Document oeJZ5j8YVRzqXdd24KLkpVnYw

8 o*rCv* z 3 >o o m z c 2& y> > s- 3 *+ wa# o#* s t/3 OrCPsa?i1 O a pi sj s v* June 7 s 1943 Vs. G. V. Mitchell, Me<Steal Supervisor, RoKington Arms Company, Inc., Bridgeport, Connecticut. Pear Dr. Mitchell*. . ........... I am sending you herewith the analytical results on four sets of samples recently sent ta us. A void of comment is Justified in each instance. In the case of there has been a satisfactory drop in the concentraSIo^^^^Hsd in both the blood and urine. The urinary lead concentration is still high, how ever, and evidently this employee had a rather severe exposure to lead. In the case of the low lead concentration in the urine suggests that the present symptoms are not due to lead. Unfortunately, the blood sample was lost, but it is probable that the blood is not high in it3 lead concentration. (There has been some tendency among these women to have disproportionately low urinary concentrations, and consequently I cannot be too certain in my interpretation of the urinary values. This is certainly an unusual feature in the case of adults, and therefore I suggest the advisability of obtaining blood samples in every instance where possible.; The history of this patient, and especially the fact that she has persistent symptoms, despite her lack of exposure since May 1, leads me to suspect that her symptoms were never due to lead absorption. The other laboratory findings rather strengthen this opinion, and I strongly suspect that it will be found that she has some other illness unrelated to lead absorption. a significantly high blood lead, and one which could be associated with symptoms of intoxication. Again in this instance the lead concentration in the urine is low, thereby justifying what I said above. I wonder if it could be that these women are drinking an unusual quantity of some beverage in pre paration for the collection of the sample. If not, we shall cer tainly have to give some additional consideration to the variable response of women with respect t^urij^m^ead excretion. The results obtained in the case of flimHII^Prather- suggest that she is still having some lead e^osur^^Tne blood concentration is but little lower than that previously obtained, whereas the urinary concentration is higher than it has been previously. The two sets of results are in good agreement at present, thereby indicating that this patient has no renal injury that is inter fering with her lead excretion* It would certinly be worth while KE 0018507 Dr. G. V. Mitchell - (S) - June 7 194 3 in this case to establish beyond any doubt the existence or non existence of present occupational lead exposure. I enclose herewith an invoice to cover the cost of these analyses. Cordially yours, RAK ef enc. Robert A. iiehoe, ti, f>. |< 0018508