Document zQXB3pKpbGkvwv3bbqDkovNo6

PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT Turner & Newall .' 4. 1. Numbers of mesotheliomas ' Page 12, written evidence Turners said they had 30 mesotheliomas, A document obtained from an ex-company employee shows theTe were * 35 mesotheliomas known to the company on 27/8/1976, one of these was 'suspected*, and three worked finally at the Hindley Green annex of the Rochdale factory but their significant exposure had occurred at Rochdale, The company's statement to the Government Committee does not appear to have been accurate. ** 2. low dose aesothelloma * ' Page 59 written evidence says that none o the company*5 ` mesotheliomas could be described as low dose. The same document ; referred to above, shows that the company was aware of a. number . of low dose cases including exposures of one year, five months, 4. i three years, 10'dpys. # Emma Marshall whose exposure was given as 'nil' (a reference t presumably to work in scheduled areas) and Margaret Chrimes, ! whose exposure was given as ? 3 years', were both office workers ; vho nevertheless passed through the factory in the course of 5. 6. their work. 3. \f<<nrh, 1 iona and white asbestos Turners now say they have had 49 cases of mesothelioma since the mid-1970's and 40 of those were connected with the exposure of blue asbestos (Rochdale Observer Saturday 31 July 1932), an i admission that the company no lenger attributes all its cases to y blue. In their oral evidence to the ACA in 1977 Turners were firmly of the opinion that ''-here ve know, the asbestos exposure, . It included blue". This was a reference to ail their aesothelloma cases, that they accepted.were caused by asbestos. 7* Jo Turner l Newall contd. 1 4. The weaving shed The central plank of Turners evidence rested on their experience In the weaving shed. Page 3 of their written evidence states, "We draw particular attention to the statistics relating to the weaving department at TBA". 8` This Is an area where the 2 f/ml standard had operated for 2S years, "Yet among those exposed for the first time-since 1951 there has been no case of any asbestos-related disease whatever". (Turoerand Newall oral evidence submitted by Mr J X Shepherd, Managing Director, June 1977). Yet Dr MottIs knew by early 1978 that some weavers had asbestos-related lung abnormalities and, ln- 1 I fact, a weaver was certified-In 1977 - a fact which is'now ! ! admitted by the company in correspondence with the GMMU. Also in 1978 two suspected asbestosls cases were moved from the weaving shed. *' 5. Lung cancer Turners said on page 11 of their written submission, "the two-fold excess of lung cancers is the result of 6 cases in a group very heavily exposed indeed in the early '50's or betveen 192$ and 1930, all cigarette smokers. ** U. ! Details of the six cases .were printed on page 49, Table 8, which was never published in.the digest of evidence. The digest refers the'reader to "Tables 1 to 10 attached" but they are not attached. Table 8 shows the six men, three of these Francis Wilkinson, Peter J Moore and George'Armstrong - all ha'd asbestosls as well as lung cancer. Attention should perhaps have also been drawn to th..is. 11. 6. Flxinr a "safe" level Turners said (page 11 written submission), "Where Information is factually available on dust concentrations, adverse health effects have always been associated with average dust levels well above 2 f/ral" (100 f/years/ml) In their oral evidence the company argued that amongst a group of workers exposed over 10 years since 1951, "asbestosis does not appear until we reach a cumulative mean exposure of-170 years/al". But Table 7 on page 48 of their written evidence (which was also omitted from publication' in the Digest of Evidence), shows that three workers contracted asbestosis at a cumulative dose of less ' that 100 f years and altogether five contracted asbestosis under 170 f/years..7- 1J- ' . In their evidence Turners commented that - "in layman's terms," our evidence "represents a less stringent standard than 2 f/ml". This was not true. .170 f/ml was the mean figure at which workers got asbestosis. As we have said, five workers out of the 10 in the cohort got asbestosis at less than 170 f/ml. 7. EOKS ' . . The 30HS asbestos sub-committee's final report which was completed on September 4th 1980, is enclosed. It has not been published. On 27th April 1978 Mr A Carstairs of the HSE was sent an interim report from the BOHS. Mr Stan Roach for the EOHS stated that he Turner 1 Ncwall coritd 7* hoped the Medical Working Croup of the ACA "is able to appreciate that subs'intlal new evidence is being produced." The Advisory Committee on Asbestos took a different view. On page 55 of the ACA's final report the Committee stated "these studies are