Document DMvBRwg06DqzaX9Lwqma31dBB

P-MRT-n ,'i Decwber 10, 1934* Or. A. J. Unu, Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 1 Madison Arenas, Hew Tork City* Bst Preliminary Btcufy- of ..4g?f^?p,i^a^ m?sHt ilii u Dear Hr. Lsnsat ~ Z bars examined the gallqy proof of yours end Or. McConnell* preliminary etudy entitled "Effects of the Inhalation of Asbestos Dust on the lungs of Asbestos Workers*, which you were good enough to send me with your letter of Decem ber 7th, and have compared it with the mimeographed pamphlet of which it purports to be * condensation. Confirming my telephone conversation of this afternoon, I an planning to transmit the proof sheets to Mr. Hobart so that he will receive them tomorrow and request that ha return then to me not later than Thursday with his com ments, after which I shall see that they are promptly transmitted to you. I shall also inquire of the Raybestos Conpary whether or not they desire to examine the proof of the article before its final printing and shall endeavor to persuade them not to insist upon such an examination. 1 hate the following comments to makes (1) Conclusion Ho. 1 {galley 14) has omitted a sentence appearing In the original which, ae modified by you, read as follows! "Clinically, from this study it appeared to be of a type milder then eilicoeds". (2) There is also omitted the first paragraph on page 15 of the original report which reads as foliowe1 PLAINTIFFS EXHIBIT W- 000100 Hiring the progress of the etucfcr, physicians who were iracticlng in the communities where asbestos workers lived, were questioned, and stated that they did not find an un usual amount of tuberculosis among these workers. The contrast between this state of affairs and that found In communities with a dllcosip hazard, la notesortiy% Both tha foregoing observations included In tout original report presented an aspect of ywrr surety that was favorable to tha industry and w should Ilka to see than tained* (3) (hi galley 14 tha vord *death* has bew Mdttad after tha phrase *6 of 36% (4) Conclusion Bo* 3 (galley 14) word prslinSnaiy* is inserted -- to nr Bind unnecessarily -- since tha entire article is definitely labelled at the ooe- eenceaent as a "preliminary* study* (5) Referring to tha last sentence of the third paragraph on page 18 (which Is not ohanged in the galley proof), it seems to ns thet sons sort of additional phrase or clause is required in order to relate it properly to shat has gone before* As it stands nos. It is not entirely deer Just shat one is expected to deduce therefTon* Y 1*T CCi Ucrsrs.Qeorge 8* Hobart E*U* Tovrfaess S*A* Hillians exy truly yours Tandiver Brown Attorney 0 C ^ 'v f)