Document jyZB1d6JZrm0Ly0Q7mvzMwBrO

FILE NAME: Raybestos-Manhattan (RBM) DATE: 1934-1935 DOC#: RBM122 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Letters between, Johns-Manville, Raybestos & Met Life Insurance Co. S' P 16th F lo o r, In q u ir e r B ld g . PHILADELPHIA, PA., U. S. A. September S5, 1935. \ Mr. Sumner Simpson, President, haybestos-Yanhattan, Inc., Bridgeport, Conn. Dear Sir: You may recall that we have written you" on several occasions concerning tho publishing of information, or dis cussion of, asbostosis and the work which has been, and is being done, to eliminate or at least reduce it. / ' Always you have requested that for certain obvious ^reasons we publish nothing, and, naturally your wishes have ;been respected. Possibly by this time, however, the reasons for your objection to publicity on this subject have been eliminated, and if so, we would like very much to review the whole matter in "ASBESTOS". Our thought is that v:e could either prepare from data which we have in our files, or obtain from'Mr. *7. A. Godfrey of the Cape Asbestos Company, London, who is much Interested in the subject, an article on the work done in England and th-~n follow it with an article written by someone in your- organization, as to -the work done hero. V/o understand from Mr. Gtover that your !!orth Charleston plant, contains very complete dust control ocuiprn-nt and a descrip tion of such equipment, if you approve, would make a very interusting part of th-i article. Possibly even you could supply a photograph '{or two showing some, part of this dust control e .uiu.n.vnt. V) We await with much interest your reply. If there is no serious objection it would so-sm to be a most interesting sujject for the. pages of "ASBESTOS", and possibly a discuss ion of it in "AGB.'-STCS1' along the right lines, would serve to c^moat ~me of the rather undesirable publicity given to it in current newsp-.pors. vory trul^yoiu-f / / O . /, 11A S $ n I? p-> Bridgeport, Conn. Oct. 1, 1935 } ' ' : . i Mr. Vandiver Brown, Attorney, 'Johns-Manville Corp., 22 East 40th St., New York City. My dear Mr. Brown: Enclosed is copy of a letter re ceived from Miss Rossiter, of Asbestos." As I sec it personally, we would be just as well off ro say nothing about 'it until our survey is complete. I think the less mid about asbestos, the better off we are, but at the same time, y;c cannot lose track of the fact that there have been a number of articles on asbestos ciust con trol and asbestosis in the British, trade magazines. The magazine "Asbestos" is in business to publish articles affecting the trade and they have been very decent about not re-printing the English articles.I I shall be pleased to have your opinio;} in the natter. Very truly yours, SS-G. Enc President R h iU^{U iLh f U7 Jokns-Manville Tw e n t y -Two Ea s t Fo r t i e t h S t r e e t / N e w Y o r k .N.Y. afii- f*OBV<T October 3, 1935 Mr. S. Simpson, President, Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., Bridgeport, Conn. My dear Mr. Simpson: I wish to acknowledge receipt of yours of October 1st enclosing copy of the September 25th letter from the editor of the magazine ''ASBESTOS". I quite agree with {you that our interests are best served by having asbestosis 'receive the minimum of publicity. Even if we should eventual ly decide to raise no objection to the publication of an article on asbestosis in the magazine in question, I think we should warn the editors to use American data on the subject rather than English. Dr. Lanza has frequently remarked, to me personally and in some of his papers, that the clinical pic ture presented in North American localities where there is an asbestos dust hazard is considerably milder than that reported in England and South Africa. I believe the question raised by Miss Rossiter might well be considered at the committee meeting scheduled for next Tuesday, at which I understand both you and Mr. Judd will be present. * )* Very truly yours, VB: T / / r /> Vandiver Brown Attorney D M -y if -- A ./u / \\ J 1 1 1 r\ u f ir '-39.7l ( M ' December 10, 1934- Dr. A* J. Lanza, Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 1 Madison Avenue, New York City. Eo: Preliainaiy Stuty of Asbestos Dust Effects Dear Dr. Lanza: I have examined the galley proof of yours end Dr. McConnell's preliminary study entitled "Effects of the Inhalation of Asbestos Dust on the Lungs of Asbestos TTorkers", which you were good enough to send me with your letter of Decem ber 7th, and have compared it with the mimeographed pamphlet of which it purports to be a condensation. Confirming cy telephone conversation of this afternoon, I am planning to transmit the proof sheets to Mr. Hobart so that he will receive them tomorrow and Bhall request that he return them to me not later than Thursday with his com ments, after which I shall see that they are promptly transmitted to you. I shall also inquire of the Raybestos Company whether or not they desire to examine the proof of the article before its final printing and shall endeavor to persuade them not to insist upon such an examination. 