Jump to content

Taconite Miners: 2.4× Mesothelioma Excess, Reserve Mining v. EPA (1974), $1M–$1.4M Iron Range Settlements

From WikiMesothelioma — Mesothelioma Knowledge Base


Workers in Minnesota's Iron Range taconite mining industry carry an approximately 2.4× excess risk of mesothelioma compared with the Minnesota baseline, driven by long-term inhalation of cummingtonite-grunerite asbestiform amphibole fibers liberated during taconite extraction, processing, and pelletizing.[1][2] The risk profile was first established by the landmark federal litigation Reserve Mining Co. v. United States, 498 F.2d 1073 (8th Cir. 1974), which documented amphibole fiber discharge into Lake Superior and Silver Bay air at concentrations measured in tens of millions of fibers per liter in regional drinking water and required the Reserve facility to convert to on-land tailings disposal.[3] Today, mesothelioma diagnoses among former Reserve Mining, Northshore Mining (Cleveland-Cliffs successor), U.S. Steel, and Hibbing Taconite workers — and family members exposed through take-home pathways — are pursued primarily through civil lawsuits against former taconite operators rather than dedicated asbestos trust funds. Average mesothelioma civil settlements run $1 million to $1.4 million per Mealey's Litigation Report tracking.[4] Free Iron Range case evaluations are available 24/7 from Danziger & De Llano at (855) 699-5441.

Taconite Miners Quick Facts (verified 2026-05-14)

Fact Value Source
Primary location Minnesota Iron Range (Mesabi Range, Cuyuna Range) University of Minnesota Taconite Workers Health Study[5]
Mesothelioma Standardized Incidence Ratio (SIR), cohort 2.4 (95% CI 1.8–3.2; n=51 mesotheliomas / 21.1 expected in 40,720 workers) Allen et al., Annals of Epidemiology 2015[1]
Mesothelioma Standardized Mortality Ratio (SMR), cohort 2.77 (n=30 mesothelioma deaths in 31,067 workers, 1960–2010) Allen et al., Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2014[6]
University of Minnesota presentation SMR (men born ≥ 1920) 2.8 (95% CI 2.1–3.9; n=45 observed / 15.5 expected) University of Minnesota Taconite Workers Health Study final presentation[5]
Updated case-control study (n cases / controls) 104 mesothelioma cases / 410 controls; cumulative EMP relative risk (RR) 1.20 per EMP/cc-year Shao et al., Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2025[7]
Years per taconite-work RR (case-control) RR 1.03 per year of taconite employment Lambert et al., Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2016[2]
Main fiber type Cummingtonite-grunerite series asbestiform amphibole; commercial asbestos also used in facility insulation, brakes, and gaskets Reserve Mining record; Mandel and Odo review[3][8]
Reserve Mining facility location Silver Bay, Minnesota — processed Peter Mitchell Mine ore from 1956 until 1986 shutdown / 1989 reopening as Cyprus / current Northshore Mining Reserve Mining record; Northshore Mining corporate history[3][9]
Lake Superior fiber concentration (court findings) Duluth 12.5 million fibers/L; Two Harbors 21.1 million; Beaver Bay 63 million; up to 100 million during spring / fall isothermal periods District court findings, Reserve Mining (1974)[10]
Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) asbestos PEL 0.1 fiber/cc 8-hour TWA; 1.0 f/cc 30-minute excursion (2008 final rule) 30 C.F.R. Parts 56, 57, 71[11]
Compensation pathway Civil lawsuits against former operators (Reserve, Northshore, U.S. Steel, Cleveland-Cliffs, Hibbing Taconite); EEOICPA narrow / typically not applicable; no dedicated asbestos trust fund Danziger & De Llano case-management framework[12]

