Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "75722442",
    "label": "Letters Received to H.H. Barker, March 31, 1928",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75722442"
}

{
    "id": "75722442",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75722442",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Letters Received to H.H. Barker, March 31, 1928",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75722442",
    "collections": [
        "Safety Light Collection",
        "Records Related to Radium Dial Painters"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0001240_Page_1.jpg",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0001240_Page_1.jpg",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0001240_Page_1.jpg",
    "imageCount": 3,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/75722442",
    "naId": 75722442,
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 3,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/SLC/Radium/SLC_0001240.pdf",
    "mediaId": "016179973858e18e",
    "ocrText": "UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA\nSCHOOL OF CHEMISTRY\nMINNEAPOLIS\nRECEIVED\nAPR 3 1928\nOFFICE OF THE DEAN\nMarch 31, 1928\nWalana\nMr. H. H. Barker,\nVice President,\nRADIUM\nU. S. Radium Corporation,\nMATERIAL EC\n505 Pearl Street,\nNew York.\nDear Mr. Barker:\nAbsence from Minneapolis has delayed my reply to your\nletter of March 19th. After studying the report of Dr. Drinker\nwhich you submitted to me sometime ago, and after our conference\non this report with relation to the conditions in your plant, I\nhave come to the following tentative conclusion:\nI do not feel justified in making any sweeping criticism\nof Dr. Drinker's report. In the first place I am not a medical\nman and would not be competent to discuss the pathological con-\ndition of those employees whose cases were covered in his\nreport. I should, however, like to have seen a more complete anal-\nysis of the state of health of all of your employees with reference\nto the nature of their work, the time which they had been employed,\netc., than Dr. Drinker made.\nFrom Dr. Drinker's report it is clear that he found several\ncases where the pathological condition was so pronounced that he\nfelt justified in concluding that they all arose from a common\ncause that must have existed in your plant. After an analysis of the\nvarious possible causes, he concluded that radium was the cause and\nfrom the stress which he laid on the dust hazard and from other\nstatements in his report, it appears that he felt that the damage\ndue to radium came from its introduction into the general blood\ncirculation rather than from local causes in the mouth. This\nconclusion was rather surprising to me and I should not be able to\naccept it without further supporting evidence. On the other hand,\nI think Dr. Drinker's opinion that the number of cases was so great\nand so exceptional that there is no escape from there having\nexisted a special cause in your plant, and I do not feel inclined\nto disagree with Dr. Drinker that this cause was radium in some\nform.\nHaving then found myself in agreement to this extent with\nDr. Drinker, there still remains the question as to whether\nyour company was justified in disagreeing with his report at the\n-2-\ntime it was rendered. This appears to me to be an entirely\ndifferent question from agreement with it later with many more\nknown facts at hand than you had at that time. I can find the\nfollowing reasons why you might have been justified in disagreeing\nwith his report: First, you had had several years' experience\nwith several hundred employees engaged in handling radium before\nany unfavorable effects on them were observed. Second, the\nnumber of cases which Dr. Drinker found unusual was a rather small\nfraction of your total employees and since you were not at that\ntime greatly impressed with the unusual nature of their affliction,\nyou did not believe that they were so outstanding or that you had\nany special health problem in your plant. This state of mind on\nyour part, together with your doubt of the dust factor in Dr.\nDrinker's report, would naturally prejudice you against it to a\ncertain extent and you would therefore not rush into an acceptance\nof his recommendations.\nI do not know that there is anything in the foregoing\nthat will give you anything more than some mental comfort or\nmoral support. I do not know what the legal aspects of such a\nsituation would be but I have been able to make that much reconcila-\ntion between your stand and Dr. Drinker's report.\nI expect to be in New York on Tuesday or Wednesday,\nApril 24th - 25th. If any further discussion of these matters would\nassist you, I could arrange to see you at that time.\nWith best regards,\nSincerely yours,\nA.C.Lindi\nS. C. Lind,\nDirector.\nSCL/CS"
}