Document Yr4KezKDrawrJ51RwGBb02Ja8

i December 10, 1934* Or* A* J* Lanza, Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 1 Badison Avenue, Hew Xork City* Be* Preliminary Study of Asbestos TXist Effects Dear Dr. Lanzas ~ I hare examined the galley proof of yours and Dr* McConnell* s preliminary study, entitled "Effects of theInhalation of Asbestos Dust on the Lungs of Asbestos Workers*, which you were good enough to sand me with your letter of Decem ber 7th, and have compared it with the nineographed pamphlet of which it purports to be a condensation* Confirming ny telephone conrersatisn of this afternoon, I aa planning to transnit the proof sheets to Ur* Hobart so that ha will receive then tomorrow and *h*n request that hs return then to ne not later than Thursday with his con sents, after which I shall see that they are promptly transmitted to you. 1 also inquire of the Raybestos Coppery whether or not they desire to examine the proof of the article before its final printing and shall endeavor to persuade then not to insist upon such an examination. 1 haii} tha following commenta to make! (1) Conclusion Ho. 1 (galley 14) has omitted a sentence appearing in the original which, as modified by you, read as follower "Clinically, from this study it appeared to be of a type milder than silicosis8. (2) There is also cnitied the first paragraph on page 15 of the original report which reads as follows: During the progress of the study, physicians who were practicing in the communities where asbestos workers lived, were questioned, and stated that they did not find an un usual anount of tuberculosis among these workers* The contrast between this State of affairs and that found in communities with 002178 a sHisosio hazard, is noteworthy". ' Both the foregoing observations included in your original report presented an aspect of your survey that was favorable to the industry and we should to see them re tained* (3) On galley 14 the word "death* has been omitted after the phrase *6 of 36*# (4) Conclusion !To. 3 (galley 14). The word "preliminary" is inserted -- to ny aind unnecessarily -- since the entire article is definitely labelled at the coonenceoent as a "prelininaiy* study. (5) Eeferrlng to the last sentence of the third paragraph on pago 13 (which is not changed in the galley proof), it eeens to ne that eone sort of additional phrase or clause is required in order to relate it properly to what has gone before. As it stands now, it is not entirely dear Just what one is expected to deduce therefrom. Tesy truly yours 7B*T CC* HersrsGeorge S. Hobart S4U 7oarha88 SA BUlians Tandiver Brown Attorney C C 279