Document Xz6eVeVb4j5j2bzZXz8e6rQJd

INTERNATIO NAL LEAD ZINC RESEARCH ORGANIZATION, INC April 9, 1973 M A D I S O N A V E N U E , N E W Y O R K , N-V. T E IJ'O H G N E f> 3 P -p 3 7 3 (A REA C O O E 212 C A U L E A n a n E S S : NY ILZRO N E W Y O RK 1001 7 Dr. Raymond R. Suskind, Director University of Cincinnati Medical Center 3223 Eden Avenue Cincinnati, Ohio 45219 Dear Dr. Suskind: I am enclosing a copy of a letter from Dr. Hammond to Dr. Bridbord of EPA concerning the EPA position on the health effects of airborne lead. In view of our discussions and also the discussion which went on in St. Louis, I find it difficult to accept Dr. Hammond's position. Don Lynam has been in contact with Dr. Hammond and is providing him with our documentation. Frankly, I do not feel that Dr. Hammond's letter is really very scientific and certainly does not reflect what is known about the effects of environmental lead on health. While I am sometimes regarded as being biased since I work for the lead industry, I am also a graduate of Kettering; and I am frankly surprised that such a letter could come out of an institution which I had always felt was a citadel of scientific objectivity and had unusual expertise in the field of lead toxicology and physiology. Therefore, I am surprised that Dr. Hammond's opinion has, so far, been the only one from Kettering. Certainly, Dr. Hammond's letter does not represent all that Kettering has to offer on the subject of lead in the environment. If I am mistaken and this is the case, things have come to a rather sorry state, and I am disappointed. Sincerely, Jerome F. Cole, Sc.D. Manager, Environmental Health cc : Dr. R.A Kehoe v / Enclosure sw K 0014G02 Uniyeroily u. 'OLPARTMCNT OF*ENVIRONMENTAL'HEALTH KCTTERING LASORATOFIY " (513} 872-5700 -- " r* " .~ V T *V.T'. a Medical Center 3223 Eden Avenue Cincinnati, Ohio 45219 March 9, 1973 Dr. Kenneth Bridbord ' . ' Processes and Effects Division Office of Research and Monitoring . U. S. `Environmental Protection Agency ` Washington, D. C. 20460 j* : ' Dear Dr. Bridbord: '. - I have read the paper you sent -me January 17, entitled "EPA's Position . - - on the Health Effects of Airborne. Lead". I heartily endorse your de . cision to recommend that the air standard be reduced below 2 ptg/l-f3 . '; ' . As you know, I have on several occasions made the point to you, Dr.'Ham- mer, and Dr. Newell, that many major cities have attained a level of. ' ... . . likely lead hazard at ambient air concentrations between 1 and 2 pg/li . . . T h e new information you present in your position paper serves to strengthen -the hypothesis that the dangerously elevated lead concentration in .the ; . . blood of many inner-city children is at least in part traceable to auto ' exhaust. I did not hear the papers presented at Amsterdam.. X can, there- fore, not comment on them. But I believe that the -Smeltertown study . . . alone lends a high degree of credibility to the hypothesis that very' : young children will, in fact, ingest toxicologically significant amounts !.. . of dust and dirt when it contains lead at the level of 0.1 percent.and up. . .The concentration of lead in city dust and dirt is probably arithmetically proportional to exhaust-generated lead output. Further, blood lead is ' probably arithmetically proportional to intake in a steady-state biological ' situation (intake = outgo). Therefore, I think that lowering lead emissions ' by 50 percent would probably reduce blood leads .by. a similar amount.(minus . ' food and water contributions). Thus,.if food and water contributions re- ` ' suit in a blood lead concentration of 10 pg/100 g blood and blood lead . equals 40 p.g/100 g in an inner-city child, reducing emissions 50 percent Vfould probably reduce blood lead by: 40 pg/100 g - 10 p.g/100 g X 0.5, or 15 pg/ g. . '; ... ' . ' The above described calculation is crude, but I am sure you'are faced with the' need to specify what the air standard should be. You, therefore, need numbers. ' . Sincerely, \f ' V PBH:sh Paul B. llammond, D.V.M., Ph.D.