Document ByQEyZpxyX8w4Rzznw19ZaR5E

August 25, 19l*.0 Dr. Janes G. Howell 7C31aa51ttoiFmnrseovdrieell,raicMkarAyvlaenndue Dear Doctor Howell: I am reporting to you hstoaemrehpiwmleisthinoDtfhcreuo. rniSannnceehacrtlaiayondtndlincbawhlloiatohrsdestthofurellodtmsilmlyoenobeoutsafrsinpyeooaduftireothnncoitstuhremt__easny in which, for many reasons, we are very much inter ested. I wish to express my thanks for your cooper .!tion. The result on the urine was 0,90 milligrams of lead per lite r, while the average of two results on the blood was 0.062 milli grerasmusltpwerou1ld00begrarmatsheorf uwnhuosleuablloaosdc.omTpharisedlatottethre vineoryrgmanuicch hleiagdheprovisaoluneingin, athned uinrinseuchinaacacasenewoef 'would conclude that the urine sample had probably been contaminated somewhat in the process of collec tion or analysis. There are a number of peculiarities, however, in the case of tetraethyl lead poisoning, and one of these is that the lead compound is lost from the body at a more rapid rate than in the case of inorganic lead compounds. There is a greater discrepancy, therefore between the blood values and the urinary values. In any acarsaeththeer rseesriuolutss idnegtrheeisoifnsletaandceexaproesucreh.araTchteisr,isotifc coouf rse was already known by reason of the clinical course of the illness, and the analytical results are now a matter of academic and scientific Interest only. Cordially yours, RAK;is Robert A.Kehoe, M.D. 0021176