Document 2RVbp1G09vBpB8wngLbxx6pxR

St. louts - General Offices -~_^aol; T. Garrett-Q.O. n. E. Hatton-1700 8. 2nd. April 2, 1913 H. S. Lltxslnger Oonerrl Offlcee J. T. Oarrett to K. K. Hatton of 2/26/58 '-^iSLlCITY or 0S-9.T"'^> Stu: An I mentioned recently, some preliminary toxlolty etudlea have been run on OS-95 by Younger Laboratories. They found OS-95 to be 'practically non-toxic" on oral Ingestion; "slightly toxic." on shin absorption, "only a mild eye Irritant' -. and "only s' lg.M'y lrriU* in,-; t..% rota exposed for six hours" on vnpor Irshnlatlon. From this, Garrett states this is not a very serious ` oxc proi,-'; to lie rid le and, therefore, no special hand M r.j precautions arebecessary, Wliei' it comes down to actually marketing OS-93. I believe we should a sc ha-e Information or. the le .-el of toxicity of de lsompcsli tor. vapors. ,To .V. Carrott ludicateo that this could t.e done V;- Kettering Laboratories for aomethlnr, of the order of $2000 or I'y Younger Laboratories for about. Prom the standpoint of t he Se'en Department, Younger Laboratories 1 report, would suffice since metalworking companies, who purohaae Pydrnui, don't even know much shout the big name Kettering Laboratories. Exceptions would be big corporations like Oenerel Motors, hut this should not present o problem. It. Is possible that such tests might be abbreviated If we divulge the formulation of OS-95. The classification of this product. Is a good subject for future discussion. I think that we will be better able to handle that question after a month's time. RD:vlw Richard Davis MON 5 095673