August 7 1937 Dr* 0* IU Weaver Duval County Hospital iTaoksonvillo Florida Dear Doctor Weavert I bare just beard by a somewhat circuitous route that yon have seen a case which you believe to be lead poisoning In a man oho is said to h&ve washed a truck (presumably with leaded gasoline}* The pat lent 3 nase was Over a period of some years* my associates and I have been studying the problem of lead absorption In relation to leaded gasoline* and we have investigated directly or indirectly all eases of alleged lead poisoning that have been reported to us throng various channels* I might say* parenthetically*, that we have been unable to find any oases of poloonlog or any evidence which would lead us to believe that load poisoning la possible as a consequence of contact* even over long periods of time* with gasoline containing tetraethyl lead* However wo are still on the lookout for such oases* and,.

I have also had direct knowledge of six or seven deaths from acute organic lead poisoning in connection with the cleaning of storage tanks heavily contaminated with tetraethyl lead or its decomposition products.

Stecher wanted to know whether we could give him any information. that would enable him to answer this letter In view of the recent circumstances on answering inquiries of this nature, particularly that concerned with the Standard Oil Company of NewJersey on treated gloves, I told him that I thought such matters should be referred to you for direct answering, as these questions were directly applicable to the use in. distributio of lead treated gasolines and not to the manufacturer of tetraethyl-lead.

In view of the recent circumstances on answering inquiries of this nature, particularly that concerned with the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey on treated glores, I told him that I thought such matters should be referred to you for direct answering, as these questions were directly applicable to the use in distributio of lead treated gasolines and not to the manufacturer of tetraethyl-lead.

Tetraethyl Lead", American Journal of Hygiene, Volume 13 #2, March 1931

It is at least disturbing to find results about one-fifth of the former results as an average Furthermore if the recent figures of 0013 are correct then the Mexican-Indian data in which apparently all precuations against contamina tion were taken seem out of line as far as urinary lead is concerned although not as far as fecal lead Looking at the data on Page 316 of -the Normal Lead repi-iats* it seems incredible that the results from medical students down to tetraethyl lead workers could be due to contamination of sample* I cannot help feeling somewhat uncertain about the whole picture at present* Thanks very much for your courtesy in calling me in the matter# I wish that we had the opportunity of discussing it at some length

Looking at the data on Page 316 of -the Normal Lead reprints it seems incredible that the results tram, medical students down to tetraethyl lead workers could be due to contamination of sample.

Tetraethyl Lead", American Journal of Hygiene, Volume 13 #2, March 1931

- We are convinced that the man is not suffering from lead poisoning and feel that unless a new trial is granted or the case reversed, it will possibly be the result of a great deal more liti gation and trouble which will be unfounded and this, of course, is something that interests and will possibly affect all concerns using or distributing tetraethyl gasoline.

It is apparent that chlorinated lime in any fora la a rather poor re agent for the decomposition of tetraethyl lead.

"Rules concerning the handling of tetraethyl lead in concentrations higher then 0.1% are unchanged.

Robert A Kehoe University of Cincinnati College of Medicine Cincinnati Ohio* My dear Kehoe* I am sorry to have been delayed in acknowledging your second lead paper but I took a holiday over the 4th of July -which has delayed me somewhat* Before I attempt to make any detailed comment on your conclusions* I would like to have you clarify one or two points in my mind as some of the data and some of the conclusions seem to me inconsistent with the results in the papers on Normal Lead and the first paper on Tetraethyl Lead* As I understand it, you interpret in general lead in the faces as a measure of exposure and lead in the urine as a measure of absorption* Presumably then, when exposure is changed there should be a change in the fecal lead perhaps followed by a change in the urinary lead* I am a little handicapped in your paper by the ab* senoe of the figures but there is apparently no evidence in the case of the two garage workers, A M* and W* B, of a change in either fecal or urinary lead when removed from their occupation Furthermore, the urinary lead seems to be well within the limits of normal lead given in your previous papers with the exception of -fee four medical students who were in this investigation.

Before I attempt to make any detailed comment on your conclusions* I would like to have you clarify one or two points in my mind as some of the data and some of the conclusions seem to me inconsistent with the results in the papers on Normal Lead and the first paper on Tetraethyl Lead.

I have occastion to fly airplanes powered with Hornet motors, which are fuled with tetraethyl lead gasoline and this has aroused my curiosity.

You are quite right in assuming that both experimentation and experience have shown that the absorption of lead from petrol containing the commer cial quantities of tetraethyl lead, is negligible.