Document 7o3mpRzg77Kxx9RLDY3nxja8

March 20, 1945 Dr. G. V. Mitchell, Remington Arms Company, Bridgeport, Connecticut. Dear Dr. Mitchell: I am sending you herewith a report on two analyses of the urine of your patientA3 you will note, the results are in good agreement, and therefore, they may he accepted as valid evidence of the lead excretion of this pa tient , In view of the time interval "between the collection of these samples and the last day of work, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that this employee had. had a moderately severe and definitely significant lead exposure. It is not possible to predict just what her lead excretion was at the time her employment caased, but no doubt there has been an appreciable decrease, and therefore, I am safe in assuming that her lead exposure was quite significant. From the information given, it would seem that the clinical picture would justify the diagnosis of lead poisoning, and certainly the analytical data are compatible with that diagno sis . For our greater convenience, I am sending you at this time a bill to cover the cost of the analyses. Cordially yours. RAK ef Enc. Robert A. Kehoe, 1IY T5 Samples of urine received from a Remington Arms employee for lead analyses. Urine #1 Analysis Number = l$k-yQ6 Volume = 100 ml. Mg. Pb/Liter = 0.11 Urine #2 Analysis Number = 45A-897 Volume = 100 ml. Mg. Pb/Liter =0.12 0018535 Samples Received: 3*15-45 Samples Reported: 3-17"45 N19692.01