At a Glance

  • Geological exposure mechanism. Taconite from the eastern Mesabi Range — particularly Reserve Mining's Peter Mitchell Mine, near Babbitt — contains cummingtonite-grunerite amphibole fibers that crystallize in asbestiform habit and meet OSHA / Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) regulatory definitions of asbestos when they cleave into qualifying elongate mineral particles (EMPs).[3][8]
  • Landmark litigation. Reserve Mining Co. v. United States, 498 F.2d 1073 (8th Cir. 1974), is the foundational case documenting taconite-industry amphibole emissions. The Eighth Circuit upheld federal injunctive relief on a "reasonable medical concern" / preventive standard, requiring Reserve to convert from Lake Superior tailings dumping to on-land disposal at Mile Post 7.[3]
  • Cumulative dose response. Lambert et al. 2016 found mesothelioma associated with both taconite-employment years (RR 1.03 per year) and cumulative NIOSH Method 7400 EMP exposure (RR 1.10 per EMP/cc-year). Shao et al. 2025 updated the analysis to 104 cases and reported RR 1.20 per cumulative EMP/cc-year (95% CI 0.99–1.46).[2][7]
  • Excess across decades. The 1960–2010 mortality cohort identified 30 mesothelioma deaths among 31,067 workers (SMR 2.77). The 1988–2010 incidence cohort identified 51 mesotheliomas among 40,720 workers (SIR 2.4).[6][1]
  • Lung cancer signal is weaker. External SMR for lung cancer is modestly elevated, but internal case-control comparison did not show consistent association with taconite-work duration after smoking adjustment.[13]
  • Pleural abnormalities are common. Perlman et al. found pleural abnormalities in 16.7% of workers compared with 4.5% of spouses, with risk by employment duration and EMP exposure.[14]
  • MSHA regulatory gap. Cummingtonite-grunerite EMPs are amphibole fibers, but their regulatory status under MSHA's asbestos rule has historically been ambiguous when fibers fall outside the textbook "asbestiform" habit, leaving a gray zone that affected exposure recordkeeping for decades.[11][8]
  • No dedicated asbestos trust fund. Unlike workers exposed to products from bankrupt asbestos manufacturers (W.R. Grace, Johns-Manville, Babcock & Wilcox), taconite miners primarily pursue compensation through civil lawsuits against former operators that remain solvent.[12]
  • Documentation is location-specific. Reserve-era exposure evidence is tied to specific facilities — Peter Mitchell Mine, Silver Bay processing, Mile Post 7 tailings — not all Mesabi taconite operations carry the same fingerprint.[3][9]

Why Did Taconite Work Create an Asbestos-Like Exposure?

Taconite is a low-grade iron ore (≈25–30% iron) found in banded iron formations of the Lake Superior region. In Minnesota the dominant deposit is the Biwabik Iron Formation, which underlies the Mesabi Iron Range from Grand Rapids east to Babbitt and on to the Reserve Mining (now Northshore) operation at Silver Bay.[15]

A key geological fact drives the health story: the eastern Mesabi Biwabik formation contains cummingtonite-grunerite — a magnesium-iron amphibole that, depending on local crystallization conditions, occurs in three habits:

  • Massive (non-fibrous) — typical of much of the western and central Mesabi; not regarded as a respirable amphibole-asbestos hazard
  • Acicular / prismatic — needle-like crystals that can fracture into respirable elongate mineral particles
  • Asbestiform — true asbestos habit (long, thin, flexible, parallel fibers) — present in the eastern Mesabi, including Reserve Mining's Peter Mitchell ore body[3][8]

When taconite is mined, crushed, ground, separated, and pelletized, EMPs of cummingtonite-grunerite are liberated and become airborne. The federal court in Reserve Mining found that some of these EMPs are mineralogically and dimensionally indistinguishable from regulated commercial amphibole asbestos and that they appeared at significant concentrations in both Silver Bay air and downstream Lake Superior drinking water.[10][3]

Separately, taconite facilities used commercial asbestos throughout their plant equipment — pipe insulation, boiler lagging, gaskets, brake pads on haul trucks, valve packing, and high-temperature seals — adding a conventional ACM (asbestos-containing material) exposure layer on top of the cummingtonite-grunerite EMP signature. Workers can therefore have two simultaneous exposure mechanisms.[8]

