Document vBBk7pneGBymroqRJ1gp3y02R

July 30, 1956 M r. M anfred Bowdifcch Lead Industries A ssociation 420 Lexington Avenue N ew Y ork C ity 17 D ear Manfred: Your left-h an d ed rem ark s to m e about m y p articip ation in the "La Luce" affa ir lea v e m e un disturbed. You m ay have ap p reciated the fa ct that I did not stick out m y n eck . I w as certain ly hard put to avoid eith er saying so m e thing that should not be said , or acq u iescin g to it, and so being quoted. I sh all be keenly in terested in the story of the affair, if or when it issu es forth. In the n a tter o f you r D r . G ie s s e l, I cannot be too m uch a r o u se d . T h ere a re m any a sp ects of the situation that are ju st a s bad as this in many parts of the country. A ctu ally, in som e p la ces it is b eliev ed , or at le a s t hoped - in any ca se tue idea is being toyed w ith if not actu ally ca rried out - that this p ro ce dure of keeping the ex cretio n of lead up to the le v e l of absorption, by the regu lar passing out of table ts to workm en by laym en, without benefit of any m ed ical advice or su p e r v isio n ^ I am prepared to do what I can about it, but I do not plan to enter into d ir e ct p o lem ics on it with p h y sicia n s. Rather I hope to p ro v id e s o m e in s tr u c tio n in w hat to do and how to do it , a s a su b stitu te fox* p o o r p r a c tic e s that ax'a the r e s u lt o f aix in ad eq uate g r a sp of th e p r o b le m . With the foregoin g idea in m ind I have w ritten to D r . G ie s se l as one collea g u e to another, and have offered to show him how better to do what he is attem pting to do. I send you a copy of m y le tte r , w ith the req u est that you regard it as a co n fid en tia l co m m u n ica tio n fo r you r own in fo r m a tio n . It Is due you fo r your enex-getic efforts in this situation, but no good can com e of a la p se , so to speak, of p rofession al co u rtesy , on m y part. You can speak of it aiscx-eetly if you w ish, but p le a s e do not circu late the le tte r . I hope I am not criticizin g you or our other in terested frien d s, by im p lication , in m y explanation to D r. G iessel of m y purpose and sou rce of inform ation. I have to have som e handle to what m ight otherw ise be regarded as an intrusion. The paper of M anville et al m entioned in various item s of correspondence between y o u r self, G ie sse l and oth ers is the one w hich I c r itic iz e d vigorou sly from the flo o r of the Buffalo m eetin g . I a lso took issu e with D rinker about it, from the a sp e ct of pu blication. It is a p rim e exam ple of what I expected in rather stupid m ed ical c ir c le s , and spoke again st in m y ed ito ria l. Incidentally, D rinker does not agree with m e at a ll. 0014339 M r, M anfred Bow ditch * (2) - July 30, 1956 I am a lso w riting D r, G eorge of Sydney, belatedly, to be sure, but as fully as I c a n , I'm a ttem p tin g to c le a r up m y s a d ly n e g le c te d c o r r e sp o n d e n c e b e fo r e getting away to die m ountains on A ugust 3, I en clo se a copy of m y letter to him , sin ce th is, clea rly , is a different situation from that in which D r. G iessel is in v o lv ed . With r eg a r d s, ' Sincerely yours, Robert A . Kehoe, M. B. RAK ef Enc. Ki? 0014340