(19) July 2?

ersity of Cincinnati edical Center Institute of Environmental Health Kettering Laboratory 3223 Eden Avenue Cincinnati, Ohio 45267 Phone 513 872-5700 September 16, 1986 Ms.

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA MEDICAL CENTER SAN FRANCISCO 22, CALIFORNIA February 9, 1953 Dr.

January 9, 19^5 r.

August IS, 19^5 Mr. h.

August 9, 1946 Dr- McKeen Cattell, Department of Pharmacology, Cornell University Medical College, 15'JJ York Avenue, New York City 21.

One of the things I .promised to do at the last meeting of the Central Committee on Medicine and Health which has slipped my mind until the present was to write you concerning the potential studies that the Public Health Service would like to see done on lead workers in industry.

June 8, 1987 Professor EnricoC.

May 28, 1965 Mr.

VaVsHAXSTON PURINA COMPANY .ViVi CHECKERBOARD SQUARE ST.

May 2,194:0 Dr.

NDUSTRIAL HYGIENE FOUNDATION O F AM E RICA, I N C.

July 12# 1 955 Dr* Graham Edgar Ethyl Gasoline Corporation Chrysler Building Hew `fork City Hew `fork . % dear Edgars I have your letter of July 10th and I can understand your uncertainty about the present situation of normal urinary lead* I do not think the situation is as bad or as unexplainable as it seems to you* however* and therefore I want to point out to you a feit points that must be taken into account * 4J4* During the period of years In which we have been studying this question we have learned many things about the collection of samples* We now send out detailed Instructions with every container* and the evidence is quite adequate to show that we receive better samples* There are fewer gross contaminations and the mean results are therefore lower* 124- Our analytical procedures have been modified from time to time to give greater precision# and with the development and standardisation of our specferographic method w@ are obtaining analytical results which are without doubt more accurate than those obtained in previous years* I small part of the improvement occurred with the removal from ohr former laboratory to the present one* This change meant better and cleaner space* better .storage facilities for samples# better distilled water* and better general chemical technique XJsX We have also learned mush as to the variation in the lead excretion of individuals for purely physiological reasons* Thus the following factors measurably influence the rat of excretion In the urine* , (h) The quantity of food eaten influences the quantity of lead ingestion and also the extent of absorption# upon which urinary xoretlon depends (b) The water metabolism influences the quantity and concentration of lead in the urine* Thus the quantity of lead output in the urine in the winter is greater than in the summer but in winter the concentration is lower* ->r. 2 (o) Physical activity increases the urinary lead output* Hen working hard, and in hob weather, will show a considerably higher urinary lead concentration* There la even a difference between the lead content o f tho urine in the daytime, as compared to the night, the latter giving a lower lead concentration* How all of these factors have played their parti In the picture which we now have* The medical students referred to in the T.iWM*A were relatively sedentary, and all th samples were obtained.in cold weather* W obtained very large samples and it is possible that some of these were obtained after drinking excessive amounts of water, although this was discouraged in the Instructions* These factors favored a low urinary concentration* Other normal subjects studied during the same general period as these medical students (i.e* within that year), gave slightly higher 'mean results* Thus one of our subjects showed a mean of 0*055 a sanies of samples obtained during hob weather# Xou se therefore that physiological variation is not without significance*' (ix) How for Just one other point* The discrepancy between our earlier figures, and the more recent ones is not as great as it seems from your statement that the "average of DX2 by the chemical method4* is only about "onefifth of the former results" in the same article in which the figure of 0*012 for medical students is given normal mean values on other subjects are recorded as high as 0*029 + 0*002 by the chemical method* This is almost half th former mean of 0*07* I must take exception, too, to your us of the word "average" as applied to ''mean41* It. seems a small point but actually it is quite important for th simple reason that occasional high results mak little difference in an "average" but they are much more heavily weighted in the calculation of a mean* Thus when you recognise that th difference between cur former moan of 0*0?

January 12* 1929 V-j.| i Dr.

Board of Directors Dwight P.