1 have the following comments to make: (1) Conclusion No. 1 (galley 14) has omitted a sentence appearing in the original which, as modified by you, read as follows: "Clinically, from this study it appeared to be of a type milder then silicosis". (2) There is also omitted the first paragraph on page 15 of the original report which reads aB follows: "During the progress of the study, physicians who were practicing in the communities where asbestos workers lived, were questioned, and stated that they did not find an un usual amount of tuberculosis among these workers. The contrast between this state of affairs and that found in communities with -2- a Eilicosle hazard, is noteworthy5. Both the foregoing obEorvnticns included in your original report presented an aspect of your .survey that vae favornhle to tho industry and should like to see then re tained. (3) On galley 14 tho word deathH has been omitted after the phrase w6 of 36* (4) Conclusion Ko* 3 (galley 14). The word "preliminary" is inserted -- to ny mind unnece:- eerily -- since the entire article ie definitely labelled at the com mencement as a "preliminary" stui^r. (5) Referring to the last sentence of the third paragraph on pago 13 (which is not changed in the galley proof), i't seems to me that some sort of additional phrase or clause is required in order to relate it properly to what has gone before# As it stands non, it is not . entirely clear just what one is expected-to deduce therefrom. Very truly yours VBsT CC* Hessrs.Qeorge S* Hobart E.M. Vocrhees S.A. milians Vandiver Brown Attorney J8ART WARD JOPEW INC J. KEUUr >J/ .SGONA FHFOE BY ART IT013A R T Sc M l X A R D l e f c o u r t b u ild in g 1180 RAYMOND BOULEVARD KCVARK^NBW JERSEY TELEPHONE m2a-r81k 0e4t 2 dies 2 *0186 / Eac. 15, 1531. Ra preliminary study of Uetropolitan life Insurance Company Ur, Vandiver Brown, Attorney, Johna-J'anvillo Corporation P.2 ", 4C'th .-.treat hew York city. Dear Ur. Browns I received your latter of Jjoccn'ber 10th with cncloouroo including proof of tha wrollrsinary study entitled, "Effccto of the Inhalation of Asbestos Thiot on the Luwra of Asbestos workorn", I have carafully examined the proof and return oarae. In raadinr? thia proof I have corepared it with tho paper of the ca'-e title which t o -j prepared by the Industrial Health Service of the otropolitan about throe years ago. I submit tho following aurroostion (Tor convenience of reference I hare nunbored rry commonta in rod pencil in the margin of the several pages of the galley proofs)s (1) Gal. 11* At the end of the paragraph which discusses the 'variables'* upon which the progress of tho c'iaeaoa in influenced, the following sentence appears? it rai^ht wall be assumed that similar variables would influence tho occurrence of aabootosio," You will recall that in dealing with the hew Jersey Legislative Comionioo which has had charge of tho proposed nsr.? legislation in ircn; Joroey v/hsreby oilicoaln io to be added to the list of occupational diseases for vrhich compensation is required under the terns cf the compensation statuto, wo have consistently urred that there io a substantial difference between oilicosi3 and aabosteoio bath as to the clinical nature of tho disease and as to the reasonable probability of its) incidence; end you will also recall that in particular we have urged that acbcotosia should not at tho ^rfsaont time he included in the list of comuanuation diaccisos, for the 7`eacon that it io only within a corjuarutivoly recent time that cicccatenio hno been rcco.ynir.ed Vy tho radical and scientific professions as a disease -- in fact one cf our principal defenses in actions ngninat tho Germany on tho coysven law theory of nogliriMieo has been thnt tiro ucicntirie and ncciicsl Jcre-wledp-o hao boon insufficient 'until a very recent period to place r,pan tho o.Tnero c.f plants or factories tha burden or duty of talrin.v cpeci-.l precautions against tho possible onsot of the dlneaso to their employees. 1 therefore dislike to have this report ouz-goat that abesto3i r:irht be asunned to be "oi'ilar to ailIcoo is, either a a to tho period 'r. V and Ivor 2 of tino within -which it mirht develop, or ns to the dosage rceoivcd by tho lur.jro, or sn to tho quantity of duut, eto* (2) Cal*. 11* At tho bottom of this galley 1 observe that there io set forth in a noto {instead of in the tody of the article) tho state'.'