the the district court ruled the doctor hires testimony was to be credited in fall washington law does not require qualification  and for the matters we're talking about here the doctor hires testimony when credited and full provides substantial quantification that mr bott says shipyard wide exposure to  talking about this ship yard why it exposure but for me is what is the amount of exposure that's attributable to the violations of the rules by the government and that segues that is he then says that more than that and that's two thirds of all the exposure had he then says that more than half past two thirds are or more than a third would i believe the words by a factor of ten mean at what a reduced that from one hundred percent to ten percent i mean that is that and if you look at his thing he kind of talks about that but that's what i understand the words a factor and that would be on a continuous basis twenty four seven three sixty five has the concept you remember is the best it's removal it's it doesn't happen that often you're tearing the stuff out of the ship but it's very intense when it happens what the rules say is that when you do its best its removal you and this was affected in march of one nine hundred seventy you have to have containments in order to keep the dust from seeping into the other areas what hired saying if my re when i think doesn't happen that often i mean that in the in the lifespan of the ship being repaired they tend to remove things first and then they they repair it and fix it we know that from  when removal activities are going on you have excessive amounts of exposure for weeks at a time this is for a given ship so when i say it doesn't happen all the time that's true overalls or conversions or what they were what they did with the thing and it shows when the ships came in and when they left and it shows it during the entire relevant period for example and i can just because i a one sixty three the constellation the simon lake and the patrick henry which were all in for either a regular overhauls or what's called conversion which is he was talking about a different rule and he was wrong but i'll explain that the containment rules were effective in march of one nine hundred seventy and i think there's no dispute about that what went into effect in in both in his earlier order and the orders in the record he acknowledged and the test mr bott says testimony is actually quite clear on that in the five years after he stopped delivering food he he was going to the the s n s two times a week same amount and what he said is for that five years sometimes he often went aboard ship and other times he went aboard ship last often so during this whole period he was going aboard ship and that's what he was talking about he says when he was aboard ship he says it was always dusty there was always construction going on and he remembers and i believe the term is quite a few times he saw people happening i've asked about that as far as the construction and as far as you know his work was are quite specific as to sails were living on the ship but but yeah and they they were there to be fixed but that's that's kind of the point that the fixing and they were there for to use those terms again what's called a regular overhaul or a conversion those are very big ell me between the washington cases which are essentially telling what the question if there are a set of different manufacturers of a special who can be a defendant in one of these cases where someone is certainly being exposed so it's best just over a time period but the question is is it is it being just exposed to your stature is that right all right and here we have a slightly different problem which is he said he was being exposed to a special just other places and less and i guess one can even assume that he was or brass one could assume it was being exposed to a specialist here but the not being contained and it went and dr higher talks about it in i think it's paragraph fifteen of his supplemental declaration so a third of that is and and that amount is sufficient standing alone and this was just from its best this that had the government followed its own regulations would not have gotten the air and thus he could not be exposed to so a very large why dr higher talked about all the studies in which people develop these ability over from living a thousand or two thousand yards outside of a ship in other words the i think it is absolutely a stablish your question the judge bears on the on ship exposure is that the reason he wouldn't have had it it was after february seventh he was up all the times he was aboard ship with he says he saw quite a few occasions people insulating pipes so that the district court judge acknowledged that that raises a question as to whether they followed the requirement that anybody kind of in the area where it's best this was being installed had to wear a respirator and there had to be warning if you'd been wearing a respirator his exposure would have been essentially zero because when he at the time when asbestos fine but he is a plaintiffs had to show that they are exposed to asbestos find fibers that released as a result of the violations of specific mandatory roles really sure that carries as much weight as one might think in that i gather there is evidence sufficient to get by summary judgment and a district judge thought there was that essentially they were not containing joey any can change oh yes i'm sorry i don't want to interrupt but that's not with regard to removal the least where i gather is where most of the most of the just and stuff that gets out from the immediate area occurs and also i guess there sawing issues there was also some something in the declarations about they were thought that they'd open the door but sure they're not supposed to do so what exactly and as to the release of this best into the air due to sawing and and removal the it doesn't appear it appears that the record