Reserve Mining Co. v. EPA: The Landmark Federal Case

The Reserve Mining Co. operated a taconite processing plant at Silver Bay, Minnesota that received Peter Mitchell Mine ore via rail and discharged approximately 67,000 tons of tailings per day directly into Lake Superior until 1980.[3][9] In United States v. Reserve Mining Co. (D. Minn.) and Reserve Mining Co. v. United States, 498 F.2d 1073 (8th Cir. 1974), the federal courts produced a foundational record on taconite amphibole emissions:

  • Drinking-water findings. The district court identified amphibole fibers in the water supplies of Beaver Bay, Two Harbors, Cloquet, Duluth, and Superior (Wisconsin), with measured concentrations of 12.5 million fibers/L in Duluth, 21.1 million in Two Harbors, 63 million in Beaver Bay, and 4 million in Superior — with concentrations exceeding 100 million fibers/L during spring and fall isothermal periods.[10]
  • Air findings. Stack, loading-area, and community-air sampling documented daily amphibole fiber discharge into Silver Bay air. The Eighth Circuit characterized inhalation exposure as potentially more significant than ingestion because the inhalation-asbestos disease relationship was better established.[3]
  • Legal standard. The Eighth Circuit affirmed injunctive relief on a preventive, "reasonable medical concern" standard — illness and death are not conditions precedent to ordering action against a health hazard.[3]
  • Remedy. The Eighth Circuit stayed immediate plant shutdown but required Reserve to convert from Lake Superior dumping to on-land disposal at the Mile Post 7 tailings basin near Silver Bay, approved through Reserve Mining Co. v. Herbst, 256 N.W.2d 808 (Minn. 1977).[9] Parent companies Armco and Republic Steel were held jointly liable and required to assume risks of the on-land disposal system.[3][9]
  • Successor liability. Reserve shut down in 1986; the facility reopened in 1989 as Cyprus Northshore Mining, then transferred to Northshore Mining Company (Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Company subsidiary). The Mile Post 7 basin remains in active permitted use at the current Northshore operation. Reserve-era liability for personal-injury asbestos claims survives the bankruptcy / sale through successor-liability doctrine in the relevant jurisdictions.[16]

The Reserve litigation matters for individual taconite-miner mesothelioma claims for three reasons: (1) it documents, on a federal evidentiary record, the existence of asbestiform amphibole emissions from taconite processing; (2) it identifies Reserve, Armco, and Republic as legally responsible parties for amphibole-fiber discharge; and (3) it ties exposure dose to a specific facility (Silver Bay) and a specific period (1956–1980 Lake Superior discharge, plus continuing air emissions during Mile Post 7 conversion).[3]

Epidemiology: Mesothelioma Excess in Iron Range Workers

The Minnesota Department of Health Signal

The modern Iron Range epidemiology program began after the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) identified an unusual mesothelioma case cluster in northeastern Minnesota. A 2007 MDH update reported 146 mesothelioma cases among northeastern Minnesota males 1988–2006 compared with 69 expected and 58 mesothelioma cases in an iron-miner cohort of ≈71,648 workers.[17] The 2008 Minnesota Legislature funded the multi-million-dollar University of Minnesota Taconite Workers Health Study — exposure assessment, mortality, cancer incidence, mesothelioma case-control, lung cancer case-control, respiratory health, and environmental components — which produced the bulk of the PMID-cited literature today.[5]

Cohort Mortality and Incidence (Allen et al.)

