Ask the Scholar
Page 3 of 3
I can add historical knowledge about this page.
Page image
OCR
UNIVERSITY OF missouri
JUN 22 1931
COLUMBIA
DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY
June 18th, 1931.
Mr. H. H. Barker
United States Radium Corporation
535 Pearl Street
New York City, New York
My dear Barker:
Your criticism of Dr. Leake's report I have
read with more than ordinary interest, but I have been in-
terrupted many times, so that I have found it difficult to
organize my own views in final form. Although some confusion
still exists in my own mind on some points, there is no tell-
ing that I shall be any further advanced tomorrow. Let me,
then, give you my reaction to some of the points you raise.
It seems to me that the paging in the copy of the report which
I have does not correspond at some places to the copy you must
have had before you, but this will not make any confusion.
Some of your criticisms it seems to me are sound, and should
be taken into consideration and revisions made before the re-
port is printed. Other of your criticisms, I do not regard
with favor. I shall give you frankly my reactions.
Splitting the report into two sections seems to
me would disturb its unity seriously. In most instances tables
and graphs--the workers employed since 1926, are designated as
a group and so are segregated. Cf. Fig. 13 and also insert of
Fig. 12.
Personally, I fail to see in the report cause for
alarm about the dangers in radium painting as practiced at pre-
sent, except in the dusting process. The survey, however, shows
clearly that the workers gradually become active under present
practice, but the rate of accumulation of radium is so slow in
the average case, that there is no cause for alarm. The fact
that a large number of workers do not become active at all,
seems to me indicates that some persons eliminate radium more
rapidly than others. Brush painters while at work inhale per
day about 20 to 30 X 10-10 g. radium as dust or per year of
300 working days, about 0.7 microgram. Most of this is elim-
inated as comparison with accumulation curve, Fig. 13, shows.
In short the normal elimination keeps the quantity of radium
well within the range of safe tclerance, if we assume that it
takes five years to gather one milligram. And this value is
much reduced if we throw out the few persons who show 2 to 5 pg.
Such cases I am inclined to regard in the light of our experiences
with workers employed in our refining laboratories as accidental
happenings. Systematic electroscopic examinations catch these
cases, before any damage is done. Eliminating these accidental
infections leaves the rest of the workers completely within the
UNIVERSITY OF missouri
COLUMBIA
DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY
Mr. Barker - 2 - 6-18-31
zone of safety. (I see that this is airing my own views. I
am not confining myself very closely to remarks on your
criticisms). What I wish to point out is that there is no
real cause for alarm when the quantities of radium gathered
are so far below the amounts which formerly have proved
damaging or fatal. This point should receive special men-
tion in the report and by 80 doing the alarm and damaging
impression will vanish.
When you say on p. 2 that the survey has over-
emphasized its efforts in examining workers who were employed
prior to 1926, I feel that you make an unfortunate implication;
for the survey includes all workers now employed in dial paint-
ing; all those employed prior to 1926 and all those (74) since
1926. How can we get a true picture of the present situation
unless we examine all the workers? I advise expunging this
paragraph from your discussion.
Your selection of 4 from the 74 persons employed
since 1926 as radioactive, presents a. viewpoint which Dr. Leake
will doubtless wish to make some mention of in revising the re-
port.
The small quantities of theron, are with one ex-
ception, quite negligible.
Graph 12, to which I referred before, records
results of measurements, and so I do not question it.
It would be desirable to compare radon content
of air breathed by brush painters with that of normal air. The
radon content of air breathed by workers is only about 200 to
500 times that of normal Chicago air, so why worry? A radon
content to constitute a hazard must be several thousand times
that of ordinary air.
I agree with you that some of the conclusions are
given in a form which is too general. Some qualifying or ex-
planatory clauses might well be included.
You have rendered a distinct service in your care-
ful analysis of the report, but I do not agree with you in all
your criticisms.
The clock manufacturers can doubtless reduce the
hazards by 50%, by following the suggestions given in the report.
Sincerely yours,
Herman Schlundt
hs.as
Herman Schlundt.
