Document DvLVXgKryqw73gDvyxp33qK9o

ahamEdgar . O IRECTOR OF R E SE AR CH Et hyl Gaso l ine Cor por a t ion Chr ysl er Buil ding 135Ea st 42*!? St r eet Xk w Yo kk '?alY10* 1935. Dr. Robert A. Kehoe University of Cincinnati College of Medicine Cincinnati Ohio My dear Kehoe* Since talking with you this morning I have re-read carefully the recent article fromthe American Medical Journal and also the Normal Lead and other papers I note that in the article in the American Medical Association there is no attempt to point out or explain the discrepancy between the earlier re sults which are referred to and those given in the particular paper I don*t doubt that you may be right in your explanation of this discrepancy but no explana tion seems altogether reasonable. Your average of 0.012 by the chemical method and 0.038 by the speotrographio method seemunbelievably low as compared with all previous data. It hardly seems credible to me that accidental contamination could have occurred in such a large number of cases in previous data. Has there been any drop in the use of lead for sprays on fruit in the last few years? It is at least disturbing to find results about one-fifth of the former results as an average. Furthermore if the recent figures of 0012 are correct then the Mexican-Indian data in which apparently all precuations against contamina tion were taken seem out of line as far as urinary lead is concerned although not as far as fecal; lead. . Looking at the data on Page 316 of -the Normal Lead reprints it seems incredible that the results tram, medical students down to tetraethyl lead workers could be due to contamination of sample. I cannot help feeling somewhat uncertain about the whole picture at present. Thanks very much for your courtesy in calling me in the matter# I wish that we had the opportunity of discussing it at some length.