Document omVM8b74x0z6enErMN8VB99Lr

FILE NAME: Raybestos-Manhattan (RBM) DATE: 1934 DOC#: RBM086 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Correspondence between Met Life Insurance Co. & Vandiver Brown of Johns-Manville - 2- a silicosis hazard, is noteworthy". > Both the foregoing ab serrationa included in your original report presented an aspect of your .survey that was favorable to tho industry and should jLUco to eee then re tained* (3) On galley 14 tho word ndeathw has been omitted alter the phrase 6 of 36. (4) Conclusion Ko* 3 (galley 14) . Tho word preliminaiy" ic inserted --- to my mind unnecessarily -- since the entire article ie definitely labelled at the com mencement as a npreliminary" study. (5) Referring to the last sentence of the third paragraph on pago 13 (which i3 not changed in the galley proof), i> 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 now, it is not . entirely clear juct what one is expected to deduce therefrom. VBsT CC* liecars,George S. Hobart E.M. Vocrhees S.A. Hillinna Very truly yours Vandiver Brown Attorney WoAbRDart " JOPER #NC J-KELLY /.GAfFEY >tsoN HOBART / H obart & M inard UFCOURT BUILDING 1180 JftAYMOXX) BOULEVARD XEV"ARK,XBW JERSEY Bao. 15, 1S31. fta preliminary atudy of Hetropolitar: Lifo Insuraneo Company zz--oea*s z -atoo jir Tniriiver p r o m Attorney, john~!'anv illc p2 4th ..itroot, t'cv? York City, Corporation, peer Ur. Brovrn: I received your letter of Tscccmbor 10th with enclosures, including proof of tho r:rclin:i3?ary study outitied, n;5ffeetc of the Inhalation of As'bestcs 3>.iot on the Lirars of Asbestos wcrkorn", I have carofolly examined the proof and return name* In rqsdirirr thia proof I have compared It with tho paper of the err-g title which wau prepared "by the Industrial Health Service of the 'otroj-oli tan about throe years air0 1 submit tho following aurrgoation (Tor convenience of reference I have nurfborod :rjy commento in rod pencil in the margin of the eeroral papeo of the galley proofs}5 al. 11* At tho end of tho pararr&ph which tisesoea the v a o r ^ t o * % C 4an c n ? OC ^ / ^ - t h C iittt T co:-- ion diconos, for nhv^+^~?R c l y vritc.xn a coroy.urntivaly r e c a n t t i n e that rn * *n T c c rniaad Vy tho nodical and aciou'-lfic orofoagi one the l:y -t o OR? f S" r princlrnl defenses in actions real not lar theory of n o g l i r e n c o h a n 'roen that tha ^ o d ' l r ' - TOO' C J t -nooirlcdP'o h a o boor; i n s u f f i c i e n t u n t i l ft v e r y recent P ^ c o u p o n tho o-.mcro cf p la n t e or factor i e s t** h . r d e n or duty heir'iSpi^cci;1 prec3utl3OT ^ = oniet^f'the d i s e c a tu ,.j k 3 > therefore Oicliho to haro thio report, aurr^ai that aohc-atoai lr" ' ** ftsrmnod to he oi'ilarJ to oillcooio, either k V t o tho period * 2 T - fire within 'which it nichi develop, or no to the deoage rccoived "by the lutse**, ar Gfl t0 t1r, ^^tity of dust, eta# (2) Cal# 11* At the bottom o f t h is g n llo y X obaeryo th a t ic oct forth in a noto {instead of in the "body of the article) tho ,,V^tc'.-ont that appears in tho Report of 1931 relating to tho enlrirgcnicnt of "the particles and the uao of XogarlthtE^i. (Geo p* 7 of Report of 193l). Ag a nottor of euriooity I vondar why this ctatomont (which ceemg to no ptitto ivseortnnt) is put in a rota instead of in tho body of the article* jj* tho outbora prefer to have it in the fora of a note, of couroo, their uiirccnt ehould control, as it hue no particular hearing in ar.y event y P on the points in which the company io interested (3) Cal# 19* The last pararraph on this pulley has & aurr.ray of the dust counts with respect to tho aeveral planter* I notice that it io stfitcd that plant 22 r'wao unnecessarily dusty*1* I underotand thia dens not in any way refer to any plant of 3ohno-Lanvills, hut I an. wendorinr whether the proprietor of plant * haa had an opportunity to reviev/ the coimant# It strike a that the rsy-.ort '-would oorro every purpose if wo le&7e out in tho firot line of the paragraph on that palloy the words `hvao unnccescartly dusty**. Iicw-eyer, that is a natter with nhich wo arc indirectly concerned and X merely auggeat it for considcrutioi It is the 3is.no exprosaion which ar.7;ear3 in tho I-iersort of 1931 at page 11* G a lle y 13* > . Io c o g e n t . (4) Cal* 14* The word "death* should he Inserted aftor tbo words **C of 3C" in the third paragraph of subtitle nInsurance Cloina'* You ha7e already called attention to thia in your letter* of Pacenbcr 10 to Ur. Lanza* (5) aal, 14 under subtitle ^Conclusion* Ko* 1* X cwrroe with your suggestion in Setter to Ur* Lanza of kjcGrVbax' 10th that there should he added to this conclusion a statement similar to that which appeared (at p* 20) in tha Report of 1931, namely, "Clinically,it is of a type milder than aillcooin* #.