unlikely to alter previous findings substantially". But commenting on the BOHS report Mt Julian Peto has expressed the view privately that the BOHS report shows clearly that the 2 f/mi standard is substantially wide of the mark. At 2 f/ml - over a working life there will be 171 - 20* of workers showing, at least one symptom. Mr Peto expresses the private view that this prove* that the 2 f/al standard was wildly wrong and should be made public. _. B. Dr Morris' Study ' Or Morris' complete study contained various useful, pieces of ' information. The full data was not submitted to the ACA although we understand that Dr Greenberg has now seen the full data and that he and Dr Sorrle are negotiating with Dr Morris for further access to this material. This is obviously a matter for discussion between the HSE and Dr Morris. The significance of Dr MottIs' study that the prevalence of asbestos Induced lung damage at Rochdale appears to be much higher than the Impression conveyed by the company in its evidence to the Committee. One in four workers out of a cohort of approximate!) J00 workers who began after.1950 had contracted what Or Morris describes as definite or strongly suspected asbestosis,- based on two or more adverse effects. One fifth of these workers showed ' their first1 signs after less than 100 f/years ml. Turner & Newali contd In the initial summary of Dr Morris' work, the cohort was coded so that the 'place of work' within the factory of each worker could not be identified. This would have disguised the significant fact, in our submission, that some affected workers were in the weaving shed. 9. Fortex Turners told the ACA "and in our factory making- Fortex products we have no problems whatever in meeting the 2 f/ml standard and we are usually well below it". One of the company's admissions since the programme is that in November 1979 Fortex dust had peaked on the odd occasion on the spinning frames as high as 6 f/ml. . gut masks were not introduced until May 1980 says Turners, which would indicate that for six months workers were occasionally exposed to excessive dust levels. ' In October 1981 there was a Fortex dust peak of 11 f/ml." The problem is still unresolved. It is pertinant to note that in animal experiments at the Institute of Occupational Medicine at Edinburgh Fortex has produced mesotheliomas. 9. Turners U.K. subsidiaries 10. We note there was little or no evidence of the extent of asbestos related-disease at Ncwalls Insulation and J.W. Roberts. So much so that the ACA was only able to conclude the numbers of victims at Nevalls Insulation (see Appendix 2 final Report). " Third World . 11. Turners neglected to give Information on the risk of disease in their chrysotile mining operations, especially in Swaziland and Zimbabwe, which may have been geroaine to an assessment of the risks of exposure to chrysotile. (See. Observer 15.8.82), 15 ETERNIT .10 1. waste Disposal The company told the ACA `'waste is disposed of by dumping in a..pit- and then covering the material thus dumped with earth. (P77, published Digest of evidence). This procedure dees not appear to have occurred consistently in practice. The pit or dump was uncovered on a number of occassions when we visited it. Photographs (enclosed) show this to be so, in breach of the Code of Practice for dumping. 2. Morbidity and mortality ' The company stated'to the ACA, "Within the catchment area of the Meldrethr"factory, including its employees, there has, since the commencement of asbestos cement production, in 1929 and up to the date of drafting this submission, been one known case- of asbestos related disease" (P77 Digest of evidence). In fact a rather different picture emerged as a result of our enqu. iri.es. ,W,e f-ound. 16-20 Daniel Archer - asbestosis Bert Adams - mesothelioma ' Arthur hard - mesothelioma Lilian de Bonnair - mesothelioma June Rule - mesothelioma . ___ ;_____ 1. % Gleno Asbestos supported end endorsed iMa submission to the ACS(see page-2, Selected written Evldei^), made by the Asbesto^fement Manufacturers Association In paragrap2J [XV) they subnit thj^"Factory waste, Including fibre, is-dea^ with In a Tegulaj^d manner on controlled tips 'under a Code of^fractice" But at Glenos we folnd thTTr waste was left in a Bound for some long time'before beij^^hoveiled by a tractor into an open topped' lorry and be^^%ransported uncovered through residential areas to an authorised tW. Ke have enclosed photographs for your attention. 2. Th^ioimd of waste ij\Jn a yard close to private housing and resldfhts have complained &L. the dust which is-blown'into their mats (see press cuttings)? 1 TheJI criticisms of the industry und^ine the need for policing ! offfthe Asbestos Regulations and the Cod^of Practice for the dispoSSi of asbestos. V_V| *