Document zdJzwZwEZzwDVRmr3V0aL61K0

FILE NAME: Saranac (SAR) DATE: 1946 May 8 DOC#: SAR056 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Letter to Mr. Woodward of J-M from Dr. Gardner RE Dr. Heuper's Paper on Cancer in Relation to Occupation & the Environment THE SARANAC LABORATORY FOR TEE STUD! OF TUBERCULOSIS OF TEE REWARD L. THUIZAU FOUNDATION f May 8, igU6 Mr. J. P. Woodard Johns-Manville Corp. Nev York, N. Y. Dear Page: I vaa pleased to aea the copy of Dr. Eaupar*a paper ca Cancer In ita relation to occupation and environment and, aa requested, I am returning It horevith. It la veil knovn that aaheatoela has heen mentioned as one of the causes of pulmonary cancer because of the fact that there are nev on record some tventy-three caaea of coincidence of the tvo conditions, I am not at all sure that aelectlon haa not played a largo part in these publications. Everybody la looking for a cauae of cancer, and vhenever even a auspicious occupational hlatory ia obtained, the doctor la likely to publish bia case vlth suggestions that some dust or fume haa been the cause. Hovever, tho number in the case of osbestosis ia sufficiently great to bo improselYe. I, myself, have felt that this notion la erroneous, since examination Of films of persons employed in the asbestos industry haa, to my knovledge, not ahovn any exceaa of carcinoma of the lung. Dr. Yestal concurs in this idea; nevertbe less, 'the notion prevails in medical circles. It la to collect and publish more reliable information on this and other little appreciated phases of the asbestos problem that I hope ve may have the opportunity to reviev all films of Johns-Manville employees. Some body should do thia for the aabeatos industry in the United States. I believe that somebody' should be outside of the industry, aa obviously It vould then carry more veight. I hope, before I die, the opportunity may be afforded ua. There ia one other phase of the subject, hcvever, that I believe deserves consideration. In one of my reports to your group, I noted that there vaa an unusually high incidence of cancer of the lung in vhite mice vhich had been exposed to asbestos duat. This species of animal does not develop asbestesie, largely, I think, because of the air passegea too small to permit Inhaling of fibrous asbestos. Nevertheless, ve did find over 80$ of mice exposed to asbestos shoving tumors of tho lung, and only some 15$ or 20$ of those exposed to other dust8 shoved tumors of this nature. These findings represented a summary of all our experience vith mice in asbestos dust. Experiments vere not done vlth the purpose of demonstrating cancer. No attempt vas made to control the ohaervotlon. No care vaa taken to select e strein of mice that vas or vas not susceptible to tumor. Cancer has not developed in any other species of animal used in the experiment. ' * ' V - 2- In view of the publicity given cancer of the lung, I thought that the subject deserved, further experimental Investigation. I have cade a proposal to the National Cancer Institute for a grant of $15,000 to carry on a three-year experiment., I talked the matter over vith Dr. Rhoads of the Memorial Hospital and he vaa highly enthusiastic. As a member of the appropriation committee of the National Cancer Institute, he made favorable recommendation. Hovever, other members of the coraaittee turned it dovn and the subject vaa dropped. I still believe that it might be a suitable matter for further investigation. t More important, hovever, vould be tho analysis of films of persons employed in the asbestos industry. If a large enough number of such films vere reviewed by one central agency, I am quite sure that ve vould have evidence to controvert tho implications of the case reports nov in the medical literature. I enclose a reprint by tvo of my associates dealing vith the general subject of pulmonary cancer and inhaled dust. In the bibliography I have checked sevoral articles reporting cases in asbestos vorkera. Sincerely, e f Roy Leroy U. Gardner Director - t* - Ur in ')