Document 8RJLp7VK91oRm3jyV76zM2D2y
Hr* B* C, Cooper
Insurance SeatIon, . -
shell Petroleum Corporation
shall Building
St* Laalo* Missouri ;
'
Bear Hr* Coopers
Your letter of April l?th ;
addressed to the EthylGasollooCogEagagloR eenooasing '
a conrponsatloii d a t a of one
hso b m n referred
to me for reply*
-
After examining the information
"
sfaliable, 1 should consider that the evidence of exposure
to lead is entirely inadeqt\aie to justify the diagnosis of
plu&blsa In this case* Hi man's condition Is not typical --
of lead tataxleatien* hut is rruch more in lice with the
doctor*3 original statement that the caoowas obscure and
that a number of diagnoses were suggested by the Illness and
its course# In -dew of the fact that the nature of the case
is not clearly established* a diagnosis of load poisoning
.would certainly be a poor guess* Xu order to m h o it tenable .
at ail*' the evidence of serious lead exposure and of increased
lead absorption would have to be unassailable* In the absence
of such evidence,, all one can say is that such a diagnosis Is
extremely binary and that It is probably the least likely of
all the other suggested causes* Xa the first place there is
no reason to believe that this man had any exposure to pipes
which had carried concentrated tetraethyl load IthOut subae*
quontly being washed out with gasoline* - Ehus the load concon- '
tration in any pipes which he nay have handled would necessarily
have been low* Uhcre la# of course, a greatfpoesibility that
seme exposer to lead was had as a consequence of burning pipes
painted a the outside with lead paint* Sven this type of exposure*
howovbr* could hardly be expected to.result in the serious picture
described in the patient, unless It were s t or less continuous
and quite severe* (Cases of acute lead poisoning are seen
occasionally in connect! on with cutting up metal heavily coated
with lead paints* Such cases do not result* however* fro the
occasional handling of sueh painted objects* but rather frees a
numbor of days or weeks of such work on bridges* ships and
similar painted objects* )
r
In the second place the clinical evidence does not resemble tetraethyl lead poisoning os It has been seen In a nus&er of cases up to this time* The claimant's -doctor's
statement# therefore* that tetraethyl lead Hfrequently produces the
56| 3
MMr-
at* Cooper
- 4W f>'*
&%
picture displayed in this ease" is entirely is error, Ho
bona fid# ease of paralysis has ever been seen in tetraethyl
intoxication* Th picture is rather that of a general central
nervous system Intoxication with predominantly mental symptoms.
Third# there is a more, logical cause for
the man*s illness In that the course and findings suggest an
infectious control nervous system Involvement* in the absence
of definite proof of abnormal lead exposure and of abnormal
lead absorption# one la not justified# therefore# In suspecting
lead a s a causative factor*
'
.
'
From the description of this man^s
..
occupation# I should be very nueh inclined to doubt that he had
any significant exposure to tetraethyl lead and:its decomposition
products# or to any other load 001?,pounds*
For your further information alien me . . to refer you to a description of characteristic tetraethyl lead
intoxication as described by rsy associate Dr* W. F* iiachlo in the Journal of the American Medical Association for August 2k#
1955* vol. 109* PP. -578-585. 2 m. attaching a copy of this
reprint to my letter for such us# as it may be to your medical men. If 1 can bo of'any further assistance* please do not hesitate to write me directly.
Very truly yours#
KAKliS
'io So 'rt'1^'*^'Kohoe# k,l>.
K E 0 0 1 14 3G