Document zJ2KxOr0XMMpnnQgO9G1rEMg

FILE NAME: General Electric (GE) DATE: 1932 Sept 26 DOC#: GE141 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Letter to Mr. Hellmuth, NS & Mil Railroad Cov Questioning the Validity of the Sandblasting Study I under the fair use provisions of the copyright law of the United States (17 USC 107), this single copy was produced for reference use onlv fro * material m Manuscripts and Archives, Yale University Library, P.O. Box 208240, 128 Wall Street, New Haven CT 2652C-824C Unless permission is granted, neither this copy nor the words on it may be: reproduced in any form; used by an unauthorized person; or placed in the collections of any institution or individual. September 26,1932 MCrhiGca.Tg.oH, eNUomrtuhthS, hore and Milwaukee Railroad Company, 72 West Mams S t., Chicago, 111. My dear Br.Greenburg has shown me your le tte r of September 21 mid I want to take the responsibility of answering for him and for nyself and setting forth our attitude with regard to the whole problem of the sandblasting stuffy. f ir s t of a ll I think i t v ita lly important to distinguish between three questions. (1) la the report a scien tifically valid one? {S) Is it expedient for the Safety Council to publish it? (3) I f the Safety council does not publish it what rights has the U.3 .Public Health Service in regard to the document? from the standpoint of scien tific validity I do not think there is anything in Mr.Hoyt* s memorandum that raises any new question of significance. It is not true as stated that two well qualified workers w ill obtain widely different results with the same method} but i t is true that different methods of dust determination give variable results and therefore require different standards in their interpretation. This was fu lly allowed for by the Committee The Committee also considered carefully the question of s ilic o s is and decided at the outset that the evidence was overwhelming and that there was no need to go into that matter again. The committee had also brought before it very fu lly the question of the representative character of the sampling and decided that the procedure followed was sound. The committee went into a ll of these matters in great d eta il and adjourned sine die. I can see no Under the fair use provisions of the copyright law of the United States (17 USC 107), this single copy was produced for reference use only from material in Manuscripts and Archives, Yale University Library, P.O. Box 208240, 128 Wall Street, New Haven CT 06520-8240. Unless permission is granted, neither this copy nor the words on it may be: reproduced in any form; used by an unauthorized person; or placed m the collections of any institution or individual. Under the fair use provisions of the copyright law of the United States (17 USC 107), this single copy was produced for r-.ference use only from material in Manuscripts and Archives, Yale University Library, P.O. Box 208240, 128 Wall Street, New Haven CT 06520-8240 Unless permission is granted, neither this copy nor the words on it may be: reproduced in any form: used by an unauthorized person: or placed m the collections of any institution or individual. -2- ^ s ^ A Ca ti0n,fDr-.ean.lag the committee together again and fe e l pretty sure that it s sc ien tific m eters would not be w illin g to devote the tin to the rehashing of these questions, fhe problem of the expediency of jublishing the report i s an entirely different one, I think Mr.Hoyt is right in saying that much cf the good we hoped for w ill undoubtedly be accomplished by such m blieity as has been obtained. Furthermore the basic material, as you may perhaps be aware, has already yearned in a foreign publication in a paper which I sent to Germany early la st March at a time when we a ll had reason to assume the report of the committee woild be published in May before the appearance of the German journal I enclose a copy of this panphlet for your information, I can say very frankly that in view of the opposition that has been aroused I can see thre are strong arguments of p o litica l expediency against the publication of the report by the Council. This,however, i s a practical question rests with the executive Committee and has nothing to do with the technical committee. If the Council decides not to publish the report, tie question as^to the policy to be pursued by the Public Health service Will have to be taken^irectly with them. Yours very sincerely, Enc. foUnder the fair use i or placed m the collections of any institution or individual.