says that they just didn't contain a very at the end and therefore it's the same as if they were discussion that that odd that our rules violations so much nine hundred seventy what the district court held was that even a fuming violations what you didn't have was more than case as simply not being pertinent to the questions that we're looking at in other words it seems to be then we're just getting back to that really the same issues as in the law which set of cases about have less exposure was there and how much was proven and how close was he to it and all that and the fact that he also had to prove causation do do with the violation of the regulations doesn't seem to me to me to matter because it seems to me he's proven that whatever exposure there was was due to the record you show exposure to asbestos fibers you can either show a brief exposure which is intense or you can show a long time exposure at a very low level let's assume that there were ru violations we also know tragically that because in the one nine hundred seventy s the navy like everybody else was completely unaware of the risks of mrs dilemma these regulations were in place to you're asking about that take the inference favor of your client and not the other way around not at all you are what we're assuming that there are five israelis but this is why it's different from the washington cases in those cases somebody is liable for all of it it's just a question of determining which of the manufacturers supplied a certain amount of the product and i would like to point out that district court was completely right to about the washington cases which is that in all of the washington cases there was evidence that each of the workers was directly exposed intensely to actual dust caused by asbestos products that all walking around us passed us products or actual known asbestos dust being inhaled by the person one of those we have that here too in the declaration that we were talking about with opposing counsel for quantification you know not that it would have record overly restrictive itself as far as the timeframe that it was looking at exposure it was looking at this one month window but wouldn't it have been fair to look at the exposure from seventy one the seventy five given the number of times robot would have been at the shipyards considering this ongoing release of asbestos in violation of the regulations right but i think that the district court did actually look at the other evidence i'd like to point out  the two different ways to show the kinds of exposure one is you show actually exposure to the actual dust which is what occupational exposure that's what the washington cases are but that's where the district court concluded that th was no evidence that mr botts was actually exposed to actual he was not exposed to actual dust from the asbestos he never saw removal he never s fabrication shack he only perhaps witnessed an installation at a distance that wasn't shown and on the environmental exposure the evidence that dr high relies on i'd like to point out that dr high and never environmental exposure council is talking about being exposed outside puget sound right very very close to people and and that's in the record at page one eighteen and again it's in the point zero zero says that you have a high probability of environmental exposure of living with an asbestos mine a lox but he said living near asbestos industries and we tell you that living over a long period of time  kind of occupational exposure that was enough in the what washington cases direct exposure to the dust often of the many years by people in every single one of them in the barry case for example yes  exactly what i'm talking about that occupational exposure and that's why the kind of data that dr high af is using the data that you get from it the back at page eighty two that's the kind of data that's the kind of asbestos fibers would know it if not if this is this is the application of a lock with quite sure that's what i'm reading right well let us in the legal analysis as to why this was sufficient right but it's also it's also true that i have him walking around the insulation and the insulation materials i understand that in barrie they also do make these comments about the they you know the fibers drifting and i think that's one of the reasons why the district court said you know these cases and not going to be sufficient to get past summary judgment in a federal district court because we need more than a scintilla of evidence that and drifting around the ship evidence is not enough to produce the expert testimony and to be very careful but that the court understands what the expert is saying about the dose of exposure and how long the person how long the person was exposed to the environmental exposure that just wasn't enough time for miss debauch to get sick from just the fabric from fibers in the very low concentrations that was outside the compartments in the shipyard and there just is no evidence that mr bott had any of the kind of extended by another minutes i have a question and it relates to the fourth element under lockwood regarding medical evidence including expert testimony on the effects of the  human health in general and on the plaintiffs in particular was there any such evidence for the this record to this reponse there was a medical record in there i don't have in front of me from a doctor in michigan which is what the most prudent court says and here there there was such another cases don't you actually have medical experts giving an opinion as to the effects of inhalation on a stickler sometimes yes sometimes  on any ship that mr alexander work so the only way his dad could have gotten the exposure as far as they could tell was from the unspecified from that caught in the insulators do use a special scott it was we don't know where it was use all we know is that it was used somewhere in the shipyard by someone ok thank you very much