Document jmoYVYo4DMrna3yMk8gq4g3V9

FILE NAME: Raybestos-Manhattan (RBM) DATE: 1934 & 1940 DOC#: RBM088 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Letter from Johns-Manville to Raybestos with Excerpt from the Digest of Industrial Hygiene and Letter from Lawyer to JM RE Article on Asbestos Dust Effects on Workers Barry Castleman's Raybestos -Manhattan Correspondence File CD-ROM Document # ^ DATE { $ ( $ __ published report from journal __ published report from conference __ unpublished report __ unpublished presentation __ newspaper article letter __ memorandum __ industry warning information __ industry meeting minutes __ conf or meeting attendee list __ book excerpt __ Legal - Deposition __ Legal - Defendant Filing __ Legal - Plaintiff Filing __ O th e r____________________________ E x e c u t iv e Of f ic e s Fo i i n s M a n v i l l e C o r p o r a t i o n X TWENTY-TWO EAST FORTIETH STREET NEW YORK, N.Y. May 10, 1940. Sumner Simpson, Esq., President, Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., Bridgeport, Connecticut. Re: Dr. G a r d n e r s Experiments. Dear Mr. Simpson: I am sorry I was away when you telephoned me a few weeks ago. However, my secretary informed me of the matter about which you wished to speaK. to me. In the same connection, I believe you will be interested in the attached excerpt from Air Hygiene 1Foundation Digest of April, 1940, covering current matters in the field of industrial hygiene. I have not read the original article, but it is apparent from the Digest that Dr. Gardner is already publishing, with out seeking our advance approval, certain conclusions which his reports to us have indicated were arrived at k as a result of the experiments underwritten by the textile group. I shall appreciate your comments on this situation. Sincerely, VB:y Enc. Vandiver Brown, General Attorney. t f .n tl /X'V/X/X <v EXCERPT FROM AIR HYGIENE FOUNDATION DIGEST OF INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE Literature-- News-- Developments April, 1940 n ,278. Recent Developments in Relation to Silicosis. L. U. Gardner. Ind.Med., 9, 45-49 (February, 1940)* Experimental worK in progress at the Saranac Laboratory seems to lead to the conclusion that inhaled asbestos fibres are irritating not because they are silicates but because they are stiff f ibres_wh^ch mechanically irritate the lungs. When asbestos is ground"very ri'nel^'sd'"`that"Tew of "the fibre s,xare longer''"than 2 M o r o n s in-leiX gth"the'"i'rritating"'property"oT the ` asBestojs is^ractical'l^ destroyed.'"'.Inhalation exper iment s'witIft his* fin "'"ashestos"'in a concentration of 125 million particles per cubic foot over a period of three years has not produced fibrosis -- in previous experiments exposure to one third this concentration of long fibres has produced well marked fibrosis in two.years. This phenomenon is directly opposite to that found in silicosis, where with decrease in particle size, reaction becomes more vigorous. Irritation, from the asbestos fibres seems to be more closely_associated_y/ith the physical, rather than the cfiemi'cal, composition as "in'the''case 'oT'--free-'siiicah Ther'e""are many experiments whose re sults are difficult to reconcile with the solubility hypothesis. In vivo, cellular reactions begin 15 to 30 minutes after injections; in vitro, traces of dissolved silica are found by the most sensitive methods only after 12 to 24 hours. There is some experimental evidence that free silica has a specific toxicity. Fine silica injected into the veins or hearts of cer tain animals acts like a strong poison. This has not been observed with particles of larger size or with suspensions of other minerals. These toxic effects can be neutralized by the addition of different substances, for example, collodial aluminum hydroxide and ferric hydroxide. More and more experimental evidence seems to demonstrate