Page data
- Page
- 3
- Source index
- 0
- Type
- document
- Media ID
- fa6b38a24eb97c5d
- Size
- unknown
Document data
- ID
- 75726570
- Core
- doc
- Type
- document
DTO data
{
"id": "75726570",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75726570",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Letters Received to H.H. Barker, June 18, 1931",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75726570",
"collections": [
"Safety Light Collection",
"Records Related to Radium Dial Painters"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0002490_Page_1.jpg",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0002490_Page_1.jpg",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0002490_Page_1.jpg",
"imageCount": 3,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Context sent to Scholar
Document identity
{
"localId": "75726570",
"label": "Letters Received to H.H. Barker, June 18, 1931",
"core": "doc",
"dtoType": "document",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75726570"
}
Document source metadata
{
"id": "75726570",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75726570",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Letters Received to H.H. Barker, June 18, 1931",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75726570",
"collections": [
"Safety Light Collection",
"Records Related to Radium Dial Painters"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0002490_Page_1.jpg",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0002490_Page_1.jpg",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0002490_Page_1.jpg",
"imageCount": 3,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras
{
"url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75726570",
"naId": 75726570,
"levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
"recordType": "description",
"ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context
{
"seq": 3,
"pageIndex": 0,
"type": "document",
"url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0002490.pdf",
"mediaId": "fa6b38a24eb97c5d",
"ocrText": "UNIVERSITY OF missouri\nJUN 22 1931\nCOLUMBIA\nDEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY\nJune 18th, 1931.\nMr. H. H. Barker\nUnited States Radium Corporation\n535 Pearl Street\nNew York City, New York\nMy dear Barker:\nYour criticism of Dr. Leake's report I have\nread with more than ordinary interest, but I have been in-\nterrupted many times, so that I have found it difficult to\norganize my own views in final form. Although some confusion\nstill exists in my own mind on some points, there is no tell-\ning that I shall be any further advanced tomorrow. Let me,\nthen, give you my reaction to some of the points you raise.\nIt seems to me that the paging in the copy of the report which\nI have does not correspond at some places to the copy you must\nhave had before you, but this will not make any confusion.\nSome of your criticisms it seems to me are sound, and should\nbe taken into consideration and revisions made before the re-\nport is printed. Other of your criticisms, I do not regard\nwith favor. I shall give you frankly my reactions.\nSplitting the report into two sections seems to\nme would disturb its unity seriously. In most instances tables\nand graphs--the workers employed since 1926, are designated as\na group and so are segregated. Cf. Fig. 13 and also insert of\nFig. 12.\nPersonally, I fail to see in the report cause for\nalarm about the dangers in radium painting as practiced at pre-\nsent, except in the dusting process. The survey, however, shows\nclearly that the workers gradually become active under present\npractice, but the rate of accumulation of radium is so slow in\nthe average case, that there is no cause for alarm. The fact\nthat a large number of workers do not become active at all,\nseems to me indicates that some persons eliminate radium more\nrapidly than others. Brush painters while at work inhale per\nday about 20 to 30 X 10-10 g. radium as dust or per year of\n300 working days, about 0.7 microgram. Most of this is elim-\ninated as comparison with accumulation curve, Fig. 13, shows.\nIn short the normal elimination keeps the quantity of radium\nwell within the range of safe tclerance, if we assume that it\ntakes five years to gather one milligram. And this value is\nmuch reduced if we throw out the few persons who show 2 to 5 pg.\nSuch cases I am inclined to regard in the light of our experiences\nwith workers employed in our refining laboratories as accidental\nhappenings. Systematic electroscopic examinations catch these\ncases, before any damage is done. Eliminating these accidental\ninfections leaves the rest of the workers completely within the\nUNIVERSITY OF missouri\nCOLUMBIA\nDEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY\nMr. Barker - 2 - 6-18-31\nzone of safety. (I see that this is airing my own views. I\nam not confining myself very closely to remarks on your\ncriticisms). What I wish to point out is that there is no\nreal cause for alarm when the quantities of radium gathered\nare so far below the amounts which formerly have proved\ndamaging or fatal. This point should receive special men-\ntion in the report and by 80 doing the alarm and damaging\nimpression will vanish.\nWhen you say on p. 2 that the survey has over-\nemphasized its efforts in examining workers who were employed\nprior to 1926, I feel that you make an unfortunate implication;\nfor the survey includes all workers now employed in dial paint-\ning; all those employed prior to 1926 and all those (74) since\n1926. How can we get a true picture of the present situation\nunless we examine all the workers? I advise expunging this\nparagraph from your discussion.\nYour selection of 4 from the 74 persons employed\nsince 1926 as radioactive, presents a. viewpoint which Dr. Leake\nwill doubtless wish to make some mention of in revising the re-\nport.\nThe small quantities of theron, are with one ex-\nception, quite negligible.\nGraph 12, to which I referred before, records\nresults of measurements, and so I do not question it.\nIt would be desirable to compare radon content\nof air breathed by brush painters with that of normal air. The\nradon content of air breathed by workers is only about 200 to\n500 times that of normal Chicago air, so why worry? A radon\ncontent to constitute a hazard must be several thousand times\nthat of ordinary air.\nI agree with you that some of the conclusions are\ngiven in a form which is too general. Some qualifying or ex-\nplanatory clauses might well be included.\nYou have rendered a distinct service in your care-\nful analysis of the report, but I do not agree with you in all\nyour criticisms.\nThe clock manufacturers can doubtless reduce the\nhazards by 50%, by following the suggestions given in the report.\nSincerely yours,\nHerman Schlundt\nhs.as\nHerman Schlundt."
}