Document vkMN2r6rrkgDVwK8nnQM38ob

ILvMmU IfixadljiLaiiipa^^ CLINTON M. C*ANC. PMHOINT 9 H MOWNlLL VlCC M>OCMT W W ROCKWCLL. vice MltiOCnr FCLJX COGaA WOMMKA, t(CKTr AMO 420 LEXINGTON j^ENUE yowk/n.v. November 27, 1945 Dr. Robert A. Kehoe University of Cincinnati Cincinnati, Ohio Dear Bob: I have received further word from Australia which indicates that the current lead hysteria, if I mav terra it that, promises to spread to prohibition of the use of a great many lead products, including, strangely enough, cable sheathing, and that the agitation centers around Dr. Kye. I presume he is the Dr. Kye who is the author of "Chronic Nephritis and Lead Poisoning" pub lished in 1933. After leaving you in Pittsburgh I made it a point to review the file of literature I had in this office on the subject. Much of it I find I received from you, particularly reprints of some of the earlier work on the subject. On rereading Nye's report and also the Government publication, "Plumbism and Chronic Nephritis in Young People in (Queensland" I am becoming increasingly convinced that no case at all has been made for tying in chronic nephritis with lead poisoning in children. I was also nappy to note that your own Committee on Lead Poison ing of the American Public Health Association apparently recognized the invalidity of Nye's conclusions, by making the statement: ".....even in the case of children the production of chronic nephritis, per haps better described as diffusely scarred kidneys, cannot certainly be attributed to the effects of an episode or multiple epi sodes of lead poisoning. The facts in these matters must await further careful clinical investigation." My criticism of Nye's work and the Govern ment's v.ojk is that they do not prove lead poisoning in the children in the first place. They do not prove ex posure and they do not prove the presence of lead poison ing through the alleged exposure. At least, I can not N 3619 L- r. .>. no & November 7, 1945 find any evidence ir. i.ye's book, or the subsequent Govern ment work, that accounted for the great number of cases described in Queensland. To be sure, some of the cases undoubtedly i.ere authentic lead poisoning, as indicated in later and _ore thorough Governme. t work, but Nye depen ded almost entirely, it seems to me, on mere professional prounouncements that the chronic nephritis subjects ap parently had lead poisoning years before they were seen by Nye. No proof of lead poisoning is given in infancy. iTnat sort of scientific v.ork is that? Apparently the Dr. Fairley you mentioned to me in Pittsburgh examined some of the work of Nye and others and reported on it in the tledical Journal of Australia of .day 5, 13?4. In fact, I have Dr. Fairley's report, because of your kindness in letting me hav^- the original reference. Frankly speaking, I think that Dr. Fairley's study has the same defect as that of its predecessors. Rather than to go into a detailed discussion of my criticisms I merely wish at this time to suggest that if you do have any means of procuring further information -from Australia I hope you will try to do so as I gather the situation is serious in Australia and if carried to its con clusion is bound to have unfortunate repercussions in the United States. With kindest regards. me dhel ;/ yours. Secretary.