the physiological in significance of particles over 3 microns. Finally there is a discussion of the similarity between uhe silicotic and tuberculous reactions in the lung. ni '/ r * '? s'i f a- ; H o b a r t c ^ M t ^ a r d f ? V r - - ^ ? ? . * " GEORGE S HOBART^. ' - * . DUANE E.MINARD . . < RALPH E. C O O P E R A U G U S T IN E J. KELLY JOHN J. OAFFEY * *)": G . A D D I S O N H O B A R T . <L V ` \ * __ \ _ ' " 1 * .. ` ^ t E F C O U R T B U I L D I N G ' . . ' l 1180 RAYMOND BOULEVARD \ `V / . ' , " 7"'- i- V.' ,-iKEvARK;'>'E > / j E R S B y " . ; r '/' ' ' ,, * TELEPHONE ''" .'` s4'* *.-.2M-AR*K^E T*^.\- '1 ^ e -6 / ^ *4 \ ` ", L'V~*- *.:i .C** .* < p*c. X8j .1934;::;;>.;.r;> .rv?\ ' '.' S/fVjy. ;*,)::v Re preliminary study o f Hotropolitan <\ ' ,.r'7 *.*r*V? L ife .Inmiranee Company / ' v - .. vv.~'y Hr. Vandiver B r o w n * * * - *, >, ! attorney, John s-Hanvi lie Corporation!'.-:;.-;; ns s, 40th street!-' /' ; now Y o r k , c i t y * v V - V Dear Kr* *Browni ..,V' rr >S- ..7 ' I received your le t t e r o f Docc-aher 10th with enclosures, including proof of the preliminary,study entitled* ^Effects of the V Inhalation e f Asbestos Dust on the"Lungs o f A sh ceto sp o rk ers* ,. I . hare ca refu lly examined, the proof, and return s a n e , :;v . a v - ^ A- In 'reading this proof I hare compared it with the' paper o f 1Y ^;. - the earns,title which was prepared by the Industrial Health.,Service of?v*'> -.the Metropolitan shout three years ago*V J submit tho following euggostlon; ' {7or convenience o f reference I have numbered ny comments,.In red j>enoil ^ v . in the margin o f the several/pages o f th e g a lle y p r o o f ) * ' / f C ' Cl) ,Cai*' th e "end . o f the-'paragraph which dleousees.'/ - the wvariahiea* upon which the progress o f th e disease i s lnfluencedi>>^}. the follow ing sentence appears! * tt might "w e ll he assumed that simlMPj'i' variahlea would Influence the occunr>ir>ennnrc>e* fotff aoisthVonfaltl.onanl4Ro.i1l* ;**! VYnoiui trill- recall that la dealing with tho Hew Jersey Legislative Coaeolaalon whic7h* 4 hae had charge of the proposed new legislation in Hew Joraey whershy ?r, ,. . oilicoalo is to he added to the liet of occupational diseases for. which corspensAtion la required under the terms of the compensation s t a t u t e * T we have consistently urged that there Is * substantial difference between.i ` eillcoels and V a s b o s t o o l s b o t h ae to the clinical nature of the disease'f. / and as to the reasonable probability of ltd incldordaj and you will also -; recall that, in particular we have urged that anbestosle should not a t > `<"f^' the present time be Included In the list of compensation diseases, for the reason that It Is only within a comparatively recent time that ^ V.r^ V.v aobeetosis has,been recognised by the feedlcal and scientific professions^ on a disease -^ In faction of our principal defenses in fictions agalhst.^ *t th* company on the pension law theory of negligence has been that ths ` scientific fend nodical knowledge hae been insufficient until a very recent,: period to place upon the owners of plants or factories the burden or ,dutyv~>: J ot taking special precautions,against the possible onset of the disease .to \ '7-Jhelr^'eapl^oss!-'/i:j - . I* therefore* dieillre^to have this report euggest that oobestosi-c- clght be assumed^ to,be. *,eiffiilar .to silicosis, either as to tho ^period -i's'\"v '\r''7 * - --r '.ivvoZ"-"/'.--' `#\-Ksx*'>*'T '-HnS- >v ^ -V'/'. - ' - ; '' - //there le set forth 1b a not. (instead of ip the body of the article) the; statement that appears in he Report of ,1931 relating,to th;enlargsnent . of the particles anfl the use of logarithehasT- :(See p* 7 of Report of^l931J/ / As a raattr of curiosity I'wonder why this'statement (which seeaa to/ae / qaite important) is put in a rots instead of in tho body of tho article^/; . If the authors prefer to have 'it/in.the fortf of a note#"of course#1their-1.' : Judgment should control# as it/he ho particular hearing in -any ieyout upon the pointe in which the coapany ie interested#/' *V* `'.