Document Gqg9K41vZkX0Eje03kwgkYdr

GrahmiEd ga r DIRECTOR OF R E SE AR CH Et hyl Ga sol ine Corporat ion Chr ysl er Bt jil dino ' 135Ea-soc -la3*?St r eet N e w Y o r k . July 8, 1935. Dr. Robert A Kehoe University of Cincinnati College of Medicine Cincinnati Ohio* My dear Kehoe* I am sorry to have been delayed in acknowledging your second lead paper but I took a holiday over the 4th of July -which has delayed me somewhat* Before I attempt to make any detailed comment on your conclusions* I would like to have you clarify one or two points in my mind as some of the data and some of the conclusions seem to me inconsistent with the results in the papers on Normal Lead and the first paper on Tetraethyl Lead* As I understand it, you interpret in general lead in the faces as a measure of exposure and lead in the urine as a measure of absorption* Presumably then, when exposure is changed there should be a change in the fecal lead perhaps followed by a change in the urinary lead* I am a little handicapped in your paper by the ab* senoe of the figures but there is apparently no evidence in the case of the two garage workers, A M* and W* B, of a change in either fecal or urinary lead when removed from their occupation Furthermore, the urinary lead seems to be well within the limits of normal lead given in your previous papers with the exception of -fee four medical students who were in this investigation. For some- reason these seem to be about a third of the normal lead as measured on the group of medical students and miscellaneous people given in the table on Page 316 of your reprint on Normal Lead* In facte if the chemical method of analysis is taken as it was in the previous paper, these two men came apparently below the usual normal lead in urinary excretion* I tend to agree with you that these men probably absorbed some lead as a result of their occupation but I cannot reconoil the actual figures with those previously available or with the statement that their excretion is above the normal* \ 1 may be misinterpreting your previous statements, but I would like to be clarified in the matter before I attempt to make any detailed suggestions as to the paper itself and the conclusions drawn* . ge/lrj