Study Cohort Follow-up Mesothelioma finding Lung cancer
Allen et al. 2014[6] 31,067 workers at 7 Minnesota taconite companies in operation in 1983 Mortality 1960–2010 (9,094 deaths) SMR 2.77 (n=30 deaths) SMR 1.16 (n=949 deaths) — external excess; not strongly exposure-responsive internally
Allen et al. 2015[1] 40,720 Minnesota taconite workers Cancer incidence 1988–2010 (5,700 cancers) SIR 2.4 (n=51 cases, 95% CI 1.8–3.2) SIR 1.3 before smoking adjustment; attenuated after probabilistic smoking-bias analysis

The lung-cancer signal was attenuated by smoking adjustment, but smoking is not a recognized mesothelioma risk factor and the mesothelioma excess survived all sensitivity analyses.[1]

Case-Control Studies (Lambert et al. / Shao et al.)

Lambert et al. 2016 conducted a nested mesothelioma case-control study within a 68,737-worker iron-ore cohort (combining hematite and taconite workers) and identified 80 male mesothelioma cases through the Minnesota Cancer Surveillance System (MCSS) and death certificates, with 315 controls.[2] Fifty-seven cases had taconite work experience. Findings:

  • Mesothelioma was associated with years in taconite employment, relative risk (RR) 1.03 per year
  • Mesothelioma was associated with cumulative NIOSH 7400 EMP exposure, RR 1.10 per EMP/cc-year (though the 95% CI for the EMP estimate included values near the null)[2]

Shao et al. updated the analysis through 2016 case ascertainment, identifying 104 mesothelioma cases and 410 controls. The updated case-control reported RR 1.02 per taconite year and RR 1.20 per cumulative NIOSH EMP/cc-year (95% CI 0.99–1.46). The study also evaluated non-regulated EMP definitions (Chatfield, Suzuki, cleavage fragments) and found positive associations, with collinearity limiting independent attribution.[7]

Pleural Abnormalities (Perlman et al.)

Perlman et al. 2018 found pleural abnormalities in 16.7% of taconite workers vs. 4.5% of spouses, with risk increasing by employment duration and EMP exposure.[14] Pleural plaques are an established marker of historical asbestos / amphibole exposure and a recognized basis for medical surveillance of former workers.

Non-Asbestiform EMP Question

Mandel and Odo 2018 and Goodman et al. 2023 reviewed the broader literature on non-asbestiform EMPs and mesothelioma, noting more than 100 reported mesothelioma cases linked to non-asbestiform amphibole exposure across multiple cohorts and substantial scientific uncertainty about whether non-asbestiform habit reduces, equals, or only modestly differs from asbestiform habit in cancer potency.[8][18] The Boffetta-led 2018 review reaches similar uncertainty conclusions.[19]

For practical claim purposes, the Reserve Mining record establishes that Reserve / Northshore amphibole emissions include asbestiform fibers — independent of the broader scientific debate about non-asbestiform EMP potency.[3]

Community Exposure (Silver Bay)

Dell et al. 2021 (with Mundt KA as senior author) evaluated community cancer risk in the Silver Bay area surrounding the Reserve / Northshore facility, providing an additional ambient-exposure analysis layer to the occupational cohort findings.[20] Take-home (para-occupational) exposure of family members through work clothes is well-documented in industrial amphibole-exposed populations and is compensable under most state laws.[21]

Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) Regulatory History

Taconite mining falls under Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) jurisdiction (30 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.), not OSHA. The historical regulatory framework for asbestos exposure in mining diverged from OSHA general industry standards in two ways relevant to taconite-worker claims:[11]

  • Higher PEL for decades. MSHA's pre-2008 asbestos Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) was 2.0 fibers/cc, a 20× higher exposure ceiling than OSHA's 1994 0.1 f/cc PEL for general industry. The 2008 MSHA final rule lowered the PEL to 0.1 f/cc 8-hour Time-Weighted Average (TWA) with a 1.0 f/cc 30-minute excursion limit, bringing mining closer to OSHA's standard but only after decades of higher legal exposure ceilings in mines.[11][22]
  • Counting-definition ambiguity. MSHA defines countable asbestos fibers as particles >5 μm long with aspect ratio ≥ 3:1 — aligned with the NIOSH 7400 / Phase Contrast Microscopy (PCM) counting tradition. The definition does not resolve the asbestiform-versus-non-asbestiform habit question, leaving a regulatory gray zone for cummingtonite-grunerite EMPs that meet the dimensional criteria but fall in non-asbestiform habit.[11][8]