(3)/-Oal* 12 The,,last -paragraph on this galley,haf a uvmaxfJ:-&r~i\ , /of the.dust counts -with respect .to th several .'plante#//X notice/that///// It ia stated, that plant R *was unnecessarily dusty*'? X 'understand ; does not in.'any>a refer to any plant of Johns/Sanvili/.but! w?\V <.wondering .whether the proprietor/of nlant. a.^as had an 'opportunity '/review th conent# / It Btrihoe he that ..the.report would serve ever-f/* y.& purpose if'we leave, out in tho first lino, of, the paragraph on^.that gall^/;/r .the; words ..^a'unnecessarily, dusty*/;However#* that Is a mi%ter,`v r i t h i \ v % ; which we are indirectly ^concerned and 'X/sacrely suggest ,,it for considrt!) v It ieotb sa^/erpres?in^which'appears '-- " - 1 k""*' j/ // //// dalley/13# /: li^csment*' '* ....do hot,want t^';'mho>-the. statement/lh`that pbaitive ^bra# it.'hiirht'he'/W^V-N, .ae follows :(aa 'euggeoted, in' yourlet tor)* .*clinically,fro* .thisstudy,.if &, /appeared to he of ;atype sailder than oil 1 0 0 0 1 *| / or# ,if-that ill'toe /strong# It jaieht.be pet forth/as follows*/*3 .fair os-indicated ty.the,&#/' .'study* achestooie # e of, a type/(6y Appear'to he ,of .a type) cilder than^.,/f/T ;'silicosis**/'Tli$ exact wording hot ^important#'frxeept .that X thin* it'/^ijrj/ would he desirable' (if the;doctor$ 'ore satisfied that.ouch is iho-fact)#//" v~ to have .sbr ` .- -- *' " ' ' -that there / scientific .the probability' tho Legislature . ,policy; of Johns/Hany ill to/oppose any bill that attempted .to. iholu'd^T*,*,.^ *-/asbee tosis#:as cfopeneabld# :it .would/ be very helpful to.have' an;officlal iSf Vandiver Br*?TM : ;i > */'. V \ "3 official report should appear frotawblchtbe conclusion night bs; V drawn that there io very, little, if, any difference, hetveon the tareV,,A!: 'disease* i*; \:;;i{ H,*:V-'-'sV '>*# V**^ -VC\-* >.*v/: * v : ' > > \ as\:*.?`.Htw-'Y-Zv.* ib".'/. '''>vireV 2 *'/ i understand. ,tlmt*'tho'>tatenent/tb the eaWlac;. ^ ,enlargement is'correct from a scientific standpoint/and,.X dp oot Ts5 :. sea how.re, cat! consistently object to it; <:-ly/ '.h;;-;`^ 'V'-:Ro'# 3 " I agree that the word preliminary Ifl eaj?erflnous* `V v ?,/ `v -.*.* `` `" y - V V v 'v-':*}'?/*e#`5#", This reads 'the Tea*.'ae~ on page 21 of `the Report'of?}:>/ 1031 and* hence, it may b a > little,late to object; However/ X-` point out that 0 Ho* 3 now .read the" inference night,be drawn that S y asbeatosls does add to ..the mortality of tuberculosis eases* Bui that/ inferenbd does noiToeem to be" justified from this study*t/ X am- `vj'f?`rv. wondering if it would be a more"accurate ecienfitie statement if of 1931* with the exception that the Roport of 1931 at the "-end. of .the sentence,has thsword* than free silica (Si02)*:. end the gallfly/; proof has th word0 "than granite dust** Here again it may b a little late to criticise ,the. statement, but. 1 do not like suggestion that there id 4 possibility, that asbestos! s,may. caUsa/%'/ur* .pneumoconiosis`.or readily* than granite dust*: 7breason I;objeciyy Jo that'many,eases of, silicosis are supposed, to originate iu granit' dust and"this,statement as it.now reads suggests thnia poasiMXity/yY that,a-pneumoconiosis may arise more readily from aabostoa'l^'thsn 'granite dust*-;'; I-thinh .^a should* if possible, eliminate'all. that^g /Hoifitr'this 1 ;4i. Repeat <^31#,' *Vir* #).'~Oai*.'X4 *m i ib.subtitle fHeco^ehdatien#*^^ ' ,: my copy-of-the Report of 1931' I.have 6 pencil as to recosnendation Bo* .4 to, insert the word possible?.before the"word effects*1 6 as to have it read :*as well'as'studies on t h e ^ possible effects of asbestosis on the hoart and circulation"* X dd " V '.'/ft V >7*v1; y ? v - V v c ^ - s ..**.-.->*