Document nkX4M89Yrap5vQNgbkNM2GKm8

June 17j 1965 S. Colum Gilfillan, Ph.D. 1215 Ocean Avenue Santa Monica, California 90-^01 Dear Doctor GilfilIan: I'm afraid I have treated you shabbily/'as indeed I have a number of other people, whose affairs have been brought to my attention In recent monohs through correspondenc e. I've been so hard-pressed for time that I've attended to the Imme- ' diate demands of the day and have allowed others to be neglected I 'm most apologetic, but that is of no help to you. In dealing with first things first, let me say at once that you are at liberty to send additional specimens to us for analysis. We can carry out the analyse s effective j-y* and we shall do so if you wish. It will have to be your decision, however, after due deliberation. There arc- problems, In this connection, which I think you should consider carefully before you go any farther with analyses or the utilization of analytical results in support ; of your hypotheses. It seems likely that your historical in formation Is relevant, while the analytical results are not. We are giving serious consideration to this matter in relation to attempts to get at the lead content of the skeletons of prehistoric or primitive peoples, so as to find out what may have been the purely natural absorption of lead. Among these problems are two questions to which some definitive answers should be obtained. : . . , - - - 1. Human bones from bodies that have been embalmed may well have had considerable quantities of lead introduced into them after death. It is almost certain that some lead was introduced, but the quantities are open to serious question. They may have been only traces, but this seems unlikely. 2. The skeletons of persons who have been burled so as to have disintegrated in contact with soil (especially moist soil) or with water, will have been contaminated grossly /<X 0002555 Dr. Gilfillan (2) June 17, 1965 with lead. How can one be sure that any bone from any source has not been contaminated in this manner? The dead bone will, without doubt, take up lead, more or less selectively, from moist soil or from water which contains even a low concen tration of lead in solution. In consequence of these problems, every specimen which you have sent to us - unless you know, positively, to the contrary - has yielded untrustworthy evidence of the lead content of the live body, of which, in many instances, the bone is the only tangible residue. In order to know the facts, positively, either you or your local representative would have had to look with meticulous care into the location of the body and all of the conditions which are likely to have affected it throughout the intervening years since its burial. I do not mean, by the statements above, that the information which we have assisted you in obtaining is worth less, but it has to be appraised with very great reservations. Perhaps the distribution of the results, in the statistical sense, will be helpful in arriving at certain crude inter pretations. Some of the bizarre results, such as the one relating to a specimen from "The Agora of Athens" which indicates that this:: spe * cont'ai*ned 108.4 rig. of lead per 100 grams,i_>- `--- 3 and another from Chester (/TEr'''ngland), at the level or o0!14 mg. per 100 grams are beyond the credible range. They must be regarded as severely contaminated*1 Specimens which came from wells, if that means that they i^ere immersed from time to time in water, would certainly yield irrelevant results One ofthese at p6.80, and another of ^9*20, are beyond any levels which we have ever found, even-under the worst condition of intense exposure. They are not impossible but improbable expressions of the state of this body in life. How as to the significance of the lead content of the specific bone, I can only tell: you that we cannot substantiate your belief that every bone has its own potentialities for taking up absorbed lead. I do not believe this is true, but if it should turn out to be so, very much more and better evidence would have to be obtained. What-we know for sure, is that in the person who is absorbing lead under norma1 (average) environmental conditions in the U.S.A., the long bones contain somewhat more lead than does the,flat bone, while the reverse is true under conditions of abnormal absorption. The basic difference here is readily explained, but the facts do not lend themselves to any listing of specific bones beyond that simple fact. In view7 of the facts, however, we are able to Dr. Gilfillan (3) June 1?, 1965 determine in the individual case, at necropsy, whether the exposure to lead was recent or in the distant past, and whether it.was mild or severe. In general the information is now obtained by the analysis of a rib, which can be obtained without mutilation of the body. ; In.your material, considering the prevailing doubt as to the significance of the contamination post-mortem, nothing whatever can be made of the specific bone that' was analysed. :: , . : i / . ! There are some other bits of misinformation and misinterpretation in your article in The Mankind Quarterly. (l) You refer, for example to the wide variation in Individual susceptibility. This, I believe, Is a fiction, and from the aspect of the estimation of the degree of a man's exposure to lead by analytical means, it is quite irrelevant. Your reference to the special susceptibility of children is also, I think, fallacious. There are many "old wives tales" in the lay and medical literature of.lead poisoning. Some of them, undoubtedly, had some basis in fact, but most of them, even those with factual basis, were wholly unscientific conclusions. (?) A more serious fallacy is found in the early part of your article, with its emphasis on the relationships between the metabolism of lead and calcium, with, particular reference to their storage in bone andi their being "dram out" simultaneously under the influence of an "acid condition" or a serious illness. This idea was exploded more than twenty years ago. It Is now known that no such relationship obtains as to the behavior of lead and calciumi. They can and do, in fact, move in opposite directions at the same time. An "acid condition" does not result in the "mobilization" of lead from the skeleton and the precipitation of Illness.I I shall not labor the point, but It Is fair to say that a very large amount of misinformation about the behavior of lead and the characteristics of lead poisoning has been spread through the early literature, for there were no proce dures whereby this disease could be investigated adequately, by biochemical means, prior to the late twenties and early thirties of the present century. It is not wise, therefore, to draw on the early accounts, for precise clinical information There is much of historical interest, which, however, has to be examined critically in the light of the more precise infor mation of the past thirty-odd years. ! ' Dr*. Gilfillan (4) June 1?, 1965 I have no doubt, from the evidence of history, that there was a considerably greater absorption of lead in early times than is now common in the U.S.A. How much greater it was than it is now will never, I think, be known more accurately than it can be guessed at. There are altogether too many variables, and too few opportunities for the collection of valid data. I regret more than you can know, that the evidence of these analyses is as unreliable as it is bound to be, and I 'm even more sorry that I cannot suggest to you the means of gathering valid information. There may be some bodies that have been put away, unembalmed, in some;crypts or caves that have been dry as dust throughout historic time. These, if found and investigated as thoroughly as can be done to establish the facts, would provide invaluable information. Not much can be left to presumption or conjecture, however, if any evidence obtained thereby is to be accepted as valid. With respect to my retirement, which goes into effect on July 1st, 1965i I should tell you that after a brief vaca tion and several months (to December, 1955) spent on a consul tation job in Chile, I shall return to this Laboratory for a time sufficient to get the experimental work on lead into competent hands. After that, we shall see. However, I can be reached through the Laboratory until further notice, and I 'll try to deal more promptly with my correspondence, after my retirement, than I have been able to do during the past year. Incidentally, if you decide to send more specimens for analysis, direct.them to the attention of Professor J. Cholak of this Department, who will continue in charge of the analytical work. .\ ' _ ... W : With kindest personal regards, Sincerely yours, RAKrmeh Robert A. Kehoe, M.D. P.S. Professor Cholak has saved a portion of each specimen which you have sent to us so as to be able to return it to you, should you desire ; him to do so. RAK