Document vV3MZ3Vbw7G14QoZ20mBxp5Xb

T. Marntor Page 241 1 Q. Just hang in there? 2 A. Yes. l?m not used to quite this 3 on a regular basis. 4 Q. Professor, what is a Pandora's 5 box? 6 A. Something that when you open it 7 up, lots-of unexpected things happen or shown. 8 Q. : If you say somebody is opening a 9 Pandora's box,, is that a .compliment or a 10 pejorative? .; 11 A. It's more pejorative than it's 12 complimentary. 13 Q. Professor, based on your research 14 regarding the dangers^ of asbestos, the ten , 15 months' worth of research and whatever.you did 16 before, is it fair to say that in 1971 that no . 17 exposure relationship had yet-been established: 18 between asbestos and lung cancer or 19 mesothelioma?:. 20 A. 1 think there was plenty of 21 evidence-tO'SUpport the view that there was 22 connection .between asbestos and lung cancer.. 23 Not everybody agreed to it, but I would say 24 thatithere was available information on the. . 25 balance that would support that. Page 243 1 relationship has yet been established between 2 asbestos and lung cancer or mesothelioma." 1 3 withdraw the question. I withdraw the . 4 question. 5 Referring to OSHA, if Union 6 Carbide stated "The publicity given.to this 7 governmental activity has tended to be of a 8 sensational nature and has done little to place 9 the question of asbestos toxicology in logical 10 perspective" would you agree with that 11 statement or disagree? 12 A. 1 don't fully disagree or fully 13 agree, bu.t I do think it's expected thaba firm 14 like Union Carbide would complain about 15 whatever sensationalism there was. It's part16 of the adversarial features of the way politics 17 works. That would be on the critique side of. 18 disputes about OSHA and I would expect their 19 testimony to emphasize that. 20 Q. So both sides, in this dispute 21 over OSH A had their own vested interest? 22 A; Again, vested interest is one of -. 23 those pejorative terms. They-had their own-'24 interest and it's typical in this case, as-my 25 documentation shows, the fight over OSHA was a u Page 242 1 j,Q.. In 19-71, if Union Carbide was. 2 telling its clients, its customers "No exposure 3 relationship.has yet-been established betWeen 4 asbestos and. lung cancer or mesothelioma" was. - 5 that misinformation? . 6 :. MS, -ROSENBERG: 1 object.to the . 7 form:- If.you have a document ypu'd .like - . 8 to show him:so he can see the whole. 9 thing and put it in oontext, I think 10 that would, be n-ffair, way to, go:, 11 Qj.. ,.Can you :answ.er.the .question? . ., 12 : A.. ..Lcan't unlessyou give me the ' 13 context. .-. -i, 14 Q. I just want to know about that 15 particular i-.. 16 MS.-ROSENBERG: Same objection. 17 I think, that's an unfair thing to do. to 18 the witness.. 19 MR.GIANARIS: 1 understand your 20 - objection. You have a continuing 21 objection. 22 A. Who said that when? 23 Q. In 1971? 24 A. Where? 25 Q. Union Carbide stated "No exposure Page 244 1 classic fight between labor and management and 2 there is a predictable and steady expectation' 3 that each side in that adversarial circumstance 4 will make the best case for their, position and? 5 the Congress actually has to balance among 6 those two and accommodate these highly charged 7 and different positions: 8 That is very different fromrwhat 9 they would say in a toxicology report. -10 Q. You'll agree with methat OSHA 11 was designed to protect workers? OSHA 12 regulations are designed to protect workers. 13 A. Not exclusively. OSHA 14 regulations are designed to deal with worker 15 safety in the context of economic possibility. 16 That's not the only thing that OSHA is about. 17 But it's objective is to improve.worker safety 18 in ways that are compatible with the economic 19 circumstances of American firms. 20 Q. Union Carbide's interest is, for 21 the most part, economic; would you agree with 22 me? 23 A. The prime purpose of any. 24 organization is to survive. So, to the extent 25 that the survival question is there, yes, but a POHLMAN REPORTING COMPANY (314)421-0099 61 (Pages 241 to 244)