Historical monitoring data show that some taconite-job groups exceeded the post-2008 0.1 f/cc PEL during routine operations even after 2008, while most job groups stayed below — and historical exposure before systematic sampling (pre-mid-1970s) was almost certainly higher than the 2010–2011 personal-sampling measurements that anchor modern Job Exposure Matrices (JEMs).[23] The combination of higher historical PELs, ambiguous habit definitions, and sparse pre-1975 measurements means that exposure-reconstruction for individual mesothelioma claims relies on facility-specific records, MSHA inspection reports, and employer EMP monitoring data on a case-by-case basis.[12]

Compensation Pathways for Taconite-Worker Mesothelioma

Primary Path: Civil Lawsuits Against Former Operators

Unlike workers exposed to products from bankrupt asbestos manufacturers (Johns-Manville, Babcock & Wilcox, Owens Corning, W.R. Grace) — where Section 524(g) trust funds handle direct claims — taconite miners pursue compensation primarily through civil lawsuits against former operators that remain solvent:[12]

  • Reserve Mining Co. (1947–1986) / successor Northshore Mining Co. (Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. subsidiary as of 2020) — Silver Bay facility, Peter Mitchell Mine. Successor-liability and parent-company (Armco, Republic Steel — both later absorbed into AK Steel / Cleveland-Cliffs) claims are commonly pursued.[16]
  • U.S. Steel / United States Steel Corporation — Minntac plant (Mountain Iron), Keewatin Taconite (Keetac). Historical and continuing taconite operator. Substantial corporate balance sheet supports direct claims.[24]
  • Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. — current owner of multiple Mesabi Range operations (Hibbing Taconite operator interest, Minorca, Tilden / Empire historical context). Acquired ArcelorMittal USA in 2020 and Cliffs Natural Resources' iron-ore portfolio in 2014.[25]
  • Equipment manufacturers and product suppliers — separate product-liability claims against companies that supplied asbestos-containing pipe insulation, gaskets, brake linings, valve packing, and other ACM used inside the taconite facilities. These claims can run in parallel and may reach Section 524(g) trust funds where the manufacturer was bankrupt.[12]

Average mesothelioma civil settlement runs $1 million to $1.4 million per Mealey's Litigation Report tracking. For taconite workers with verified Iron Range employment history and pathologically confirmed mesothelioma, the multi-defendant strategy typically yields the strongest recovery.[4]

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) — Limited

The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) compensates DOE / AEC weapons-complex workers and contractors. Taconite mining is generally outside the EEOICPA's covered-facility list and most taconite workers will not qualify. EEOICPA may apply in narrow cases involving subcontractor work at NIOSH-certified Atomic Weapons Employer (AWE) or DOE facilities — a fact-intensive review is required.[26]

Statute of Limitations (SOL) — Discovery Rule

Minnesota and most other states apply a discovery rule to asbestos / mesothelioma claims — the clock starts when the claimant knew (or reasonably should have known) of the diagnosis and its likely connection to asbestos exposure, not at the date of the original exposure decades earlier. The Minnesota personal-injury SOL is generally 6 years, with wrongful-death SOL of 3 years from the date of death.[27] Iron Range workers diagnosed today commonly trace exposure back to 1955–1986 employment without SOL bar under the discovery rule, but every claim is fact-specific — early consultation matters.[12]

Documenting Iron Range Exposure for Mesothelioma Claims

A mesothelioma claim is only as strong as the exposure documentation. Records that substantiate Iron Range taconite work:

