Letters Received to H.H. Barker, June 9, 1928

UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI COLUMBIA RECEIVED DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY JUN 12 1928 June 9, 1928 Mr. H. H. Barker U. S. Radium Corporation 535 Pearl St. New York, N. Y. mos n My dear Barker: I have before me your letter of June 5, advising how the cases of the five complainants have been settled out of Court, and I also have your letter of June 6, calling attention to the experimental work which Dr. Flinn and I made during my recent visit to New York City. I shall make a few comments on both letters before giving you a few results that we have obtained on detecting radio activity in expired air by means of the scintillation method. In regard to the terms of settlement of the cases I am quite in accord with the views which you have expressed. It does seem to me that the foundation upon which the suit is based has never been estab- lished. The actual facts have never been clearly determined, therefore, it seems to me that the award of any damages at this time, by the terms of settlement is unjust. First of all, it seems to me, the facts in the case should have been established by an arbritration board. Perhaps I had better not digress too much along this line, for it will make my letter too lengthy. There is only one paragraph in your letter of June 5, on page two, which it seems to me has only secondary bearing on these cases. It is the paragraph in which you refer to the use of radium intraveniously. The use of radium chloride intravenfously does not prove that radioactive deposits in the bone marrow in small quantities may be a real hazard, and be the direct cause of anemia. not I am glad to hear that you have had such a satisfactory visit with Dr. Simpson of Chicago. While my contact with medical men who actually use radium in the treatment of diseases, has been more limited than your experience, still I have conversed with at least four or five physicians who have had years of experience in radium therapy. As the result of these con- tacts I have yet to find a medical man who understands the science of radio- activity. I have yet to find a man that clearly understands the successive radioactive changes and the bearing of the fundamentals upon the question of radium poisoning. I hope then that you will not be disappointed in Dr. Simpsons reaction and the position he may take in the future. It is very difficult for these medical men to get the proper on a question of this kind, involving as it does, a thorough knowledge of radioactive changes. We have, here in Columbia, Dr. Dudley Robnett who was associated with Dr. Kelly of Baltimore for a number of years. I have had two conversations