.cut that appaa.ro in tho Heport of 1931 relating to tho enlargement of tho particles and tho uao of logaritlraS.v' (5ns p. 7 of lioport of 1931). Ao a nattor of curiooity I wonder why thia otatemont (which eeema to no quite important) is put in a note instead of in tho body of tho article. If tho authors prefer to have? it in tho fora of a note, of courao, their judgment chould control, as it fcac no particular tearing in any event upon the points in which tho company io interested. (3) Cal. 12* The last paragraph on thia galley has a aumary of the ?uat counts with respect to tho oevcral plant3, I notico that it ia stated that plant S pvrao unnecessarily dusty*** I understand thia dcoo net in any way refer to any plant of 3ohro-l'anv111c, but I an wondering whether the proprietor of plant '? has had an opportunity to review the r.ormant* It atrihoa no that the report would oorvo overy purpose if wo leave out in tho first line of tho paragraph on that yalloy the '.TOi't's 'was unnecessarily dusty**. However, that is a not tor with which wo are indirectly concerned and X merely euggeot it for ccnsideratioJ It is the earns expression which appears in the P.cport of 1931 at page 11. Galley 13. )Jo consent. (4) Cal* 14. The word "death* should be inserted after the words rtC of 3C" in the third paragraph of subtitle Insurance Claim", You hrwe already called attention to this in year lcttox* of Usceabcr 10 to Ur. Lanrca. (5) Gal, 14 under subtitle Conclusion. Ko. 1. I agree with your suggestion iu better to Ur* Lnnna of Cece-nber 10th that there should be added to this conclusion a statement sir:liar to that which appeared (at p* 20) in tho Heport of 1931, namely, Clinically,it ia of a type ztiltfer than ailicosiort or, if the doctors do not want to snV.o tho statement in that positive form, it might bo as fcllovfo (an suggoctod in your letter); "Clinically fro-.-i thia study it appeared to be of a typo nildor than eilicosia"; or, if that io too Gv.rcnp, *-- tiii*ht be set forth r.o follows: *'.ao far so indicated by tho V^* oRbeoti'sS* io of a type (or appears to cc cf a typo) nildor than b .i..cf!t'_c", Vbn exact wording is not. iraportar-t, except that I thill! it f ^ Vo l^oirr.blG (if the doctors arc satisfied that ouch is tho fact), v~i`aVv " '"c o^preosion comparing nstectosia with silicocis mid indicating ...^t trere io a real difference botwona tho tws diseases, so far as d s n a . i c .rnwlcdre now indicates, Of course, hero again I have in mind no ^rorv. J1 ity that the lew Jcroey Coraisoion will introduco a bill in J ',*1'?.-;*'jrn w-'lch ore in January of 1935; and if it is the :0Licy o ^orns- 'iinviilo to oppose nny bill that attempted to include? U . 45.i * ac c^ot:otAVlo, it would bo very helpful to have an official rV C''? there is a substantial difference between asbostvsin Ui ;.slicociot and v.y ^>n(} oaru> to>on it would be troublesome if an Ut , Tamilv ar Brersn "3 official retort should anpear from ^ i c h tho conclusion nisht to drawn ihat thore is very iittle if any difference) between tha two diaeaeea. as ITo, 2. I understand that the .statenent/to tho cardiac cclarretnent ia correct fron a scientific standpoint, and I do not s o g hew we can conniotcntly object to it, I?o* 3* I afrree that tho word "prcliainary* is superfluous. ??o# 4* 0. IT. Be. 5, Thto roada the name no on pn^e 21 of tho `deport of 1031 and, banco, it rcay bo a littlo late to object* However, I point out that aa Ho, 5 now read3 tho inforonco roifrht be drawn that ggbe3toaie does add to the mortality of tuberculoaia ca3ea. But that inference does hoT"neon to ba justified from,thia study, I ata -wenderinr if it would bo a noro accurate scienfitic ot&tcrjcnt if there vcro omitted from Bo, 5 tho la3t throo words, to~wit *other than lubarculcaia**, Bo, 6* This is tho same no net forth on pare 21 of Hevort of 1931, with tho omeopticn that tho noport of 1931 at the end of the sentence has tho vroi*do "than froe silica (C5i02)n and tho ralley proof has the v?ordo "than fjranito dust**, iioro amain it may bo a littlo late to criticize the otatsment, but I do~not Hire tho surroeticr, that there io a possibility that asboatoalc cay cause pneumoconiosis noro readily than pranito duet. he reason 1 object is that many cases of silicosis are ouppoaed to originate in r-ranito Ouat and this statement oo it new road3 curcesto that a possibility that a pnauaoconiooio nay aria more readily fron noboefcoa*' than rrre.nlto du3t, I thin): we should, if possible, elininata all that part of ccneluaien Ko, 6 followinf tho eoai-colon after the words "of air* in lino 2 of tha conclusion, ITo, 7, 'bis is the imno B3 !n the Hoport of 1931, lio corerasnt, {6} Cal, 14 end 13 subtitle '^eco;.'5:^Jr;dationo*,, In my copy of tho noport of 1931 I have a pencil nemo, aa to recornendatlon Bo, 4 to insert tho word "possible" befere tho rord "cffecto" so t;o to have it read **aa well as otudieo on the possible cffocta of nobeotoeJe on the ho-nrt and circulation'*, I do not thin1; the point is of each iajortance, but I call attention to it so that it is not overlooked. I nrree with tho other ousfleotiono In your letter to Sr. T^inaa of Toccnbor 10th. Very truly yolito.