  • Employment records — payroll, W-2s, union records (United Steelworkers Local 1938 Eveleth; Local 4108 Babbitt; Local 4123 Silver Bay; others historically), employer HR files. Reserve Mining and Northshore employment records survive at successor companies under document-retention obligations.[12]
  • MSHA inspection and accident records — available via MSHA's online Mine Data Retrieval System for Mine ID lookups.[28]
  • University of Minnesota Taconite Workers Health Study enrollment records — for workers who participated in the cohort or case-control studies, study files may corroborate years of taconite employment.[5]
  • Historical EMP monitoring data — taconite operators were required to maintain dust-monitoring records under MSHA; these may be obtainable through discovery in litigation.[23]
  • Medical records — chest CT imaging, biopsy pathology, immunohistochemistry confirming mesothelial origin (calretinin, WT-1, D2-40, CK5/6 positivity), and onco-treatment records.[29]
  • Family member exposure — for take-home (para-occupational) cases involving spouses and children exposed to work-clothes asbestos, additional documentation of laundry / household exposure pathways is needed.[21]

Frequently Asked Questions

What is cummingtonite-grunerite and why does it matter?

Cummingtonite-grunerite is a magnesium-iron amphibole mineral series found in the eastern Biwabik Iron Formation underlying the Mesabi Range. Depending on local crystallization conditions, it occurs in massive (non-fibrous), acicular, or asbestiform habit. The asbestiform variety is mineralogically indistinguishable from regulated commercial amphibole asbestos and was documented in Reserve Mining's discharge in the 1974 Reserve Mining record. It is the dominant fiber type in taconite-worker mesothelioma claims tied to Reserve / Northshore operations.[3][8]

What was the Reserve Mining case and why does it still matter?

Reserve Mining Co. v. United States, 498 F.2d 1073 (8th Cir. 1974), was the federal litigation that documented amphibole-fiber discharge from Reserve's Silver Bay facility into Lake Superior drinking water and Silver Bay air. The Eighth Circuit affirmed injunctive relief on a preventive standard and ordered conversion to on-land tailings disposal at Mile Post 7. The case matters today because it establishes a federal evidentiary record of asbestiform amphibole emissions from a specific taconite operation — directly useful in individual mesothelioma claims tied to that facility and its parent companies (Armco, Republic Steel).[3]

Is there an asbestos trust fund for taconite miners?

No dedicated trust fund. Section 524(g) trust funds exist for products of bankrupt asbestos manufacturers (Johns-Manville, Babcock & Wilcox, Owens Corning, W.R. Grace, others). Taconite operators have not gone bankrupt under 524(g). Compensation is pursued through civil lawsuits against solvent former operators (Reserve / Northshore, U.S. Steel, Cleveland-Cliffs) plus product-liability claims against ACM suppliers that may reach trust funds in parallel.[12]

How does the 2.4× mesothelioma excess affect my legal claim?

The Allen 2015 SIR 2.4 and Shao 2025 cumulative-EMP RR 1.20 per EMP/cc-year are foundational epidemiological evidence that taconite work increases mesothelioma risk above the Minnesota baseline. In product-liability and negligence claims they support specific-causation arguments. Combined with the Reserve Mining record's documentation of asbestiform amphibole emissions, the literature supports both general causation (taconite work elevates risk) and specific causation (this worker's exposure was at a facility documented to emit asbestiform fibers).[1][7]

Does EEOICPA cover Iron Range taconite workers?

Generally no. The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act covers DOE / AEC weapons-complex workers and contractors. Taconite mining is not a covered facility class. Narrow exceptions may apply if a worker also worked at a separately-listed NIOSH-certified Atomic Weapons Employer or DOE facility — a fact-intensive review is required.[26]

What is the Minnesota statute of limitations for a taconite-worker mesothelioma claim?

Minnesota generally applies a 6-year personal-injury statute of limitations and a 3-year wrongful-death statute from the date of death, both subject to the discovery rule — the clock starts when the claimant knew (or reasonably should have known) of the diagnosis and its likely connection to asbestos exposure. For Iron Range workers diagnosed today, exposure decades ago does not automatically bar a claim under the discovery rule.[27]

Can family members of taconite miners file mesothelioma claims?

