 that extent, looked at the material, no. 2 Q Did you look at them under an SEM 3 microscope? 4A Yes -- no, actually after three months there 5 was no available material. 6 Q Was there after twelve months? 7A No, there was available for end of life. 8 Q To get back to where I was, are you 9 disputing that Dr. Pinkerton saw the physical 10 characteristics that he reports in the abstract? 11 A No. 12 Q How would you characterize those physical 13 characteristics? 14 MR. BROWNSON: Well, that's been asked 15 and answered. 16 THE WITNESS: I don't think that's been 17 asked and answered at all. 18 MR. BROWNSON: Well, go ahead and answer 19 it; but I think it has been. 20 A I think the reactions to the presence of an 21 irritating material administered to animals in very 22 high doses for a long time. 23 Q Is that reaction or response specific to 24 asbestos? 25 A Not at all. Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009705 Ilgren 1049 1 Q Let me turn your attention to Exhibit 46 2 to the early part of the abstract; and there is a 3 statement in it that says, "Greater than ninety 4 percent of the fibers in both groups are less than 5 five microns in length, but the mean fiber mass in 6 the intermediate range fibers is 45-fold greater due 7 to the presence of a larger number of long fibers in 8 that chrysotile preparation." 9 Did I read that correctly? 10 A Yes. 11 Q What do you understand the intermediate 12 range fibers to be? 13 A Jeffrey. 14 Q What about the UICC/B, what do you 15 understand that to be? 16 A That's not here. 17 Q How does the concept of fiber mass relate 18 to the concept of fiber number, if at all? 19 A Well, long fibers contribute far more to mass 20 than tiny small fibers. 21 Q Does the fact that an animal got a 22 greater mass of Jeffrey fibers than Coalinga fibers 23 necessarily mean that the animal got more Jeffrey 24 fibers than Coalinga fibers? 25 A Well, as stated, it suggests that the animals Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009706 Ilgren 1050 got a larger number of long fibers. Q As you understand it, did the animals receive a higher mass of Jeffrey asbestos than Coalinga asbestos? A No, it's stated right here. They got three times higher mass dose of Jeffrey than Coalinga. Q The fact that they got three times higher mass dose of Jeffrey than Coalinga, does that mean that they got three times as many fibers of Jeffrey them Coalinga? A You mean long fibers or short fibers? Q All sizes. A Presumably, yes. Presumably that if they got a greater mass dose, they would have gotten a greater number of fibers of all sizes. Q Does that depend upon the mass of each particular fiber? A Yes. Q So it's possible to have more fibers of Coalinga if they are smaller in mass, as we were talking about before? MR. BROWNSON: Objection to that last question as leading. You can't impeach your own witness. A I think what one has here is - Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009707 Ilgren 1051 1 Q Doctor, I just want you to answer my 2 question. The question is, does the size of the mass 3 necessarily dictate the number of fibers? 4 A No. 5 Q Is it possible to have more fibers in a 6 smaller mass of asbestos than in a larger mass of a 7 different kind of asbestos? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Can you tell from the data here whether 10 there were necessarily more Jeffrey fibers or more 11 Coalinga fibers? 12 MR. BRQWNSON: That's been asked and 13 answered. 14 A No. . 15 Q Directing your attention to the last five 16 lines of Exhibit 46. The sentence there beginning on 17 the fifth line says, "In addition, light microscopy 18 revealed a greater degree of fibrosis and 19 hypercellularity in the perivascular and 20 peribronchial interstitium of the animals exposed to 21 intermediate range fibers." 22 Did I read that correctly? 23 A Yes. 24 Q What type of fiber do you understand that 25 to refer to? Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009708 Ilgren 1052 1A Jeffrey. 2 Q In terms of the reaction, response in 3 this rat tissue that you described earlier, is it 4 possible that some of that is reversible? 