Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "75722288",
    "label": "Report, January 23, 1928",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75722288"
}

{
    "id": "75722288",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75722288",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Report, January 23, 1928",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75722288",
    "collections": [
        "Safety Light Collection",
        "Records Related to Radium Dial Painters"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0001193_Page_1.jpg",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0001193_Page_1.jpg",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0001193_Page_1.jpg",
    "imageCount": 7,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75722288",
    "naId": 75722288,
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 4,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "photo",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0001193_Page_4.jpg",
    "mediaId": "39f9d4ebba84d3ac",
    "ocrText": "-4-\nnature and the extent of the injury in each case. I get the impression that the\nfacts set forth in the report are quoted from records, rather than deduced from his\nown observations. I am not in a position topass judgment on his conclusion that\nthese findings are unusual as to numbers of persons affected with this uncommon\nmalady. I note that no unusual or harmful condition, except possibly radium hazard,\nwas found in the factory; with the result that Dr. Drinker concluded that the observed\ntrouble must have been caused by radium.\nIt seems to me that this conclusion is not proven; (1) because the malady might\nhave been due to some other unknown cause; (2) because it is not shown that the actual\nexposure to radium was sufficiently great to cause the observed necrosis; (3) I\nunderstand that another dial painting factory has not had similar trouble. Dr. Drinker\ncites well known physiological effects produced by radium radiation when the active\nagent is external to the body. He then speculates on the effect of smaller amounts\nof radium inside the body; but no experimental data or quantitative results are\ngiven; nor is it shown by any tests how much radium, if any, has entered the body in\nany case.\nThe conclusion that the cases of necrosis were caused by exposure to radium\nseems to be based on the ancient (but fallacious) maxim: post hoc, ergo propter hoc --\nafter this, therefore on account of this:\nGoing on to the next topic, I note that working conditions in the factory were\nfound to be good, even pleasant, and that no hazardous material (other than radium)\ncould be found. The detection of zine sulphide on the clothing and persons of\noperatives was taken to indicate that radium also must have been present, although its\npresence\ncould not be demonstrated. No radium was found in dust collected in the\nwork\nrooms.\nThere should have been no difficulty in detecting and even in determin-\ning the amount of radium on clothing or in the dust, if it were there in amount\nsufficient to do the least harm.\nAn investigator, skilled in the art of radio activity measurements, if he had\nfound \"no radium\" would have stated the minimum amount he could have detected. The\nreport leaves us to guess whether this minimum was a microgram or one thousandth of\na\nmicrogram. The last mentioned amount could have been found easily by a trained man.\nIt seems to me that when Dr. Drinker states, top of page 6 of his report:\n\"It is however impossible to assert because no radium has been detected in the dust\n(The dust being demonstrably derived from \"Undark\") that it therefore contains no\nradium.' he tacitly admits his lack of adequate skill as an investigator of a possible\nradium hazard.\nUp to this point, the report seems to contain but little information with\nwhich the officers and other responsible men of your company were not already familiar\nor which they could not have discovered by a cursory examination. The remainder of\nthe report deals with three topics: (1) the examination of the teeth of a seledted\ngroup of your employees; (2) the examinations of the blood samples from the same group;\n(3) a survey of the stray gamma radiation in portions of your plant by means of\ndental X-rays films. The results of the first and second of these studies are set\ndown in tables 1 and 11.\nBeing only a chemist and not a dentist nor a physiologist, I am not able to\ndetermine to what extent the reported conditions deviate from the normal to be"
}