Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "75723543",
    "label": "Letters Sent to H.M. Armstrong, December 18, 1928",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75723543"
}

{
    "id": "75723543",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75723543",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Letters Sent to H.M. Armstrong, December 18, 1928",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75723543",
    "collections": [
        "Safety Light Collection",
        "Records Related to Radium Dial Painters"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0001563_Page_1.jpg",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0001563_Page_1.jpg",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0001563_Page_1.jpg",
    "imageCount": 4,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75723543",
    "naId": 75723543,
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 4,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0001563.pdf",
    "mediaId": "facfc721109f462a",
    "ocrText": "December 18th, 1928.\nMr. H. M. Armstrong,\nThe Radium Extension Service,\n185 N. Wabash Ave.,\nChicago, Ill.\nDear Mr. Armstrong:\nYour letter of December 13th, together with\nclipping and photostatic copy has been received.\nIn order to bring you up to date on the so called\n\"Radium Poisoning\" cases, it seems to me that I had better look back\nand briefly outline the history of this matter. The first case\ncame to our attention in 1925, and we at that time had a survey made\nof the luminous material industry to ascertain whether or not there\nwas any hazard existing. This survey was, in our opinion, very super-\nficial, and did not cover the ground as thoroughly as we had anticip-\nated. Conclusions were based on negative evidence only that there\napparently was a hazard in this industry, and due to the fact that\nthere was nothing else to ascribe it to we should look upon radium with\nsuspicion.\nAfter this survey we engabed other parties to make\na more thorough and complete survey, and as their work progressed\nthey were unable to agree with the conclusions drawn by the first\nsurvey, and in our opinion it seemed that their survey was based upon\nmore genuine investigations than upon hearsay. For this reason we\nfelt that while there was something about the entire matter which we\ndid not understand, that radium was not necessarily to blame. Shortly\nafter this second survey was completed there was a so called \"Radiug\ncase\" in the New England states, which a man close to us had an\nopportunity to follow and study. This case was fatal, and while it\nwas not definitely established that death was due to \"Radium Poisoning\"\nstill it was reasonable to believe that it could have been a contribu-\ntory cause. After this case there were one or two other which\nappeared on the horizon. The history of the cases were very much\nthe same - one has died and the other is still living.\nÀs you are aware, the five cases at issue were brought\nto our attention in June 1927, and from what data we were able to\ncollect we were very much inclined to doubt that their condition could\nin any way be connected with their work while employed by us. Their\nside of the case was presented in court, and then settlement was\neffected, with the understanding that their condition would be studied\nby a Commission of medical men - one to be appointed by us, one by\n-2-\ntheir attorney and the third by the other two.\nWe have felt that it would be very unwise for us to make any\npublic statements regarding the condition of these girls under such\ncircumstances. In other words if We were to make statements we might\npossibly have to retract them, for it is only after this Commission\nhas completed its investigation that the true condition of these girls\nbe generally known. There is nothing to be gained by speculation or\nexpressing a personal opinion when a thorough investigation is under\nway. Within the past two or three weeks we have had some indication\nfrom this Commission as to what they are finding, and it is our\nbelief that they are go ng to report that these girls are in all\nprobability suffering, to some extent, as a result of their employment\nby us. However, they are also going to state that the girls\nconditions are not accute, and that with proper care it is quite probab-\nle that they will live the normal span of life, so far as any injuries\nsustained while working for us are concerned.\nNow a few words, as to the guilt or radium versus mesothorium:\nOur contention has been all along, that if either one was guilty, the\nother was equally guilty. The contention which we still hold today,\nand which all evidence points toward as being the truth.\nThe article occuring in the Chicago Herald and Examiner, under\ndate of February 28th, 1926, resulted from propaganda sproad by our\ncompetitors that mesothorium was to blame for this reported condition,\nand they used this to undermine our accounts. At that time we were\nusing some mesothorium, while they were not, and it was their conten-\ntion that it was only luminous material containing mesothorium\nthat was hazardous. As a matter of fact two of the five girls involved\nin the recent litigation worked for us at a time when we had no\nmesothorium in our plant, while the other three were there at a time\nwhen we were using both mesothorium and radiun.\nIt the present time we are disposed to recognize that there is\na distinct hazard in the application of luminous material, but that\nthat hazard can be controlled by properly controlling the conditions\nunder which the work is carried out. I have repeatedly discussed this\nmatter with the medical profession, as to whether or not the hazard\nfound here was common to the intrevenous use of radium chloride, and\nwhile I find some difference of opinion, the concensus of opinion\nseems to be that under controlled medical condtions there is probably\nno hazard in the intravenous line. However, I appreciate that there\nis always the mental reservation that possibly after the material has\nbeen administered for a sufficiently long period of time, the effects\nmay become manifest. It is true that there hever has been an\nuntoward effect reported in the literature, so far as we have been\nable to find in connections with the intravenous use of radium - but\nthose who are particularly averse to this type of medication claim\nthat such cases have never come to light. Personally I don't believe\nthat the two are at all comparable, and that radium can be administered\nunder medical supervision with safety. However, I am not a medical\nman, and my thoughts do not carry much weight in this line.\n-3-\nI have given you this fairly complete picture of the\nsituation so that you may appreciate why we have made no statements\nin the past, and while even at the present time we are not in a\nposition to do so, it is questionable in my mind if there will ever\nbe a time when it will be possible, or advisable for us to deny that\nthe condition of these various cases is in no way ascribably to their\nwork in the application of luminous material.\nAll this publicity has been very hard on the general use of\nradium for medical purposes, even where deep ray therapy is concerned,\nfor the general public are not able to differentiate between the\ndifferent ways in which radium can be administered. There is only\none word in all of this work which stands out, and that is the word\nradium, and anything associated with it must necessarily carry all\nthe evils claimed in the opinion of the general public.\nSincerely yours,\nVice President.\nHHBarker RH"
}