Document M4zKV7XKZy7wMR9E59vyEd549

FILE NAME: Insurance Industry (INS) DATE: 1933 Aug 29 DOC#: INS069 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Confidential Report - Questions Asked Dr. A.J. Lanza and His Answers Verbatim *. ( General Headquarters, August 29, 1933. pp>ry)na1 & Confidential Mr. A. R. Fisher, Manager, Manville Factory QUESTIONS ASKED ER. A. J. LANZA frwn HTS ANSWERS VERBATIM------ attached is copy made by Mr. Kottcairp's office of questions ^ T r S z a bv our local physician at Waukegan and his answers; also the recoranendations by our plant physician. I would like to have you turn this over to scrneone who oe u l d review this correspondence and then go over it yourself and write me your opinion of it. S. A. WILLIAMS, Vice President cc " Mi**- j# P. Kottcanp Waukegan Factory I q UESTICNS ASKED ER. A. J. LANZA AND HIS ANSWERS V E R B M U M Question No.l. Amorr j eleven employees in the Textile department, allJ*Psed to asbestos dust, one only wears a respirator, several on being questioned claim they cannot wear them continuously especially in hot weather. Should all employees be forced to wear these respirators whether ^ subjected to much or little asbestos dust? Is any such d i f f i a n t y e x ^ i e n c e d at the Manville N.J. J-M plant or other places of which you have knowledge. Answer: Respirators are not satisfactory. It is possible to construct a respirator which will filter out fine dust, tut it would offer so re sistance to respiration that it could not be worn continuously on an eight h o u T S f t . ttSre are on the market small face mask respirators Which ^are eauipped with positive pressure and these are both satisfactory, efficient, and comfortable but they cannot be worn except by a person who stands in one p la c e a s they have to be hooked up with a rubber tube to an air line. I doubt if they would be practiced, in a textile plant. Questions No.2. ' Do you agree with my reocmnendation that employees definitely be made aware of the fact that asbestos dust is hazardous to their health. My idea is that a n w H w be placed at one or more conspicuous places in the de partment signed by the physician, stating that the dust is injurious, ad" S S S ^ t h e continuous use of respirators while at work and cleansing of hands before eating lunch and after work. Your -mnent on this please and particularly is there any addi tional advice that should be given? Answer: This is partially answered by No.l. sufficient to justify I doubt if the hazard is ^ at plants of the Caipany. e ^ L i e n c e at other - 2- i Question No. 3. Do you regard the finding of asbestosis bodies in the sputum as pathogenesis of asbestosis? I have one employee with x-ray and physical findings pointing toward asbestosis but not sufficiently definite t h a t l ran bepositive a s t o _ whether or not she has asbestosis. However, every one of four ive. 1 mens of sputum examined show typical asbestosis todies. <3n the ^ h ^ is it possible for a person to have asbestosis and not be able, with careful and thorough search to find asbestosis bodies in the sputum? Answer: The presence of asbestos bodies in the sputum only iirplies that the individual has been exposed to asbestos dust. I am not < x ^ i n o f t h e exact pathological significance. My nrpression is that the Presence of bodies in the sputum indicate sane definite J lieve it is quite possible for an individual to have asbestosis without asbestos bodies in the sputum. Question No.4. Are you of the opinion that the added information derived from stereoscopic films of the chest justified the prooedure of takinga stereo on everycase that is to be x-rayed? This is the conclusion I drew from Dr. Pancost's talk in Chicago. Do you rvyyajftoT- it advisable and practical that an x-ray film be taken of every enplqyee in the Waukegan J.M plant who is exposed tea or S S L d S s TO date I have x-ray ^ y t h ^ o a ^ suyeot3, from history or physical findings, of having asbestosis of other lung pathology. Answer: Stereoscopic films are better than single films. 'Hiey are also more e x p e n 2 v e ? ^ n a u r work at the Picher Clinic, we used single fil*s simpl^on^aoccunt of the expen se involved. You can ^ V36^ s^ ^ her of any given case from a stereo. i f i t 13 ss x-r*y nature of the jcb in order that you may get a fairly accurate idea or wnac the hazard is. -3 Question No.5. i I have made a diagnosis of asbestosis on an eiployee ^ S3i?e2*1 * * ^S^d^v^LWm . t v t f the textile dajartnerrt six years. 1M H u s place is ss a s i i t 1 *- was your advise as to the disposition of such cases. Answer: d^ *" `STSSStSSSS; hL^o^iee, S ^ o S f d ^ t L ^ ^ g h t haves^ S i e hi, S S J 5 along in years ani shows n o j l i s a h ^ . J ^ i T t S S s must be balanced against the medical factors. to deal with the Question No.6. hhe f act ^SSSSSESSa* J f ^ S T y S i ^ g S S ^ t t S * ! ^ " and other observations in these adjoining departments? Answer: 1 2 t aI?S' ' S o 2 2 ^ 4 i ^ tS t C2 i S Bit" i h ^ S ^ n g is the control of dust in those s u i t it may then be necessary possible has been dene to V a v S d needless exposure to isolate or confine the dusty processes ________ r^. is a situation of other enployees not of industrial hazard. It calls for that occurs in many differenttypes the problem, nothing more than the application of cannon sense ro v HECOflENDATIONS OF PLANT FHYSICIAN FOLLOWING EXAMINATION OF EMPLOYEES IN TEXTILE DEPARTMENT AND OOMENT BY rc i .T. TAN7.A 1 . m e provision of the test type of dust collection and exhaust ventilation equipment. comment: By all means. 2 . personal respiratory protection of an adequate and approved type for every employee in this department. Comment: I do not knew. Should be instructed in the does not enter into this problem. t. S , S ? S S i hSSe S t h ^ ^ a t e facilities for doing this. personal cleanliness 4. I advise rigid adterenceto ^ ^.^^v^^em?'aSroved 5 S T ^ S i S ^ ^ - transferred to this depart- m L t without first being approved by the physician. Comment: Absolutely correct. 5. I advise and x-rays of any suspected cases. 1 study of this hazard and its ^ i S t S f S ^continued iunortance than the first examination, 0f ^ 2 ? S s e s may be considered complete. S L ? v ^ o T ^ S i uteerstateim that no examination withrot an w S S f 2 t h i n j in dealing with Pneumoconiosis. iS^?s*s.s"xAssasreKs'^"sfssrTM u- . ~ . ... i 4- ++* i-imp of first examination, 7. My rejection of Marie lutenski, made at the tune oi m cannent: This is outside of my knowledge. 8. I have deferred rejection or ciuse of the delicacy of the S S T . ^ S 'S S J J S S - ` x S ^ t i ^ w i t h his case, of a worker from the <* the disease once it is estahlisted. Comment: Ditto.