Document oD1N8OnNQd62dB1L9Y9qpmy0o

Oct ober * 1939 ^^ (j Dr. Easton L. Belkn ap 231 West Wiscon sin Avenue Milwaukee* Wiscon sin Dear Doctor Belkn api You r l e t t e r ot Sep tember 30ih a s v e i l a s t h e sam ples o n ^ p n R ^ came d u r in g my a b sen ce from t h e la b o r a t o r y. The sam ples h ave been a n a lyze d and 1 am sen d in g you h er ew it h a r e p o r t on them* t o ge t h e r w it h my In t e r p r e t a t io n o f t h e r e s u lt s * W s h a ll fo llo w you r su gges t io n and sen d t h e b i l l t o t h e Hardware Mutual Ca su a lt y Company. With referen t o you r comments, X sh ou ld sa y t h a t 1 q u it e a gr e e w it h you as t o t h e g r e a t e r im p ortan ce o f t h e u r in a r y fin d in g s as compared wit h t h o se on t h e b lood . As I d em on strated t o you t h e o t h e r day* t h e u r in a r y r esp on se t o le a d a b s o r p t io n I s b oth more prompt and more d e fin it e th an t h e b lo o d . The b lood le v e ls * In o t h e r words* do n o t ch an ge q u it e a s much p r o p o r t io n a t e ly as do th e u rin ary le v e ls as the r e s u lt o f lea d exposure. The c h ie f ad van tage* In my op in ion * In t h e b lood a n a lys e s l i e s in J u st such a. ca se a s you have b r ou gh t t o ou r a t t e n t io n h e r e . In t h i s in s t a n ce you were a b le t o o b t a in a sam ple o f b lood d i r e c t ly by you r own t ech n iq u e in such a way a s t o s a t i s fy y o u r s e lf t h a t no o p p o r t u n it y fo r oon ta m in a tion occu r r ed * At t h e same tim e you were a b le t o o b t a in a sm all sample o f u r in e under you r d ir e c t super v i s i o n so t h a t h e r e t oo t h e r e was no o p p o r t u n it y fo r con t a m in a t io n . The r e s u lt s on t h e a n a lys e s a r e in com plete agreem ent and a r e* t h e r e fo r e * m u tu ally su pportin g* and as su ch a r e more va lu a b le th an any one r e s u lt . I f one o f them had been h igh and t h e o t h e r low* we m ight liave had r ea son t o su sp ect t h a t one or th e o t h e r was in e r r o r e it h e r as t h e r e s u lt o f con tam in ation o f th e sam ples in p r o ce ss o f c o lle c t io n * o r from some m istaken p r oced u r e in h a n d lin g. As i t is * one oan n ot e n t e r t a in an y doubt a s t o th e r e p r e s e n t a t ive ch a r a ct e r o f t h e two sam ples s in ce th ey have b oth given th e same p h ys io lo g ic a l sign ifica n ce to the in terp reta tion of th is c lin ic a l problem * ' The n ee d les wh ich we u se In t a k in g sam ples o f b lood h ave been m an ufactured ou r KE" 0016633 - 2- o r d e r by th e Max Wocher Sons Company o f Cin cin n a t i. They w i ll be w illin g t o d u p lica t e t h is or d er fo r anyone e ls e , 2 d ar e say* However, co n s id e r in g t h e sm a ll number t h e y h ave made and th e n e c e s s it y o f s p e cia l fa b r ica t io n , th ey are q u ite exp en sive; indeed in my o p in io n , somewhat more exp en sive th a n t h e y should b e. S e n d r a lly sp e a k in g, we can n ot p lace ou rselves in the p o sitio n o f doing rou tin e d ia gn o st ic work, fo r reason s which I ta ke i t a r e q u it e ob viou s t o you . On t h e o t h e r hand we do n ot know an y la b o r a t o r y n ea r a t hand t o wh ich we can send sam ples fo r a n a lys is w it h an y hope o f o b t a in in g r e lia b le r e s u lt s . We u se o u r own d is c r e t io n and Judgment in a cce p t in g ca s e s o f t h is k in d s in ce we can n ot a vo id some fe e lin g o f r e s p o n s ib ilit y fo r making p rop er d ia gn o s t ic p roced u res a va ila b le where th ey are requ ired . Cor d ia lly yours, RAKji s BoberiT ''. ''f hoe' M.TST K Ef 001663.4