5 A Sure. Well, that'swhat the datashowed, 6 resolution. We have evidence of reversibility. 7 Q With which type of exposure? 8 A With Coalinga, largelywithCoalinga and there 9 is a certain degree of resolution with all three 10 types; but it's most marked with Coalinga. 11 Q You were asked some questions about your 12 characterization of the Coalinga as a short fiber. 13 Do you recall that? 14 A 15 Yes. Q What do you mean in terms of 16 characterizing asbestos as short? 17 A The size cut off. 18 Q I'm asking what you mean when you talk 19 about asbestos as being short. What do you mean? 20 What's your definition? 21 A Less than five to eight microns in length. 22 Q Does that mean that every single fiber in 23 the sample would be less than five to eight microns? 24 A No. 25 Q What does that mean then? Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009709 Ilgren 1053 1A A predominance, something is predominantly 2 short. 3 Q The fact that there may be some Coalinga 4 fiber longer than five to eight microns, does that 5 suggest to you that your characterization of it as 6 short is an error? 7 MR. BROWNSON: I object as leading. 8 A No. In direct preparation it's clear. There 9 is some there. 10 Q You were asked some questions earlier 11 about this Muhle study that used TEM for the 12 twenty-four month counting while using SEM for the 13 prior count; do you recall that? 14 A Yes. 15 Q What is the difference in sensitivity or 16 resolvability, if you will, of TEM as opposed to SEM? 17 A It's my understanding that with SEM you can't 18 resolve things that are less than 0.2 microns in 19 width, whereas with TEM, these can be seen. 20 Q In terms of a comparison of the numbers 21 of fibers that you could observe with TEM versus SEM, 22 is there a standard factor or conversion number? 23 A My understanding in a very, very general sense 24 would be something like ten to a hundred to one; but 25 again, I would have to check that. Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009710 Ilgren 1054 1 Q It would be ten to one hundred fibers 2 visible under TEM compared to one visible under SEM? 3 MR. BROWNSON: Object to the form of the 4 question as leading. He also said he didn't 5 6 7A know. Q Is that your understanding? Yes. If Muhle is saying that the splitting is 8 causing most of the Coalinga in the lung to become 9 fibrils, fibrils are going to be less than 0.2 10 microns in width. 11 Q You were asked some questions earlier 12 this morning about the Waggoner case out in 13 California and you were asked about whether policeman 14 Waggoner was alleged to have any asbestos exposure, 15 other than what he got from driving around in his 16 police car. Do you recall that? 17 A Yes. 18 Q To your understanding, what were the 19 other asbestos exposures that policeman Waggoner was 20 alleged to have had? 21 A Manipulating or cutting transite pipe, working 22 with drywall and other construction-related exposure, 23 either directly or indirectly. I don't recall 24 exactly. 25 Q Do you have an understanding of whose Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009711 Ilgren 1055 1 transite pipe that was? 2A I think it was JM, but X can't remember. 3 Q Assuming that it was JM, do you have 4 knowledge about what type of fiber was used in JM 5 transite pipe? 6 MR. BROWNSON: Do you know this, Dr. 7 Ilgren? 8 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do actually. 9 MR. BROWNSON: He doesn't know what 10 exposure this policeman had. 11 THE WITNESS: He didn't ask me what the 12 exposure the policeman had. He asked me about 13 a product composition that is in various 14 Answers to Interrogatories in certain cases. 15 A Chrysotile is not an uncommon component of JM 16 transite pipe. 17 Q From your own personal knowledge, do you 18 know where that chrysotile came from? 19 A Not infrequently from Australia. 20 Q From the Wittenoom deposit? 21 MR. BROWNSON: Objection, leading. 22 Q Where in Australia, then? 23 A The Wittenoom deposit. 24 Q You were asked a question by Mr. Brownson 25 regarding the mineralogical composition of Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009712 Ilgren 1056 1 chrysotile. I know you are not a mineralogist. 