Document g8xrrzMwQzrG90eX9X51N02J

January 20, 1958 Mr. Manfred Bowditch Director of health and Safety Lead Industries Association 6o E a s t [.2nd S t r e e t Mew York 17, N. Y. Dear Manfred: I regret that any act or failure to act on m y part should cause you any, even slight discomfort, but, despite m y deep regret, I feel that I must ask and advise you to be patient. 1 `va b e e n n o t o n l y busy, but p u s h e d a b o u t b y b u s i n e s s of one sort or another, without let-up, since my return from a brief h o l i d a y and rest d u r i n g p a r t o f the C h r i s t m a s and M e w Y e a r 's season. I could indeed have asked my secretary to send you a copy of the report which you requested, but I chose to comment on certain aspects of your provocative letter, and on the report itself, in additional reply to you, and so the delay. / I remind you also, that I have four other letters from you on my desk. It will give m e pleasure to answer all of them, but they must wait a little. The report, to which you refer, was not intended for general distribution, although it will go faifcher t h a n w a s i n t e n d e d b e c a u s e o f c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s w h i c h I did not anticipate. Belknap h ad a copy of it, as a m ember of a USPHS, ad hoc Committee to which it was distributed for information. The work in this report, proper, was done in response to a Company which asked us to do some work in a hurry. On completing this, I undertook to inform them briefly and pertinently on the somewhat wider scope of the matter of lead poisoning among children. There is nothing especially new in the report and nothing, I am sure, with which you will disagree. Y o u have seemed to fear that I was projecting m y s e l f into this matter without having adequate information,or without regard to the contributions of others, yourself included, or, perhaps, without having adequate reason at this time far doing so. I think I may protest, mildly (perhaps no such protest is needed at all), that this is not in character for either of us in our relationships with each other. I rarely give advice without reason or request, and in this instance, what I have said had to be sai'd. L e a s t of all, do I d i s r e g a r d t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e of wha t you have done in this field to br i n g it to the attention of those who are in the best position to do something about it. I have respected your persistence and have applauded your efforts. As to the rem e d y for this g e n e r a l problern, I agree that the N7549 Mr* Manfred Bowditch JANIL January 20, 19i?8 m a t t e r s p o s e d i n y o u r statement, u n d e r i t e m 8, are not readily soluble. There are, however, at least two ways available for ameliorating it. There are other ways in addition, but I am talking about those that can be initiated without delay. First, we can, and must, develop the analytical facilities that will enable doctors on an essentially country-wide basis, to do a reasonably s a t i s f a c t o r y job of case finding. It is nothing short of negligence that this has not been done. A m e chanism is being developed toward this end. Second, we m u s t a l e r t the H e a l t h D e p a r t m e n t s of our c ities to this problem of poor homes and poor housing, and make it incumbent upon them to do what they can, by educational methods, inspections and police action. I count on the paint industry to do its part in the present and future aspects of this matter. T his it ca n do m u c h b e t t e r thai it has done, and I believe that it will take more and better steps in this d i r e c t i o n before it is kicked into doing so. The problem as you have implied in the expression of ycur hopeless a t t i t u d e t o w a r d e d u c a t i n g parents; is one of c l e a n i n g u p the e n v i r o n m e n t so that the c h i l d r e n of stupi-t a n d i r r e s p o n s i b l e parents will not be victimized, but, on the other hand, I am sure that the education of parents in this matter can be accomplished to a greater extent than it has been by the mu l t i plication of informed physicians. It is for this reason that I have regarded this somewhat depressing example of human foolish nes s - itliat is this l a s t i n c i d e n t in r e l a t i o n to toys - as a n opportunity afforded to do something useful toward the real problem. I would have only one serious question concerning the correctness of your statements in the 9 items. I think It Improbable that y o u r # 5? is correct, a l t h o u g h it has some r e l a t i v e t r u t h i n it. The d e a r t h of cases in certain parts of t h e country Is, I f e e l sure, largely a matter of the lack of facilities for case finding. It m a y be that t h e y ar e fewer, bttt t h e y are not n e g l i g i b l e . O n this I would bet my reputation. Sincerely yours, RAK:ss Robert A. Kehoe, M. D. ANDREW FLETCHER,PRESIDENT K . C . B R O W N E U Vice PReSlOeMT J . A. MARTINO, VICE PReSIOENT M. M. ZOLLER ,VICE PRCSIOCNT ROBERT UNDLEV ZIEOFetD. SECRETARY-TREASURER 60 E A S T 42ND S T R E E T NEWYORK17,IV.Y. January 22, 1958 MANF R E D DOWDI T CH DIRECTOR OF HEALTH ANO SAFETY R. A* Kehoe, M. D. University Cincinnati College of Medicine Cincinnati 19* Ohio Dear Bob: Many thanks for your two letters of January 20th and for the copy of