Yes. Take-home (para-occupational) exposure to spouses and children — through asbestos-contaminated work clothes laundered at home, dust carried into the household, and shared vehicles — is well-documented as a mesothelioma cause and is compensable in most jurisdictions, including Minnesota. The legal theory is that operators owed a duty of care to family members of workers because the harm from work-clothes contamination was foreseeable.[21]

Get Help

Free Iron Range Mesothelioma Case Evaluation
Phone (855) 699-5441 (24/7)
Website Danziger & De Llano — Free Case Evaluation
Coverage Reserve Mining, Northshore, U.S. Steel, Cleveland-Cliffs operators and ACM-supplier defendants
Cost $0 upfront. Contingency-fee representation only.

Danziger & De Llano represents Iron Range taconite workers and their families nationwide — building case files that combine the Reserve Mining federal record, MSHA monitoring data, University of Minnesota Taconite Workers Health Study cohort evidence, and individual employment records into multi-defendant civil claims against former operators and ACM suppliers. The firm has recovered more than $1 billion for asbestos clients on a contingency-fee basis — no upfront cost, no fee unless the claim recovers compensation.

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Allen EM, Alexander BH, MacLehose RF, Nelson HH, Ramachandran G, Mandel JH. Cancer incidence among Minnesota taconite mining industry workers. Annals of Epidemiology. 2015;25(11):811–815. PMID 26381550.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Lambert CS, Alexander BH, Ramachandran G, MacLehose RF, Nelson HH, Ryan AD, Mandel JH. A case-control study of mesothelioma in Minnesota iron ore (taconite) miners. Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2016;73(2):103–109. PMID 26655961.
  3. ↑ 3.00 3.01 3.02 3.03 3.04 3.05 3.06 3.07 3.08 3.09 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15 Reserve Mining Co. v. United States, 498 F.2d 1073 (8th Cir. 1974). Google Scholar Case Browser. The Eighth Circuit's stay decision and merits ruling on Reserve's Lake Superior tailings discharge and Silver Bay air emissions.
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Danziger & De Llano. Mesothelioma Settlement Benchmark (verified 2026-05-14). Mealey's Litigation Report comparator. dandell.com/mesothelioma-settlements/.
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 University of Minnesota School of Public Health. Minnesota Taconite Workers Health Study — Final Presentation and Reports. Multi-component cohort, mortality, cancer incidence, mesothelioma case-control, lung cancer case-control, respiratory health, and environmental exposure studies. 2008–2025.
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 Allen EM, Alexander BH, MacLehose RF, Ramachandran G, Mandel JH. Mortality experience among Minnesota taconite mining industry workers. Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2014;71(11):744–749. PMID 24816518.
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 Shao Y, Ramachandran G, Mandel JH, MacLehose R, Alexander BH. Mesothelioma risks and cumulative exposure to elongate mineral particles of various sizes in Minnesota taconite mining industry. Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2025. PMID 39922700.
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 Mandel JH, Odo N. Mesothelioma and other lung disease in taconite miners; the uncertain role of non-asbestiform EMP. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. 2018;361:36–41. PMID 29653125.
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 Reserve Mining Co. v. Herbst, 256 N.W.2d 808 (Minn. 1977). Minnesota Supreme Court approval of the Mile Post 7 on-land tailings disposal permit conditions, including parent-company (Armco, Republic Steel) co-permittee requirements. (Cited by Westlaw cite; primary publisher.)
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 United States v. Reserve Mining Co., 380 F. Supp. 11 (D. Minn. 1974) (Judge Miles Lord's district court findings on Lake Superior amphibole concentrations and the Reserve facility shutdown order, modified on appeal).