#. or, if the doctors do not went to make tho atstoment in that pooitive fora, It night he ao fcllovfa (an suogoGtod in your letter); "Clinically,iron thia ntudy it appeared to he of a typo nildor than eilieoKic'; or, if that io too ctrenr-, it ni^ht ho oct foi'th aa follows: lh o far aa indicates by the study, noT-eatoeiK 'io of a type (nr appears to re vC n. typo) nilcer than Bilicnoic*'. vho exact sordini? is not. insertart f except that I think it would Vo -enirnhle (If the dcctoro are miti cried that ouch is the fact), to have arms expression comparing aaVectoois with silicosis and indicating that there io a real difference between tho two diseases, so far as cciontific knorledre now ir.dicntos* Of conrao, box's again I have in nind tho proVah i1it;; that the hew Jcrocy Corosiaolon will introduco a bill in' tho I.e--iulnturn w-.lch opens in January of 1935* ftd If it in the policy o f Jor.''!-j-" jjLuv ills to oppose nny bill t h a t a t t e m p t e d to i n c l u d e aol-ootcsio, a o ccnsnenonblo, I t ' - o s l d Vo v e r y h e l p f u l t o have rln o f f i r i u l re o r t t o s h e ? t h a t t h o r n i o a s u b s t a n t i a l d i f f o V c n c c between a s b o e t v o i r ; and n.iiicceicT jind hy t h e n;r.v''i t o - ' c n it woul d Vc t rou Vi a some* i f an ,}Jr. `vanii!vbt Broun "3* official report should any car fren hch tho conclusion raicht to drawn hat thore is very little if any differcnco between tha two d iocaees. aa XTo* 2. X understand that the .statenent/to the cardiac enlarrersent is correct fron a ociontific standpoint, and I do not s g q has- ve can consistently object to it* Ho# 3* I agree that the word "prcl.ictirary* In superfluous* To# 4* 0. K* pe* 5* This? reads the sane no on pa^e 21 of the Report of 1931 and, banco, it rcay "bo a little late to object* Hrwever, X point out that as h'o, 5 now read3 tho inforonco niprht be drawn that osbostosia doos_add to the mortality Of tuberculosis cases. ,S3ut that inference (Toeoliet neon to bo justified frost .thie study* 1 nta wonderinf if it would bo a raora accurate scicnfitic nta.ter.ent if there vrcTQ omitted fron ]>o* 5 the la3t thro words, to-wit ''other than tuberculosis"* Ho* 6* This is tho sane an net forth on porno 21 of Report of 1233- with tho oreoption that the Kopcrt of 1931 at the end of the cntcr-ca has tho words "than froc eilica (ni02)n and the rr-lley proof has the words `'than granito duet*1* lloro ugniti it may be a ittlc ortici20 the otateant, but I do not lile the 2,;rfl/3stion that there io a possibility that aebootocic cay cauce ^ on ionio moro readily than granito dust, he reason I object * 'i*" -any casen of silicosis are ouppoaod to originato in and this statement aa it new reads auree at a trrat a posoibiliu^ that & pneuraoconioaio nay arise mors z'oadil from aabaofcos^ then rr^ni'*:17 ^u3^* I think we should, if possible, elin-nata all that part of ooncluoien ire, 6 following tha ooni-colcn after the words "of if*1 in **r,a 2 f tho conclusion. o# 7* This is tho sane 03 in the Report of 1931. lio ceS3nu* (6) fala 14 end 15 subtitle 'iecot.'Kiendat ions'*. in ny copy of tho Report of 1931 1 havo a pencil no-"0 ' ao to rscoraendfttton P'o. 4 to insert tho word "pooaiblc" refere the "affecto" so as to have it read "aa well as studios sn^t.c ^ 3 ,,jplo cffocto of nobentosi a on the hoart and circulation" *' n^'t "thiH1-' the point is of nudi im;ortance, but I call attention to it no that it is not overlooked* I nproe with the cthor ouggactiono in your letter to t'tr' t\j~n>nza of Taconear loth. or-y.rf V o r y t r ul y y o li r c , (COPY) December 21, 1934- Dr. A. J. Lanza, Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 1 Madison Avenue, New York City. Dear Dr. Lanza: I am handing you herewith the galley proof of your preliminary study entitled "Effects of Inhalation of Asbestos Dust upon the Dungs of Asbestos Workers". I am also enclosing copy of Hr. Hobart's letter to me of December 15th which contains his cojuments as to-certain aspects of the study that he considers undesirable from the industry viewpoint. I trust that you will give his comments and suggestions, as well as those mentioned in ny letter of December 10th, your' most serious consideration. I am sure that you understand fully that no one In our organization is suggesting for a moment that you alter by one jot or tittle any scientific facts or inevitable conclusions revealed or justi fied b.y your preliminary survey. .All v/e ask is that all of the favorable aspects of the survey be included and that none of the unfavorable be unintentionally pictured in darker tones than the t circumstances justify. I feel confident we can depend upon you ! and Dr. McConnell to give us this "break" and mine and Mr. Hobart ! suggestions are presented in this spirit. Sincerely yours, V3:T Enclosure Vandiver Brown Attorney