:v April Zk>193k Mr George W* Cftmninghara Legal ^parfesienfc Shell Petroleum Corporation Shell Building st*.Louie* Mo* I>ar Mt** Cunn Inghams ^ After reading four letter describing the complaints of the plaintiff In the suit against the Shell Petroleum Corporation* I cm impressed by the difficulty of putting one* finger on what may eventually be the nature of his claim of injury* ' however* it would see likely to mm in vie of the difficulties and misunderstandings which have been associated with the handling of Ethyl Fluid and of leaded gasoline, that the complaint of injury may ' settle around this point* fhia Is particularly the case since the claimant has apparently described certain symptoms which resemble in some respects those which have been attributed to exposure to tetra ethyl lead* I shall ha glad to send you herewith references to articles in the literature which m y have some connection with this problem* and X shall send you some reprints under separate cover which deal with the problems of lead absorption and exposure to Sulphur Dioxide* It m y bt of more us* however, at the present time to outline the way of approach to the problem of lead absorption in the manner In which X believe It should be done* _ First* exposure to Ethyl Fluid and exposure to Ethyl Gasoline are two totally different things;* - Definite exposure to Ethyl Fluid is dangerous ' ' and persons; who have occasion to handle Ethyl Fluid must be surrounded by a number of important safeguards in order to avoid poisoning* Exposure to Ethyl Gasoline on the other hand* la not dangerous* fhere have been no oases of lead poisoning as & consequence of such exposure, and moreover, the evidence is: very sound indeed to indicate that the ordinary handling of leaded gasoline does not result In the absorption of lead* fh reasons for this and inface the entire presentation of this subject can be found In a recent article from this laboratory which appeered in the March number of the Journal of Industrial Hygiene* I do not have a reprint on this article at present but expect to have shortly* and X will send It on to you as soon as X receive It* In the meantime X suggest that you examine the article sine yea will have access to this Journal in boss one of the medlestX and scientific libraries of your city# So far as our record go# there is no evidence that this claimant had been involved In the handling of Ethyl Fluid* However# it is of the utmost importance in the prosecution of your case to have the facte and to bring out clearly such facts as to whether in any way this m n had bean exposed to# or had handled any Ethyl Fluid# In the a m fashion it will be necessary to obtain the foots as to whether or not he had exposure to lead In the fona of litharge The exact nature of the exposure in each case should be described and the duration of the exposure should be made a matter of record# and there should also be testimony, if necessary#, as to the 3 verity of such exposure* I base the above suggestions on the points which it is necessary to cover in order to prove or disprove the occurrence of lead poisoning* In order to prove the occurrence of lead poisoning, one must present the following points clearly?

L IA B IL IT Y CALVIN P.

f Et hyl Gasol ine Cor por at ion C1h35rEysaslte4r2B*5uSh tjrmebetto New York.

BffERIAX OIL.

?

Sfeond &Verbeke Streets Sixth&Curtin Streets V 3- Eighteenth &Derry Streets Cameron &Paxton Streets Lemoyne St at ion Gettysburg &Carlisle Pike ..

E t h y l Ga s o l i n e Co r p o r a t i o n M ANUFACTURING A N D TR A FFIC D E PA R T M E N T PLEASE ADDRESS REPLY TO:*P.O.BOX I2*71 W ILM IN GTON , DELAW ARE February 9, 1942 Dr.

L.

iI FE D ER A L SE C U R IT Y A G EN CY FO O D AN D D RU G A D M I N IST RA TIO N W A SH IN G T O N .

June 3, 1935 Dr.

University of Cincinnati Medicai Center Institute of Environmental Health Kettering Laboratory 3223 Eden Avenue Cincinnati, Ohio 45267 Phone 513 872-5700 December 28, 1982 Patricia H.

<JU>.270-A REV. 3-64 E.

*. f w October 28, 1953 Dr.

\ April 1w Dr.