Document 1DzJkYabvOdMEjB3xd635Yqj

/ Aiigust 27, 1937 Dr. K. D. Bryson 10515 Carnegie avenue Cleveland, Ohio Dear Doctor Bryson: I am sending herewit^^^on^of our analytical results on the tissues of which you made possible for us to obtain, together with our report on the samples of urine and blood. The findings on the necropsy are very high being well above normal limits and in line v/ith those vie have encountered in similar cases. One exception is the bone which is within normal limits. The finding of a low content of lead in bone in relation to the high concentration in the other tissues is definite evidence of a recent exposure of considerable magnitude, all of which is consistent with our diagnosis in this ease. In so far as the blood samples are con cerned, both results are slightly above normal, but as the limits of normal variation of concentration of lead in blood have not yet been exactly defined, we cannot attach definite clinical significance to these results. The urinary findings are especially interesting. All four results are above normal and you '/.dll note that in each case Urine #1 Is lower than Urine #2. Urine #1 was taken in the late morning after considerable water had been ingested, while Urine $2 .represented the specimen passed on arising and probably includes a great proportion of the nocturnal output. The large 24-hour specimens which I obtained have not yet been analysed, but the concentrations in those samples should represent the mean of the level of excretion over the 24-hour period and amounts should lie somewhere between the figures-given for Urine ?'1 and Urine #2 in each case. With kindest regards, I am Cordially yours, WEMtvr Willard F. Machle, M. D.