Document 3JmOnNyr5wqdb683EMBV4yagE

C onfidentiality D ocum entType Yes H ardC opy IMERYS239407 Metadata O R IG IN A L O R IG IN A L TURNER Eric (C IT)__________________________________________ De: Envoy: : Objet: Zazenski, Rich (LNA) [Rich.Zazenski@america.luzenac.com] 13 November 2000 15:50 Turner, Eric (LNA) RE: Drafting of the EUROTALC submission to NTP Eric - Very good comments...... would you like for me to forward your e-mail on to CTFA? Others have commented that Wehner's critique needs to be 'toned-down' as well. > -- Original Message----> From:TURNER Eric (CIT) [SMTP:Eric.TURNER@group.Iuzenac.com] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 7:12 AM > To: 'ima.eu@skynet.be'; 'rich.zazenski@america.luzenac.com' > Subject: Drafting of the EUROTALC submission to NTP > > > Dear Rich and Michelle, > > Attached is my first go at the Introduction to the submission. It is itended to be colaborative, to hint at the legal and credibility issues > for > NTP and to suggest a fall guy, ie the consultants. > > I am now addressing the summary of the points. > > Regarding Dr Wehner's "Critique" I have the following points: > >1)1 expessed concern about the strident, some might say arrogant, tone of > his original essay. That document failed to convince (although we do not > know if the style contributed to that) so this time I strongly recommend > we > turn it round into a collaborative style that puts the consultants who > prepared the draft in the firing line , not the NTP and its venerable > Counsellors. The aim should be to create a reasonable doubt in their > minds > that they may not be acting on the best of advice from their consultants. > it is not to curse them for fools in the hope they wiii agree they are > fools > and change their minds. All the points stay the same just the target of the -- critisism changes. > > 2) The first practical consequence is to change the title from the very > combative "Critique and Comments" which is more suited to academic > in-fighting or demolishing PhD theses, to something like " Assessment of > Adequacy for Pubiic Decision-Making". And to cal! it the Technology > Planning and Management Corps draft report, not NTP's. The point is that > CTFA does not consider that NTP has beer, well-served by its consultants, > who > have prepared a deeply flawed document that does not permit NTP to derive > valid policy conclusions. > > 3) More should be made of the clinical practice of pleurodesis - more > detail, refs and quotes. This is much stronger evidence than animal > experiments and the report completely ignores the whole file. > > 4) More should be made of what the lawyers call the "bundling" of > asbestiform with non-asbestiform. This is guilt by association, when the > association is mythical. Profoundly un-demorcratic and probably illegal. > See items 4.3 and 5.2 The logic of much of the report is that "asbestos > is l Protected Document - Subject to Protective Order 1 of 2 IMERYS 239407 Pltf_IMERYS_00061111 > chairperson at the University of Califomia-Davis, will put together a > written submission on the lung tumor issue. His draft will be ready by > Thanksgiving. > > 4. The written submission by Dr. Al W ehner was e-mailed to Task Force > members November 3. Please provide comments no later than COB Monday, > November 10. It has already been suggested that the document's tone needs > revision, because Dr. Wehner's evident frustration with the NTP may not > help our cause. > > 5. The list of members of the Board of Scientific Counselors that was > faxed to you last week is not current. The current list can be found at > http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/htdocs/Ntp_Org_Charts/OrgChart.html > > 6. A one-pager which summarizes the steps involved in the listing of > materials in the Report of Carcinogens is being faxed to you. The timing > of the various steps is included. > > 2 Protected Document - Subject to Protective Order 2 of 2 IMERYS 239408 Pltf_IMERYS_00061111