2 MR. BROWNSON: You are disqualifying him 3 right from the question. 4 Q I'm not trying to ask you a terribly 5 technical question. 6 What is your understanding about whether 7 all chrysotile are the same mineralogically? 8 MR. BROWNSON: Objection to the form. 9A 10 They are not. Q Is there anyplace in your paper where 11 you, in either of the three papers, where you 12 indicate what length cut off you were using for long 13 versus short? 14 A Yes. " 15 Q Where is that? IS A I think it's in the beginning of the part 1 or 17 part 2. I think it'sactually in theabstract or 18 perhaps in the fibrosis paper. 19 Q Is that part 1? 20 A Part 1. 21 Q I'm showing you a copy of part 1, which 22 was previously marked as Exhibit 36. 23 A Well, I refer to greaterthan five toeight 24 microns in length. 25 Q As being long? Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009713 Ilgren 1057 1A Yes. 2 MR. GOLDMAN: What line and what page? 3 THE WITNESS: Line 3, page 265 part 1. 4 Q In the scientific literature, are there 5 papers that characterize Coalinga as being either 6 long or short? 7A 8 Yes. Q What is the characterization in the 9 literature? 10 A That it's a short preparation. 11 Q Can you identify some authors that have 12 characterized Coalinga as a short fiber? 13 A Langor et al. 1978; Yaeger, et al. 1983; 14 Campbell et al. 1980; Siegrist and Wyle 1979; Wyle 15 1980, among others. 16 MR. BROWNSON: Name the others. . 17 THE WITNESS: I can't recall at the 18 (noinsnti 19 Q Those are the ones that you can recall 20 off the top of your head? 21 A 22 Yes. Q First of all, we marked as Exhibit 45 and 23 46 two of the Pinkerton abstracts, correct? 24 A Yes. 25 Q Are there any other Pinkerton abstracts? Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009714 Ilgren 1058 1A 2 There is one other. I think there are three. Q Do those abstracts present the set of 3 data that you do in your three papers? 4 A No. 5 Q Do the abstracts present any data at all 6 between the twelve and twenty-four month period? 7 A I have to look. 8 Q Fine. We won't go back and review that. 9 You don't recall? 10 A I don't recall. I think one might, but I 11 don't recall. 12 Q We can look at' them to see, right? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Mr. Brownson asked you with respect to 15 your earlier papers 1 and 2 about the differing 16 numbers of the rats that were on tests; do you recall 17 that? 18 A Yes. 19 MR. BROWNSON: Wasthat today Iasked 20 that? ' 21 MR. WILL: No, you asked him that the 22 last time; but since I never had a chance to 23 ask questions the last time, I'm asking now. 24 Q And the question I have for you is, how 25 many sources of data are there for giving numbers for Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009715 Ilgren 1059 1 rats on. teats? 2A Half a dozen, at least. 3 Q Are those different sources of data 4 consistent in terms of the number of rats they 5 report? 6 MR. BROWNSON: Who reports? I'm 7 3A confused. I mean, there is inconsistencies in the 9 reporting. 10 Q Do you have this data somewhere in your 11 files? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Did you have it with you at the 14 deposition when Mr. Brownson was asking you about 15 whether it was 320 or 330 or 360 rats? 16 A No. 17 Q When you were answering the questions 18 from Mr. Brownson last time, were you going, then, as 19 best as you could from your memory? 20 A Yes. 21 Q I want to direct your attention to table 22 1 of your paper number 2, which was previously marked 23 as Exhibit 37. This reports animals with tumors; is 24 that correct? 25 A Yes. . Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009716 Ilgren 1060 1 Q Was this data previously reported in 1984 2 by the NIEHS publication? 3A It was presented by the NIEHS for the 4 untreated controls and for the UICC-treated animals. 5 Q Not for the Coalinga or the Jeffrey? 6A Correct. 7 Q As for the controls and the UICC animals, 8 are the same slides and the same animals presented in 9 your table 1 that were presented by the NIEHS in 10 1984? ' 11 A Yes. 12 Q Let me direct your attention to table 8 13 of paper 1, which was Exhibit 36. In terms of the 14 rats that are represented in table 8 of paper 1, is 15 it your understanding that there were eighty rats 16 there? 