Document BJLnDGLavZoqYoqyakYnDwpE

*dJ & ? % >mr #; Dr. ;R.A. Kehoe. % if/A: Dr* Charlea D** Stevens, The Kettering Laboratory, UnlversltyrofyC inclnnati, College of. Medicine, Eden Avenue* ; -' CINCINNATI 1 9 , r UOhi,os,i. i' . May 17, 1956, Dear Dr. Stevens, . i | Thank you very much for your most kind letter of May 11. I was very interested in your comments, the sum of which addedtup to more or less what I expected to hear on this subject. I will look up Tartler's paper, as you suggest# If you do ever find any more, on this particular subject, I would be most grateful if you would,- bear me in mind, and let me have any references that may, come your way. Meanwhile, I feel happier in my mind now about,advising the people who originally brought the matter to m y notice. With regard to the question of analysing for ioilc lead, I did not mean in my letter to imply that we had an . accurate quantitative method for analysing ionic lead* ^What I meant to suggest was that the rapid screening method, A b using iodine, virtually brought down only ionic lead, and did not pick up lead in a more tightly bound state* Obviously, this is not a strictly accurate situation chemically, but for practical purposes we have assumed that therein lies the difference between the short and long methods of lead analysis. I am not sure at the time of writing whether in fact lead soap would fail: to come down in the. short method, but it might be worth testing that out. /c With many thanks indeed for the interest and trouble you have taken. ...' . - t: v L A . W W `:** With kind regards, Yours sincerely, .-'JiRK H 00102 P.R. BOYD. -