Document nkJdnqRBOGr9RRZn82MoLMKD2

N13174 jedical Director Employe & Public Relations Dept. Health Division Texaco Inc. 135 East 42nci Street New York 17, N.Y. Dear Dr. Baylor: I find that in ray absence from the Laboratory for a few days, the analyses of the samples of the urine and blood of Mr. completed and the report went"through the mi'll" in the usual manner and was forwarded to you with a bill, in accordance with your instructions. The interpretation of the analytical results was made in the usual manner and is entirely correct, but non-commital. For your purposes (and mine) in relation to the problem at issue, it requires some further elaboration. As I suspected from the information which was supplied to me about Mr. and as I believed to be very nearly certain, from the ana^tical results that had been obtained and reported to me, It is now quite clear that has not absorbed any significant quantity of lead,in association with his work or with any other environmental condition $during recent times. It is not possible for a man who has absorbed enough lead to cause lead poisoning to so eliminate the absorbed lead as to arrive at_ the ,.i , i condition in which he was found to be by these analyses, These results are in the low zone of the, normal range, as they might be expected to be if he had been at about the average level within the normal range at the time of the administration of EDTA. Such therapy as was given will remove normal lead from the soft tissues and lower the concentration of lead in the blood and urines Such therapy will not, however, reduce a high level of lead in the body to the normal range. Several courses of chelate therapy are required to do this. The analytical results reported as having been found in the urine were inordinately high. It is most unusual, even in the most severe types of occupational exposure to lead, to find concentrations of lead in the urine of the order of 1 milligram or more per liter, while over 3 milligrams per liter is unheard of. It was likely, therefore, m view of Mr. story, that these results were wholly erroneous (the f a c ^ f B ^ ^ n e y ranged from nil to 3.6 rag. per 24 hours (or perhaps per liter) is still further suspicious K H 0012541 With ail due regard for Dr. Kobert Wilson's knowledge, skill and Judgment, he has been misled by the analytical findings which were reported to him. His patient did not have lead poisoning, and the therapy which he administered was pointless. This is not an unusual mistake in relation to lesions of the nervous system that are somewhat less than typical. The important aspect of this matter, however, relates to the patient. Since he did not have lead poisoning (from which recovery is likely to be complete) he had something else which may well be a much greater threat to his future well-being. This fact should be taken into account, so that this man will be kept (discreetly) under observation and given further medical help, if he should need it. I hope he recovers uneventfully and completely, but in view of the vague nature of his illness, this is by no means assured. I shall not undertake to communicate directly with Doctor Wilson unless he initiates some discussion of this matter, but you are at liberty to pass my view on to him if you choose. Cordially yours, RAK:ss Hobert A. Kehoe, M. D 0012542 URINE Analysis Number Volume Specific Gravity Mg. Pb/Liter 63A- 242 l4l ml. 1 .0 1 8 0 .0 3 BLOOD Analysis Number Grams Mg. Pb/lOO Grams 63A- 243 Spec tro,graphic Dithizone 11.7 0 .0 2 17.5 0 .0 2 The concentratioxi of lead in the urine and the blood is \/ithin the normal limit. r j` ~ i * L r - Mitchell R. Savph, M.D./ N13174.01 KG' ujg04J Samples Collected: 1-12-63 Samples Received: 1-16-63 Samples Reported: I-I8 -6 3 January 21, 1963 To: Texaco Consrany Hew York 17, Hew York attention: or. G. H. Baylor For: r.ci. burooment of The :.c .s,or:i;y Laboratory Tor the analysis ox the urine and blood of for the determination of lead. 2 analyses at f12.50 each 29 .0 0 N13174.02 KE" 001354i 'J