Document 9MY9B8L0dj6k0yxpOM09KVmR

July 18, 1863 lie* H. Wilson, M.D. Medical Director . The 3.F. Goodrich Ooapany dtroo, Ohio He: Lead problem at Plant in iflarlon. Chio Dear Rex (and Mac): Having had words with both of you on this subject, X write to both of ou (with the additional idea. that your separate files m y be Involved), la order to call upon and perhaps Co contribute to your Joint Iniorwatloa. First lot me say that the charted information furnished by r**e .toes not answer the vacation which I .mi lit u tiu a , largely because of the relative Infrequency of the analytical -iurveya of the &ea, together with the a m i ! mudberu of eraona Involved. Thee small nussbera and the two ..dints per year give insufficient clue to what say have occurred. X do not cay this ccmpiulttlngly or critically, but wcrcly state It as a fact. 2 cannot bo very aur, therufore, an to the precise nature oS: the attention with wiilck we are dealing, but I cannot avoid drawing certain conclusions. However i-.eager the evidence m y bo In support of them, they appear fro the data to be J artIfled. 1. The strippers differ fro the on-stripper, with resnect to the analytical evidence of their absorption o lewd, which In In keeping with expectation boned oa ordinary observation of their schedule. This) fact tends to substantiate tac validity e other conclusions based on the analytical evidence. 2. Considering the analytical results on the blood * t ihoir face vaiuo, the strippers ns a group (at least 3 of the at one tl. or another, but particularly in the period prior to ijarch of 2983, were subjected to some increase In their exposure to load, a& compared to that of any previous period of record. In October or Novca&er (or both) of 1982, only three thabora of this group (Bruco B&ers, Tom Rose, and Lauren KeNeil) had been found to have some elevation of tft* load la their blood. Others Joined the* later in the winter. It appears, therefore, that uossetliing occurred during the autyg ami winter months (1982-1983) to bring this about, .ippureutly only one oa the -aen in this group developed symptom of illness which vevo compatible with the diagnosis of lid lead intoxication, but the fact that several of r.ource than that of the occupation. Z believe, therefore, that It la necessary to accept the significance of the occupational hazard aa a XZ 000558? Bex H. Wilson, M.I) a July 19, 1963 fact and to sot about explaining it. The operation of the plant should be examined thoroughly and critically, in the conviction that they have been productive of significant degree of exposure to lead. It iaay be that specific workmen, through their personal habits, have influenced this situation dlsadvantageously, but there !'(.> I Juugv:, ^nviromaental conditions that ore ;.-otentialIy dangerous '.'hi* fact that the hazard, at worst, is relatively slight, and that the procedures are predominantly safe, only saxes it more difficult to define and locate the source or sources of hazard. This, I m y say, is a characteristic consequence of doing well in the control of occupational exposure to lead. The nearer one gets to complete iuccfes in this matter, the more urgent it is to achieve it. If it turn, out that the aiificuipy lies in the variability oi the ,.riurnaoce of individual o m e n , the problem is still one of laultless.cnvixvn&eivtai control, so as to render the regimen essentially This is ay opinion, from the evidence, in the full awareness that the latter is incomplete. Sincerely yours, &AK:as cc: ir. \ i . S. yfcConaick banidl hi. Murphy, Itobert A. liehoe, '4 D. XZ 0005588