Document zQMy3yL2oL1MJXyR5om6EwvQn

I. I General Headquarters, August 29, 1933. Personal & Confidential Mr. A. R. Fisher, Manager, Manville Factory QUESTIONS ASKED OR. A. J. LANZA AND HIS ANSWERS VERBATOM Attached is copy made by Mr. Kottcanp's office of questions asked Dr. A. J. Lanza by our local physician at Waukegan and his answers; also the reccmendations by our plant physician. I would like to have you turn this over to someone who oould review this correspondence and then go over it yourself and write me your opinion of it. . | S. A. NZUlAtS, I i Vice President cc - Mr. J. P. Kottcaqp Waukegan Factory QUESTIONS ASKED OR. A. J. LANZA AND HIS ANSWERS VEREATUM Question No.l. Among eleven employees in the Textile department, all exposed to asbestos dust, one only wears a respirator, several on being questioned claim they cannot wear them continuously especially in hot weather. Should all errplcyees be forced to wear these respirators whether subjected to much or little asbestos dust? Is any such difficulty experienced at the Manville N.J. J-ti plant or other places of which you have knowledge? Answer: Respirators are not satisfactory. It is possible to construct a respirator which will filter out fine dust, but it would offer so much re* sistance to respiration that it could not be worn continuously an an eight hour shift. There are cn the narket small face sasJc respirators which are equipped with positive pressure and these are both satisfactory, efficient, nd comfortable but they cannot be worn except by a person who stands in one Iplace as they have to be hooked up with a rubber tube to an air line. I doubt if they would be practical in a textile plant. Questions No.2. . . .. . Do you agree with my recamendation that employees definitely be made aware of the fact that asbestos dust is hazardous to their health? My idea is that a poster be placed at cne or sere conspicuous places in the de partment, signed by the physician, stating that the dust is injurious, ad vising the continuous use of respirators while at work and cleansing of hands before eating lunch and after work. Your criment cn this please and particularly is there any addi tional advice that should be given? Answer: This is partially answered by No. 1. I doubt if the hazard is sufficient to justify warning posters as might be used where lead, benzol or carbon monoxide are concerned. This is especially true in view of the extraordinary legal situation. If anything is said at all, it would be better to make a general statement that the Company is taking steps to control the amount of dust in the air for general health purposes. - Any action contentDlated at Waukegan would probably be influenced by the experience at other lants of the Ccspany. Question No.3. Do you regard the finding of asbestosis bodies in the sputum as pathogenesis of asbestosis? I have one employee with x-ray and physical findings pointing tcward asbestosis but not sufficiently definite that I can be positive as to whether or not she has asbestosis. However, every one of four or five speci mens of sputum examined shew typical asbestosis bodies. On the other hand, is it possible for a person to have asbestosis and not be able, with careful and thorough search to find asbestosis bodies in the sputum? Answer: The presence of asbestos bodies in the sputum only inplies that the individual has been exposed to asbestos dust. I am not certain of the exact pathological significance. My iupressicn is that the presence of asbestos bodies in the sputum indicate sane definite lung pathology. I be lieve it is quite possible for an individual to have asbestosis without asbestos bodies in the sputum. Question No.4. Are you of the opinion that the added information derived from stereoscopic films of the*chest justified the procedure of taking a stereo on every case that is to be x-rayed? This is the conclusion I drew fron Or. Pancost's talk in Chicago. - Do you consider it advisable and practical that an x-ray film be taken of every employee in the Waukegan J.M plant who is exposed to asbestos or silica dust? TO date I have x-rayed only those cases suspected, from history or physical findings, of having asbestosis of other lung pathology. Answer: Stereoscopic films are better than single films. They are also more expensive. In our work at the Picher Clinic, we used single films siirply an account of the expense involved. You can diagnose silicosis or any other form of pTeumoccniosis from a single flat film. <*i the other hand, you can probably get a more cmplete and accurate idea of the exact condition of any given case frtn a stereo. If it is the intention to determine what may be the* extent of pneumoconiosis among employees, obviously the only thing to do is to x-ray-------- all of them and then correlate your findings with the length of exposure and mature of the job in order that you say get a fairly accurate idea of what Che hazard is. ' Question No.5. i I have made a diagnosis of asbestosis an an enployee who has been working in the card room of the textile department six years. This place is extremely dusty. He is not disabled. In my judgment the best disposi tion of such a case is to ranove him frun the dust and give him a job in sane other part of the plant. From your remarks in Chicago I believe this was your advise as to the disposition of sudh cases. Answer: It is difficult to answer this question. I think it would depend upon the man's age, the nature of his work, his length of service, and other considerations which might have sane bearing. If he is well along in years and shews no disability, it may be just as well to leave him alone. One of the difficulties and vexations in trying to deal with the problems of pneumoconiosis is that eoanatiic as well as production factors must be balanced against the medical factors. Question No. 6. . We have what seams to be an unfortunate situation existing in the fact that the asbestos textile department including loans, twisters, pools, etc. occupies one side or about half the width of a long building, the other side of which is occupied by the packing, brake lining and other departments in which there is very little dust. The card roam, or most dusty part of the textile department is isolated by partition. Further isolation of the textile department involves considerable expense. Should or would you be guided by the dust osunts and other observations in these adjoining departments? Answer: I think the answer to the situation outlined in this question is the control of dust in those processes that cause it. then everything possible has been dene- to accocplish this result, it may then be necessary to isolate or confine the dusty processes so as to avoid needless exposure of other employees not concerned in these processes. This is a situation that occurs in nany different types of industrial hazard. It calls for nothing more than the application of penman sense to the problem.