Document Rjyqdjmp1N73Bz31xgwz7x1Bz

J. E. BOUDREAU Messrs. D. M. Batson J. C. Carter H. E. Hesselberg R. A. KehoeGzz G. Long-2 G. Roush, Jr. R. K. Scales A. Silverman C. Thompson To Messrs. F* D. Oottwald F. D. Oottwald, Jr. 0. F. Kirby B. C * Oottwald R. Herzog J. S. Boudreau / X think you will find interesting; the attached letter written by Mr. Luke William to FORBES. This was not soliolted by us and we did not know about it until we received a copy from Mr. Williams, W. R. P., Jr **B SOUTH BAOAO STftCCT PHILADELPHIA CABLE AOORCSS "MONT8COTT" WOWTM 4*4800 t -* ! AcfOOl l5> &V>V' 9^0 CcdP 'TK . * u*rc .'f'. -Zt.teT.-Jtf- ------- v^r tpSSj MCMBCM n c w t o a k s t o c k c h Cn a n o c AMCttlCAN STOCK EKCMAN0C (HllA*eAl.TtMOAC STOCK CVCMANOC CHICAOO SOAAO or TftAdC COMMOOITV CKCMAMOC.IM6. Mr. James W. Michaels Editor Forbes Magazine .70 Fifth Avenue New York, New York Dear Mr. Michaels: I enjoyed reading the May 1, 1966 Forbes article on Ethyl Corporation. However, I believe that your article might have in all fairness presented a more balanced and a more ob jective analysis of the use of tetraethyl lead in gasoline and the possible toxicological effects which it is claimed to impart by some, particularly Dr. Clair C. Patterson. Accordingly, I am submitting the following magazine excerpts which were available at the time your article was pub lished: Archives of Environmental Health, February 1966, Page 273: "The Committee on Occupational Toxicology of the Council on Occupational Health of the American Medical Association has re viewed with interest the article by Clair C. Patterson, PhD, in the September 1965 issue of the Archives. Whereas it feels it has no basis on which to judge Dr. Patterson's ability as a geochemist, it does at the same time feel obligated to point out that some of Dr. Patterson's conclusions in the biological field are open to serious question as to their validity. The Committee feels obliged to point out that as a result of years of careful clinical study in workers in the lead industry significant, subtle, and unrecognized or "unrecognizable" changes are not occurring in the general popu lation as a result of its exposure to environmental lead. In fact, this vast clinical evidence, evaluated by a great number of clin ically trained scientists, suggests that the general public is not now, nor in the immediate future, facing a lead hazard." 001S208 N22210.01 Mr. James W. Michaels May 11, 1966 Chemical Week, March 26, 1966 "The danger, of air contamination from lead in gasoline is being downgraded by the Senate Subcommittee on Pollution. THe subcommittee just a few months ago let it be known that it con sidered lead additives a serious problem. Now, staffers are say ing privately that they're not so sure such a problem exists; or, if it does, whether it really is a .serious problem. The subcom mittee, headed by Senator Edmond Muskie (D., Me.), will hold airpollution hearings during the third week in May and plans to devote one day to the lead threat." We understand that the Muskie Committee is now scheduled to devote only one half day to this matter. , Furthermore, the entire text of the Symposium on Environ mental Lead Contamination sponsored by the Public Health Service, December 13-15, 1965 has been published in Public Health Service Publication No. 1440, March, 1966. This booklet is a 176 page docu ment which gives as thorough a presentation on this subject as one could possibly expect, and the evidence submitted therein argues strongly in favor of continued use of antiknock compounds in gasoline. In light of the fact that such evidence as above was available to your researchers, it seems that your article was re miss in not at least mentioning this information. Now it seems that your "hand that giveth" such unwarranted adverse publicity to Ethyl Corporation should take steps to "taketh away". Cordially, Luke F. Williams