17 MR. BROWNSON: Where? 18 A Eighty rats where? 19 Q Did you look at the - 20 A I looked at Coalinga COP-25. 21 Q There are ninety rats in that group, 22 correct? 23 A As stated there, yes. 24 Q I know you said earlier you did not look 25 at the slides of the animals that Pinkerton killed or Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009717 Ilgren 1061 1 sacrificed at three, twelve and twenty-four months, 2 correct? 3A 4 They weren't available. Q And those are the rats that were looked 5 at for the morphometric analysis? 6A Yes, and for morphological analysis, for both. 7 Q To your knowledge, was any tumor reported 8 in any of those animals that were sacrificed at 9 three, twelve or twenty-four months and were exposed 10 to Coalinga? 11 A 12 No. MR. WILL:Give me two minutes and then I 13 think I'm done. 14 (A short recess is taken.) 15 Q Dr. Ilgren, I want to ask you, putting 16 aside for a moment the question of comparing TEM to 17 SEM counts and just taking the numbers at face value 18 as they are reported in Muhle's paper, in your 19 opinion, what, if anything, does that data show about 20 the clearance of Coalinga chrysotile? 21 A The mass data shows it'scompletely gone. 22 There is a small residue. 23 MR. BROWNSON: 223 million fibers. 24 THE WITNESS: I don't consider that 25 reflective at the moment. Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009718 Ilgren 1062 1 MR. WILL: He talked about mass not 2 fibers. 3 Q But aside from Mr. Brownson's 4 interruption of your answer, you were talking about 5 mass. Are you finished with that? 6A Yes. 7 Q And even if we look at number of fibers, 8 again, forgetting about the difference between TEM 9 and SEM, what does Muhle's data show with respect to 10 the number of fibers? 11 A Well, you have apples and oranges. You look 12 at them using one technique and you will see a 13 radical drop-off between the twelve and twenty-four 14 time point. 15 Q Even using different techniques, do you 16 see any change over that period? 17 A You do. 18 Q I want to ask you this, Dr. Ilgren, to a 19 reasonable degree of medical certainty, in your 20 opinion, what does all of this data set forth in 21 paper 1, 2 and 3 mean, if anything, about Coalinga 22 fiber? 23 A It doesn't -- there is near total clearance. 24 So it doesn't biopersist and that accounts for the 25 fact that it doesn't induce fibrosis in tumors. Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009719 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ilgren 1063 MR. GERSON: It being the Coalinga fiber? THE WITNESS: The Coalinga fiber. MR. WILL: Subject to anything Mr. Brownson may have for you on recroas, that's all I have. Thank you. MR. BROWNSON: I have nothing further. (Time noted is 4:35 p.m.) Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009720 m 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFICATE 1064 I, EVAMARIE WALSH, a Notary Public and Shorthand Reporter, do hereby certify that prior to the commencement of the examination DR. EDWARD ILGREN was sworn by me to testify to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I DO FURTHER CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and accurate transcript of the testimony as taken stenographically by and before me at the time, place and on the date hereinbefore set forth. I DO FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither a relative of nor employee nor attorney nor counsel for any of the parties to this action, and that I am neither a relative nor employee of such attorney or counsel, and that I am not financially interested in the action. Notary Public Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009721 1065 1 CERTIFICATION OF WITNESS 2 3 I have read the foregoing transcript of my 4 deposition and find it to be true and accurate 5 to the best of my knowledge and belief. 6 7 8 9 DR. EDWARD ILGREN 10 11 12 13 Sworn and subscribed to before me on 14 the day 15 of , 1999 16 17 18 19 Notary ______________________ 20 My Commission Expires 21 22 23 24 25 Priority-One Court Reporting Services, Inc. (718) 983-1234 UCAREF00009722