Document a1Dqyx6K56yQnMZao45QO5ZdX

executive ornces Iyeasbey & Mattisox Gompaxy MANUfACtUMCffS or ASBESTOS AMD MAOMtSU AAOOUCTS SINCE ISJ3 Ambleh, Pennsylvania May 13, 1946 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT WV-OOQ301 K&M No. 3755 W. W. F. Shepherd, Esq. Turner & Newall Ltd. Spotland, Rochdale Dear Mr. Shepherd: Subject: Dr. Gardner's Asbestos Dust Experiments I hand you herewith copy of Mr. Vandiver Brown's letter of May 9th, together with copies of enclosures re ferred to by him. I am today writing Mr. Brown suggesting that in my opinion it is high time we received something definite from Dr. Gardner and that we start bringing pressure to bear so that he submits his final report to us in the reason ably near future. Ysuss sincerely, em:ck Atts. Follow Copy L* o; Keasbey & Mattison Company PLAINTIFF'S exhibit 0\^6(p. oo 060 06 00165 JOHNS-MAN7ILLE CORPORATION NEW YORK May 9, 19^6 Mr. Ernest Muehleck Keesbey & Mattison Co. Antler, Pa, Dear Mr. Muehleck: Aa indicated therein, I helleye you vill he Interested In copy of my letter to Mr. Getke and Dr. Gardner's to Mr. Woodard. Sincerely, /e/ VANDIVER BROWN SECRETARY 060 06 00164 May 9, 1946 Mr. Thomas L. Gatke, Pres. Asbestos Textile Co., Inc. J65 West Wacker Drive Chicago, 111. Dear Mr. Gatke: As my secretary Informed you, I vaa away when your letter of April 18 arrived and Bince my return I have delayed answering until I could locate a letter of Dr. Gardner's Vhlfch discussed the matter of cancer In relation to asbestos dust. I have now located end am attaching a copy of his letter of April 8 to Mr. J. P. Woodard, our Director of Industrial Relatione. In view of your comments concerning this aspect of the problem, I am sure you will find his letter of interest. I am sorry I have no copy of Dr. Heuper's paper. Dr. Gardner's approach to this question is typical very cautious, very scientific and demonstrating an unwillingness to accept any theory ea a fact until the evidence is overwhelming. Dr. Bovditch correctly reported me ee being somewhat annoyed end disappointed that Dr. Gardner would not lend us support in connection with a proposed New Jersey Industrial Hygiene Cede to the effect that the small particles, which do the damage in the case of silica, are innocuous in the case of asbestos. His unwillingness in this connection is again characteristic and, while it is a little annoying, I think that on balance it is a favorable characteristic. At any rate we know -- and his fellow experts know -- that when Dr. Gardner etatee a finding it is quite likely to be correct. Mr. Muehleck of Kessbey & Mattison Co., as well as I, has been following Dr. Gardner from time to time end urging him to prepare a definite report but we have always received during the war years substantially the same answer that he gave you. However, his excuse is now wearing a little thin, and since he is now increasing his staff, I think we should persist in our efforts to have him complete the Job he started for us. I am sending Mr. Muehleck a copy of this letter and the enclosure as I am sure he will also be interested. With kind personal regards, I am Sincerely, /a/ Vandiver Brown Secretary V. 060 06 00163 ouri THE SARANAC LABORATORY FOR THE STUDY OF TUBERCULOSIS OF THE EIMARD L. TFUIEAU FOUNDATION May 8, 1946 Mr. J. F. Woodard Johns-Manville Corp. Nev York, N. Y. Dear Page: I vas pleased to see the copy of Dr. Heuper'e paper on Cancer in its relation to occupation and environment and, as requested, I am returning it herevith. It is veil knovn that ashestosis has been mentioned as one of the causes of pulmonary cancer because of the fact that there are nov on record some tventy-three cases of coincidence of the two conditions. I am not at ell sure that selection has not played a large part in these pub11cations. Everybody is looking for a cause of cancer, and whenever even a suspicious occupational history is obtained, the doctor is likely to publish Mb case with suggestions that some dust or fume has been the cause. However, the number in the case of asbestosis is sufficiently greet to be impressive. I, myself, have felt that this notion is erroneous, since examination 6f films of persons employed in the asbestos industry has, to my knowledge, not shown any excess of carcinoma of the lung. Dr. Vestal concurs in this idea; neverthe less, the notion prevails in medical circles. It is to collect and publish more reliable Information on this and other little appreciated phases of the asbestos problem that I hope we may have the opportunity to review all films of Johns-Manville employees. Some body should do this for the BBbestoe industry in the United States. I believe that 'somebody' should be outside of the industry, as obviously it would then carry more weight. I hope, before I die, the opportunity may be afforded us. There is one other phase of the subject, however, that I believe deserves consideration. In one of my reports to your group, I noted that there was an unusually high Incidence of cancer of the lung in white mice which had been exposed to asbestos dust. This species of animal does not develop asbestosis largely, I think, because of the air passages too small to permit inhaling of fibrous asbestos. Nevertheless, we did find over 80$ of mice exposed to asbestos showing tumors of the lung, end only some 15$ or 20$ of those exposed to other dusts shoved tumors of this nature. These findings represented a summary of sll our experience with mice in asbestos dust. Experiments were not done with the purpose of demonstrating cancer. No attempt vas made to control the observation. No care vas taken to select a strain of mice that was or vbb not susceptible to tumor. Cancer has not developed in any other species of animal used in the experiment. ( i') 060 06 00161 -2- In view of the publicity given cancer of the lung, I thought that the subject deserved further experimental investigation.. I have made a proposal to the National Cancer Institute for a grant of $15,000 to carry on a three-year experiment. I talked the matter over with Dr. Phoads of the Memorial Hospital and he vas highly enthusiastic. As a member of the appropriation oommittee of the National Cancer Institute, he made favorable recommendation. Hovever, other members of the committee turned it down and the subject vas dropped. I still believe that it might be a suitable matter for further investigation. More important, however, would be the analysis of films of persons employed in the asbestos industry. If a large enough number of such films were reviewed by one central agency, I am quite sure that ve would have evidence to controvert the implications of the case reports now in the medical literature. I enclose a reprint by two of my associates dealing with the general subject of pulmonary cancer and inhaled dust. In the bibliography I have checked several articles reporting cases in asbestos workers. Sincerely, [s Boy Leroy U. Gardner Director -o X U.: 060 06 00162