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 Mine Safety and Health Administration. Asbestos Exposure Limit; Final Rule. 73 Fed. Reg. 11284 (Feb. 29, 2008). 30 C.F.R. Parts 56, 57, 71. federalregister.gov.
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6 12.7 Danziger & De Llano. Iron Range Taconite Mesothelioma Claims — Case Management Framework. dandell.com/asbestos-exposure/.
  13. ↑ Allen EM, Alexander BH, MacLehose RF, Nelson HH, Ryan AD, Ramachandran G, Mandel JH. Occupational exposures and lung cancer risk among Minnesota taconite mining workers. Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2015 Sep;72(9):633–639. PMID 25977445.
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 Perlman D, Mandel JH, Odo N, Ryan A, Lambert C, et al. Pleural abnormalities and exposure to elongate mineral particles in Minnesota iron ore (taconite) workers. American Journal of Industrial Medicine. 2018;61(5):391–399. PMID 29516526.
  15. ↑ U.S. Geological Survey. Biwabik Iron Formation, Mesabi Iron Range, Minnesota. Mineralogical description including cummingtonite-grunerite occurrence in the eastern Mesabi. usgs.gov.
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 Northshore Mining Company corporate history. Reserve Mining Co. shutdown 1986; reopening 1989 as Cyprus Northshore Mining; subsequent transfer to Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. portfolio. (Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. annual reports / SEC filings.)
  17. ↑ Minnesota Department of Health. Mesothelioma Cases in Northeastern Minnesota and the Iron Mining Cohort: 2007 Update. health.state.mn.us.
  18. ↑ Goodman JE, Becich MJ, Bernstein DM, Case BW, Mandel JH, Nel AE, et al. Non-asbestiform elongate mineral particles and mesothelioma risk: Human and experimental evidence. Environmental Research. 2023;230:114578. PMID 36965797.
  19. ↑ Boffetta P, Mundt KA, Thompson WJ. The epidemiologic evidence for elongate mineral particle (EMP)-related human cancer risk. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. 2018;361:100–106. PMID 30240694.
  20. ↑ Dell LD, Gallagher AE, Yost LJ, Mundt KA. Integration of Evidence on Community Cancer Risks from Elongate Mineral Particles in Silver Bay, Minnesota. Risk Analysis. 2021;41(9):1674–1692. PMID 33533080.
  21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 21.2 Goswami E, Craven V, Dahlstrom DL, Alexander D, Mowat F. Domestic asbestos exposure: a review of epidemiologic and exposure data. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2013;10(11):5629–5670. PMID 24185840.
  22. ↑ Mine Safety and Health Administration. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking — Asbestos Exposure Limit. 67 Fed. Reg. 15134 (Mar. 29, 2002).
  23. ↑ 23.0 23.1 Shao Y, Hwang J, Alexander BH, Mandel JH, MacLehose RF, Ramachandran G. Reconstructing historical exposures to elongate mineral particles (EMPs) in the taconite mining industry for 1955-2010. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene. 2019;16(12):817–826. PMID 31647751.
  24. ↑ U.S. Steel Corporation / United States Steel Corporation taconite operations: Minntac (Mountain Iron, Minnesota) and Keetac (Keewatin, Minnesota). (U.S. Steel SEC filings / corporate history.)
  25. ↑ Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. corporate history. Acquisition of ArcelorMittal USA 2020; consolidation of Mesabi Range taconite portfolio. (Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. SEC filings.)
  26. ↑ 26.0 26.1 U.S. Department of Labor. Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act. 42 U.S.C. § 7384 et seq. dol.gov/agencies/owcp/energy.
  27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 Minn. Stat. § 541.05 (6-year personal-injury SOL); Minn. Stat. § 573.02 (3-year wrongful-death SOL from date of death). Discovery rule applied to asbestos / mesothelioma claims under Minnesota common law.
  28. ↑ Mine Safety and Health Administration. Mine Data Retrieval System. msha.gov/data-and-reports/mine-data-retrieval-system.
  29. ↑ Mesothelioma pathology and immunohistochemistry review — calretinin, WT-1, D2-40, CK5/6 positivity for mesothelial differentiation. (See Mesothelioma_Diagnosis_and_Staging.)
Retrieved from "https://wikimesothelioma.com/w/index.php?title=Taconite_Miners&oldid=3018"