Document 0qbqaB8nO8QbGgDdpQX3k184n

68 Twenty-first Congress--Satwnal Safely Council it* {ef'&onnrl 2nd the uniform high caliber of it? work, the Bureau's laboratories at Pittsburgh seem the logical place for such certification to be done. The manu facturer oi protective equipment welcomes definite specifications he can meet, no nutter how rigorous. and exjiects to pay the testing hill whether his equipment is passed or rejected. Xo private testing lalmratory would be expected to undertake this tvjic of work without charging the manufacturer a fee adequate to give the moratory a reasonable profit. The Bureau's fees in the past, tor this type of work. have liern modest, but the funds reverted to the U. S. Treasury, and not to the Bureau's laboratory. Unless an absurd and wholly unnecessary hardship is to be placed tqmn the Bureau, h should l*c permitted to do such work on a cost, or pav-as-ynu-po. lasts. Air General Discussion Chairman Grcvnburg after delivery of the ]ia|iers invited discussion, which was lengthy and spirited. This may be summarized as follows: Dr. H. K. Pancoast. Philadelphia. jiomted out that while X-ray presents the best method of ofocrvtng changes m the Itmgs and also for determination of their mcatarity. most examinations are not thorough. This |*>int is frequently overlooked. Export evidence is very important in making a diagnosis and grading incapacity. The point made by Dr. Russell, of the advisability of special Iwiards to decide the physical status of employees exposed to silica hazards, was also enqihasizrd bv TV. W. J. McConnell. Metropolitan Uie Insurance Company. Xcw York City. In this connection Commissioner R. G. Knutson. Wisconsin Industrial Commission, spoke of the difficulties experienced in handling compensation cases. He suggested amendment? to the occupational disease laws m various states for the complete coverage of occupational diseases, so that claims can he decided by the commissions rather than by common law. The conflict of testimony by so-called experts appear ing Itcforc the commission? if sometimes remarkable. In some cases a final decision has lieetj necessarily withheld unit! after an autopsy. John Roach. Deputy Com missioner of Labor. Xew Jersey, advocated the appointment of a Medical Board to lie paid In* tlic State whose opinion in compensation cases should he final. There a great difference of o|>tnian about these cases, said Chairman Grecnlmrg; the compensation commissions differ, the doctors differ, and on the other hand* industrialists have nm lieen alert to the situation: hut they can do a great deal in the future. Comj*ensation Boards in the jast have been somewhat arlntrary in their decisions. Some time ago I suggested in Connecticut that the commission should lie made up of a lawyer, a ]ihystcian specialist, and an engineer* hut this suggestion did not meet with very much favor. Asked to outline how silicosis cases are handled in Canada. TV. J. G. Cunningham. TiffuRto. Ontario, said: Our laws define the terms silicosis and tulurculosis. and they further define the industries and negotiations affected, hut they refer to mining especially. The cases come from the individual physicians and are referred to the silicosis hard. When the clatro is rereived, the hoard examines the records and the claimants, to ii the regulations of exposure have been complied with; it s. the claimant is personally referred to the silicosis hoard: two or three of the memlKTs examine the case personally, and then each case is decided by all three members nt the hoard. The claim is then referred lack to the compensation board. Twp other points of interest occur to me. he said further: first, we have had a mmiltfr of stone cutters with 15 years exposure to limestone, contacting tuberculosis, but in every case the occupational history showed that they previously had cut sand stone: second, in an extensive examination of workers exposed to silica dust and alkaline powders. returns m the literature have shown the rapid development oi silicosis, hot in our experience an examination of two small groutis with similar exposure lias shown only a small amount of fibrosis. The importance of exposure to coal dust also has nt yet been sufficiently realized Industrial Health Section 69 l>r. 1. P. I.cal. V. 5. Public Health Service. Washington. D. <\. emphasized the lint made by Professor Drinker concerning the nsc oi masks, ihat the minimum pressure necessary to operate such a mask should he used, that a decision should be made as to what this is. and that we should he sure that pulmonary excursion does not operate against appreciable pressure and against proper ami continuous lung ventilation. It is important to find some workable protective device, said Mr. Roach, that will protect workers in sixty or seventy different industries where tiir exposure exists. It is jiossible that in laboratories a well made apparatus will work fairly well, hut in the various industries workers are found who have sharp and irregular features, and many times a mask or respirator will not work <m these faces as on other workers with roratd. smooth features. The protective device thus becomes a menace rather than a help. We an* also very much concerned whether the filter is satisfactory and will properly strain ont the particles. It lias been mentioned, said Dr. Russell, that some limestone and sandstone worker* have had silicosis. We must remember that granite workers and others have shown the jiresenrr of silicosis, although they have not been directly exposed, and other workers beside eutters have shown tlte presence of silicosis, all of these cases lichtg due to previous occupational exposure involving silica hazards. Recently wc had a case of a man with silicosis and tuberculosis, his job haring been loading coal fnnt a real silicosis exposure!, bnt previously he had hern a gold miner. He is now 5fl years old, has tuberculosis, and three of his five cftifcfrrn also give positive tuberculin reactions, which is against the usual conception that tuberculosis front silicosis is. transmissible. Professor Drinker said: I liavc lecn asked whether I consider a respirator a pood protection it no other ap]iaratu? is available. My answer is that it would not W. In a Itieh concentration of dust, if the respirator is functioning pro|ierly. h should re<hice the amount of dnst Itreathed. But a respirator is not really an eight-hour day apparatus. In other processes, however, where the work t? intermittent ami a work man is not obliged to wear bis respirator continuously, it should function as an efficient protective apparatus. WEDNESDAY MORNING SESSION October 5, 1932 For the record of this joint session of delegates of the Industrial Health Section with rite Chemical Section* see page 165 of this volume. WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON SESSION October 5, 1932 Chairman Grecnlmrg. on the opening of this session, called for the re|mrt of the Nominating Committee and officers were chosen as follows: For Chairman. Dr. R. G. Inland. American Medical Association. Giicago. I 'icr-Chairman, Dr. W. R. Redden. American Red Cross. Xcw York Chy. Secretary, Dr. C O. Sappmgtcn. Chicago. Chairman Greenburg then introduced the first speaker.