your Los Angeles address of April 1956# As always, what you have told me is interesting, informative and helpful. I am particularly glad to have your diagnosis of the Tufts Case. Because I am deprived of the services of my secretary who is ill, and am trying to clean up a mass of detail prior to leaving for a week in Milwaukee and Chicago, this acknowledgment must be less comprehen sive than I would wish. I do want, however, to straighten out one thing. You quite misinterpreted the motivation of my December 26th letter. Though addressed to you, you were but the bridge over which I was trying to reach Chapman and Hagnuson. I have yet to feel that I had occasion to preach to you on any subject of plumbi5 be it in children, industrial workers, the public in general, horses, cattle, hogs, dogs or ducks. And I have yet to sense that you were "projecting yourself* inti any leaden situation without adequate information. On the other hand, I have no way of knowing that the two who received copies of m y letter have any real understanding of the many facets of the childhood plumbism prob lem, for I know one of them only slightly and the other not at all. You, however, I regard as an old and trusted friend who would not mind being the syringe whereby I sought to administer this twofold injection, and I am only sorry that I did not make my purpose clear. Frankly, in the light of some of the recent activities of certain of their underlings, it would seem to me not unlikely that these two U.S.P.H.S. physicians have been misinformed, and on more than one subject. Considering (1) that one of the authors is employed by the Service in Cincinnati, (2) that he had known of the falsity of what was said about the tank paints for over three years, and (3) that the 1957 edition of the report, reiterating these statements was issued by the Service in Cincinnati, I find it just about impossible to view the situation set forth in my enclosure otherwise than as a flagrant case of scientific dishonesty. January 22, 1958 R. A. Kehoe, M*D. .f.10012 foiy^fd to the opportunity to discuss this and other y0U.if ^ ? Taukee 2nd hope that you can point out to me a E nasty mess less * " * than ^ oh i to rn i m enc. tfiT 0006291 LEAD INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION 60 EAST 4 2 n d STREET N E W Y O R K !7, N. Y. THE FRASER-FAIRHAEL RED LEAD PAINTED TANKS* A photostatic copy of a report with the title The Solubility of Red Lead and Solution Characteristics of Red Lead Paints in Distilled, Natural and Treated Waters, by D. A. Fraser and L. T. Fairhall, was received from Dr. W. Clark Cooper, Director, Occupational Health Field Headquarters, U. S. Public Health Service, Cincinnati, Ohio, with his letter of transmittal dated August 28, 1953. The following excerpts are quoted from this report? Page 2. In the field study the lead content of waters that had been stored in tanks painted with red lead paint was determined, Page 6. In collecting samples from the eighteen water-storage tanks that had been painted with red lead, usually it was not possible to obtain from company records reliable information as to the type of paint used. . . . .* Page 11. Lead painted water-storage tanks. The results of the analysis of water from seventeen red lead painted water tanks of various sizes and functions are given in Table 1. Table 1. This table bears the heading Concentration of lead found in water sam ples from seventeen red lead painted water storage tanks in the Cincinnati area, In view of this fourfold designation of the Cincinnati tanks as having been painted with red lead paint, one may perhaps excuse the statement of Mr, J. E. Flanagan, Jr., in his letter of September 5, 1957* to Mr. J, D. Keane, that Mr. Fraser and Dr. Fairhall also sampled water from a number of tanks which had been painted with lead paints, as well as that of Mr. H. E. Doyle, in a mem orandum prepared for a committee meeting on December 17, 1957, that water sam ples were taken from 17 industrial water supply tanks in the Cincinnati area which had been coated with red lead paint*. However, on March 8, 195k, Mr, D. A. Fraser had written to Dr, H. B, Elkins a letter in which he said 1 feel that all but two of these tanks must be rejected as yielding unreliable samples.* With this letter were two enclosures, the first a page of comments on reexamination of the tanks, indicating that the water in these two tanks was.used for sprinkler purposes and was therefore dor mant, and that, of the other fifteen, reexamination of two was impossible, two were easily or heavily contaminated, two were not painted with red lead, five were painted with a cover coat other than red lead, three were not painted at all, and one sample had probably come from a standpipe that was also unpainted. Mr, Fraser's second enclosure was a photostatic reproduction of Table 1, signifi cantly marked omit.* In view of this frank admission of the almost complete unrelia bility of the Cincinnati tank test findings, and the consequent falsity of the four above quotations from the original report, what possible excuse can there be for their verbatim reappearance, and for that of Table 1 in full, in a mimeographed reproduction of the report prepared in Cincinnati in 1957, three years later, and distributed to committee members and other individuals concerned with the questions at issue?