Document 06ZgVY9mw651Y1YZ821xroo7d

Gr a h a m Ed g a r OIRECTOR OF RESEARCH Et h y l Ga s o l in e Co r p o r a t io n Ch r y s l e r Bu il d in g 135 Ea s t St r e e t ^e w Yo k k July 10* 1935. Dr. Hebert A. Kehoe University of Cincinnati College of Medicine Cincinnati Ohio My dear Kehoe* Since talking v&th you this morning I have re-read carefully the recent article from the American Medical Journal and also the Normal Lead and other papers * I note that in the article in the American Medical Association there is no attempt to point out or explain the discrepancy between the earlier re sults which are referred to and those given in the particular paper0 I don*t doubt that you may be right in your explanation of this discrepancy but no explana tion seams altogether reasonable Your average of 0*0X2 by the chemical method and 0038 by the spectrograph! method seam unbelievably low as compared with all previous data It hardly seems credible to me that accidental contamination could have occurred in such a large number of cases ssr in previous data. Has there been any drop in the use of lead for sprays on fruit In the last few years? It is at least disturbing to find results about one-fifth of the former results as an average Furthermore if the recent figures of 0013 are correct then the Mexican-Indian data in which apparently all precuations against contamina tion were taken seem out of line as far as urinary lead is concerned although not as far as fecal lead Looking at the data on Page 316 of -the Normal Lead repi-iats* it seems incredible that the results from medical students down to tetraethyl lead workers could be due to contamination of sample* I cannot help feeling somewhat uncertain about the whole picture at present* Thanks very much for your courtesy in calling me in the matter# I wish that we had the opportunity of discussing it at some length