Document e5nMmY73xxmRN43xvzLY4qDJq

s, iJ^veaker uUUlhia i4U*^ctitarU^ 'i'-LX MUby .. vi'ftot. iXi'Utt'bOU 'if TcSS* UC< t friend cf Aim who is* 1&&<* jean faslliar with wy interest* la the Umrayeuiic uu*0 of i.Vlk bus brought to ik / fttuoatlua ft paagsulet Iron yeur laboratory vtu Um title, ' Occupational health bulletin So* 3" Toward the fcottou. of tbs fixt page la the uwefioa on the prevention of load poisoning, you mention the prophylactic uo a* EA. 1 feel that X should triad to your attention sou* lsfw)raatla on this suh^out whicu would indicate that such a procedure Is uot entirely fro* &i* dautewr* 1 was oca of the wlhnt proponent* of taw therapeutic us* of al&a la uawow of poisoning with, aetals which ooaplsm readily with this coafrowad* Practically all of the wacparluwatal evidence available up until Quits recently sssa to support the belief that MJk tad an toxic properties wbatsoewear* .Mors recent evideac* frou* our ova laboratory aad otiara indicates that this is sot necessarily *o Dudley wt el la the &m hagland Journal of ftedlcin* for March 3, li>5>, report two cfttfas with what appears to W nnalstsAabl* kidney decease resulting froa iuUtmivm iiliiA thsropy* Vs In this laboratory obrv*d a huean eaas vhsxe syegrtw a of kidney uarog* appeared after two woods or so of therapy and w are fastliar with us s*osi4 wary stalls? cas* froa a laboratory 00 tha West Coast* Boto of tows* cosas wear In beeltfry youa^, adults with no evidence of preceding renal pathology* Xus c mo which v hod hora stloulntod y associate, Bar. lorry forasaa to ra-suca&ins at "BdtsrIrk^t * fcJs watporlcsot indicate very clearly that the continued use of 2X1 yroduese a definite and chsuaeuu'istic lowar mgtxxxa osptorosis in rots, a situation which apparrotly was exactly slsdliu* to what wa had obeerved in the bn.asa case* Ibis material baa new been written up and Sr* Focaoaa is now is the process of smhalttlag it for publication* rrca the offset, 'hr* Tormmu and 1 haws both oontsodsd that ISTd fees no pines in th* very forcibly hy Br* hsbort heho*. (JA*MJL*. January 2$ 15/55. lwa 3hl) This was our fowling awaa whan wa aasuoed that had no toxic affweta whatacarwEt^ sod I cwrtaiaiy fswl ouch sort strongly about It now that a teals offset lam bees nwaosstrotsd* It is ay fowling that ta* prwvwatlon cf Isad pqisoaiag in industry is o&tiroly a prohlwu of si^lnswris^ and Industrial hyglsns* 1 no net doubt: that saU asxaints of &&A eight net hs givsn ovwr a cousidcrwlls tiro with tupunity* If it wwrs given hrowvwr to a uaa with latent kidney daos^9 the reaults olght well he disastrous* X rollw Quite well that the isHer Occupational health Laboratories Soveaber 3, 1955 L&boratorlets have advocated this n*e for a product they are trying to sell. It is -My own opinion that this recommend*tioa is unwise and unsound and I only hope it does not bios back in their faces. X have taken the liberty of writing to you in this way because as one of the early advocates of S32XA, I shared in creating the impression it was harmless. X now feel that I have a responsibility to dispel this impression. Fortunately, Sr. Foreman's material will be published eoon and I will not have to continue to act in this pontifical manner. Very sincerely yours, i-Aiwu-n* .sluirEir-jjf "L tmm& l . ssxmi, u, d ., health division Leader TL3:,JJ be: M. Bowditch Dr. H. Hardy Dr. R. T. Johnstone Dr. James Sterner Dr. Robert Kehoe^.'d-^ P. S. Before mailing this letter, I read it to Dr. Foreman. He is in complete agreement with my sentiments and suggested that I add one small point. There is so far no dear cut evidence to indicate that oral dosage has any significant effect in increasing the total (urinary plus fecal) excretion of lead. On this point there has been disagreement among various authors. There does seem to be general agreement however that oral dosage is less effective than intravenous administration. TLS f':' f\ . ' ,'.l y