Document DD66ypDMV8KooKqLkL20Ox9n4

O N TARIO D EPARTM EN T O F H EALTH April 2nd. 1932. Dear i Keh oe: In answer to your le t t e r of March. 26th . regardin g i the question of determination of lead in the urin e we appreciate fu lly th e stand you take in t h is m atter. As a matter of fa c t t h is has been our own con tention . The method used here is F air h a llt s method and we report lead only in excess of what has been shown to be commonly presen t in [connection with a large number of normal in dividu als not exposed to lead whom we have used as con tr ols. We fe e l quite d e fin it e ly th at th e fin din g of lead in the urine is not su fficie n t t o warrant a .b a sis for d iagn osis. We fe e l , however, th at lead in what we term path ological qu an t it ies is suggestive and in a doubtful case warrants in vest igat ion . We have used t h is method also as a check in connection with deleading treatment which has been applied in a number of cases with excellen t resu lts. I would appreciate very much any furth er comments th at you fe e l in clin ed to make. I take it from your le t t e r th at your posit ion in t h is matter i s pretty much the same N 6239 as ours. ONTARIO D EPARTM EN T OF H EALTH Very sin cer ely yours, Clinic ian, Division of In d u st r ial Hygiene* Dr; Robert A. Kehoe, Un iversity of Cin cin n ati, College of Medicine, General H ospital, Cin cin n ati, Ohio, U.S A*