Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "75722809",
    "label": "Letters Received to Mr. Barker [H.H. Barker], May 28, 1928",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75722809"
}

{
    "id": "75722809",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75722809",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Letters Received to Mr. Barker [H.H. Barker], May 28, 1928",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75722809",
    "collections": [
        "Safety Light Collection",
        "Records Related to Radium Dial Painters"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0001344_Page_1.jpg",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0001344_Page_1.jpg",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0001344_Page_1.jpg",
    "imageCount": 3,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75722809",
    "naId": 75722809,
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "photo",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0001344_Page_1.jpg",
    "mediaId": "126ffdf8f1dfc08e",
    "ocrText": "the\nColumbia\nCollege nt and Simgents\nEPIDEMIOLOGY\n437 WEST 59TH STREET, NEW YORK\nINDUSTRIAL HYGIENE\nPUBLIC HEALTH ADMINISTRATION\nINSTITUTE OF PUBLIC HEALTH\nSANITARY SCIENCE\n28\nDear Mr Barker:\nI have been giving a little thought to your defonse in the Law Courts\nand an idea came to me that is rather bold and depends almost on the flip of a coin.\nIf youstudy their case both from the Court presentation and newspa-\nper articles you will see that they all claim that radium once deposited in the bone\nis never eliminated and das Martland says remains for I700 years. Dr Howard Kelley of\nBaltimore in an interview says it will remain for 2000 years. Madam Curie in an ar-\nticle published in the N.Y. Journal said the same thing. Of course all of this talk\nis without full infornation and inexperience in other lines besides their own,\nbut why try to deny it in Court? Question their witnesses in such a manner as to put\nthem definitely on record on this point. Certainly St George, Norris and Humphrey\nwill fall into the trap, Martland may be a little cagey. Now they base their whole\ncase on this fact and that radio-active material is to blame for the girls condition.\nconsequently if radium is not present according to their theory it cannot be blamed\nfor the condition of the girls. Of course this part of your defonse would require a\nvery strong attack on Mrs Hughs' results. I don't think you need to fear Dr. Gettler.\nIt would require handling her without gloves in the matter and you have her testimony\nalready given to aid you in this examination. Of course I didn't hear her testimony\nand don't know anything about her results but I remember your saying that she admitted\nin conversation that they were not as positive as she would like them to be. It\nwould\nrequire testimony to show that Dr Humphrey's observation as to radium rays and x-rays\nto be wrong. It might be necessary to conduct a few experiments along that line\nwith\nx-ray plates to prove him wrong as I think he is.\nNow on the other hand you will have to rely on Dr Schlundt's and ny\ntests to prove that the girls are not radio-active now. According to their\ntheory\nif\nthey\nare\nnot radio=active now they nover were and consequently are not and cannot be\nsuffering from radium poisoning. You can go on the stand and testify as to the accura-\ncy of the method, etc. Dr S hlundt expe rience etc should be sufficient to satisfy\nthe Court that our work was accurate. Of course if Dr Moore and Dr Lind could testify\nit would make the case all the stronger. Then you have Miss Freyer's case to con-\nsider\nand\nthe\nfact\nthat we found her radio-active in 1928. Personally I doubt very much\nif\nDr.\nMcCaffery\nhas\nmy\nreport\nfor\nif\nhe\nhad\nthere\nis\nno\ndoubt\nthat\nit\nwould\nhave\nbeen\nspread on the Court's records in the affidavits as everything else I ever wrote that\nthey have is. Certainly Berry would have asked me to indentify it when I was on the\nstand when he asked me to identify the other papers. We didn't tell her that we\nfound her radio-active, - all the comment was on the blood which she brought out.\nThey\nwill have to bring Dr MeCaffery into Court and I doubt if he would come. Of course\nif he comes and brings my report that is another thing but I do not think he has it\nfrom my observation of the man. If the report is not presented I should think it\nwould be just as well not to put me on the stand for then Berry cannot question me.\nI was careful in Newark not to say that she radio-active in I926. I think Dr McCaffery\nmay have told her but that is not legal proof. Or if I am correct I cannot be crossed\nexamined except what I have testified to in direct testimony. In that case all I need\nto testify to is my examination on April 24th which was negative. Of course this sug-\ngestion may be foolish but it fits in very well with their case which depends abso-"
}