Document dYdJRXEJZO6e2kYGVG09zdyo0
p '-4-
o r*"**1 IX
`r1 *4 -V-5 CiJ
i -, -,
f
X
O r * > 4 ^
.^
j
*>.; L. vL*' c
,v ' ;
i Hi i
--- 14
^ f4
'-f- K*
OC
7, M <J -*J o% .**4
*.? *4 ;>
l''
>-<
.7; ;4 ':>
J, & h4
f
ft r-'f
V.'
v
, ^'! 6
'i
*- ' :T, ^ ; j ,
>4 O
O s-T-;
x* 4
: V- {-1 <p p. t r5
?v--*
*>
0 >-4 `-4- O
v*-
O -> ^ H.i-5
_i-
" :
o :; :r. O .v ;d `.'> ,;i u5 4*. ;-M o 6.
1 ;4 Oj O *"~T o>
s7 -1 l.(: t-A --',*r* r ** ^4'
o .::'. c-i- ca !~1
`jf "-i- 0 r-1 ` "
r-j q
1-4 JL, .
-1*-- c; ft* j; 'J4
H* O 7D Q a O ;-~l * f--> $ -* >-4 ~--i } ' O Ci) C9
< , O *7;
>-*>
M *
.'.J riv..- O
O --5
c*.
O<
r 4
--n vi tv <0
ii.
\ -. j"i !--<
5>
' ' q '/j
o r r'.
4 f-H
a o w ,T4 a. a -
< t) -V.- n *.; $> S+
o
<<> ^
4 o *-r ; ;.j p.
(,v* ;.: v vnj
rj o O
'..2 ^ O '-r r-.. >4 .> o .7:
o \%3 *J !_4 '5
* >*
T:?
6
!O
`-1 o s4 c
-1- i--i *.)
o
-i-
Btv;
.: ) -.%
0.3 *n * 4* f"*'*
tr; f "'*
i-ti
;v.a
t-5 ie
to
1
fc. '*
" Vs*1 '.
;* j . ? /
o o
nr v
*. * T'4
>4 O
*<*.
p Boy$,
\
- Dr.. ,R.A. Kehoe
. 'jt'r J
if *,
] mj t t .i i
Dr. Charleft Dw Stevens,
The Kettering Laboratory,
UnlversjtyofvC IncInnati,
College of Medicine,
Eden Avenue* iHr
CINCINNATI 19,:
Ohio,:
i
U*S*A*
May 17, 1956*
Dear Dr. Stevens, .
Thank you very much for your most kind letter of May 11. I was very interested in your comments, the sum of which addedtup to more or less what I expected to hear on this subject. I will look up Tartler's paper, as you suggest* If .you do ever find any more, on this particular subject, I would be most grateful if you would; bear me in mind, and let me have any references that may .come your way. Meanwhile, I feel happier in my mind now about,advising the people who originally brought the matter to my?notice.
With regard to the question of analysing for iouic
lead, I did not mean in my letter to imply that we had an
accurate quantitative method for analysing ionic lead* What
I meant to suggest was that the rapid screening method, srAcc
using iodine, virtually brought down only ionic lead, and did
not pick up lead in a more tightly bound state* Obviously,
this is not a strictly accurate situation chemically, but for
practical purposes we have assumed that therein lies the
difference between the short and long methods of lead analysis*
I am not sure at the time of writing whether in fact lead soap
would fail:to come down in the, short method, but it might be
worth testing that out.
\'
1
With many thanks indeed for the interest and trouble
you have taken.
!
0010215
; PRB/lmr