Document 2jnL5EOxnQxVYXqrYBK3q7vZR

. . k HI 0 tSTAU$MC0*01 E. I. d u Po n t d e Ne mo u r s & Co mp a n y INCORPORATED ANTIOCH WORKS r. C. BOX 310 -- ANTIOCH. CALIFORNIA 94509 TELEPHONE (415) 757-12)0 MEDICAL DIVISION AUSTIN E GIVENS. M D . FACS OIPLOMATE AMERICAN BOARD OF SURGERY D1RLOMATE AMERICAN BOARO OF PREVENTIVE MEDICINE CERTIFIED IN OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE March 31, 1980 Robert A. Kehoe, M.D. Professor Emeritus of Occupational Medicine Institute of Environmental Health Kettering Laboratory University of Cincinnati Medical Center 3223 Eden Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45267 Dear Dr. Kehoe: I deeply appreciate your letter of February 12, 1980. The point you make in the letter is most -significant. It is, indeed, unfortunate that those individuals exposed to a high level of TEL in 1975 were not monitored by obtaining volumes of the total urinary output from day to day and the determination of the daily lead output. If that had been done, I feel that this would have been a most valuable study. As you noted so correctly, all urinalyses were on spot col lection. There were eight individuals that were involved in the heavy exposure, six followed the usual pattern we expect to see of a sharp rise in urine lead con centration in the first: few days following exposure and then a sharp decline within the next two or three days. In communication with the industrial hy gienist at the location where this incident occurred (a different physician is now at that site), I was able to confirm that all eight individuals were kept out of further lead exposure for several weeks after the accident. Two individ uals followed the usual pattern of organic lead exposure, but as you will note started a gradually increasing output of lead in the ensuing weeks. This occurred despite their total removal from lead exposure. I was assured by the industrial hygienist that both individuals are dependable and reliable. He made an interesting comment stating, "They are both of Cajun stock." The industrial hygienist told me in our telephone conversation that at the time in 1975, he had advocated to management that total daily urine output be meas ured for each individual and lead concentrations calculated. He tells me that no one seemed to think that this was important. Kg 0008730 How unfortunate. I, like you, would like to know if the graphs that I sent to Dr. Lerner and which he in turn presented to you would have shown a parallel if the day-to-day total urinary volumes had been measured. Many thanks for your comments and interest. Very sincerely yours, AEG:dj p cc: Dr. Sidney Lerner Austin E. Givens, M.D. Western Regional Medical Supervisor 0003781