Letters Received to H.H. Barker, September 19, 1928

RECEIVED Cohnubia Unitersity SEP 20 1928 College of amd Sirgeons EPIDEMIOLOGY 632 WEST 168m STREET, NEW YORK INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE L . PUBLIC HEALTH ADMINISTRATION INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC HEALTH SANITARY SCIENCE 1 - Sept 19 1928 Mr. H. H. Barker, United States Radium Corp New York City, I.Y. Dear Mr Barker: I had a letter from our friend Dr. Schlundt in which he referred to the determination of radio-activity in the excretion and criticized it from the view point that the determinations were qualitative only. I gave him your readings on the Dunn and Wall case as well as my own in the Dunschott case. It seems to me that he is placing too much emplasis on the quantity eliminated each day and not on the faot that we ban say that the person is radio-active because we can detect radio-activity with the alpha ray electroscope in the excreta. In the medical profession it isn't the quantity of poison that is eliminated that is hpt important but with`it is present in determining the diagnosis of the case. Our gamma ray and expired air tests are not really quantitative and are only made so from observations which we have made in the past and are only estimates at the best. I am afraid Dr Schlundt is trying to draw conclusions as to how long is will take to eliminate the material which may vary from day to day as with all metallic poi- sons' and depends a great deal on the hydrogen ion of the body or tissue. I look upon the determination of the excreta as simply another method of determining whether or not a person is radio-active and then only in the urine unless the person has been away from all exposure for some time. I believe that Dr. Schlundt suggested that you serve as a subject for such work and of course we will do all we can to assist him in the matter. But I don't think we should hold up the rough draft of our paper for such observations because the important thing now is to get that into the hands of the committee and I would like to have a copy when the Conference is called in Washington. Why don't you send him the results on the samples you made for me. I read them off to him as you gave then to me but I think he lost the figures. The samples were as follows: .0050 24 hour sample of stools from March 13 -4.98 0028 Sample of stools March 12 0022 Sample of urine March I2 ( 330 cc) - 0035 Sample of stools March IO marked 4 which was a morning sample. 1.174 :0035 Sample of stools March IO marked 5 B which was an afternoon sample. 772 -360 all If you can send him your assay of radium per gram it may be what he wants. mg/g) But here again the ash from Maych I3 was 4.98, Sample 4 1.174 and 5B .772 grams. The only value that the quantitative results would have would be in assisting one to determine if a certain treatment is aiding in the elimination. I had an interesting observation the other day. A former employee of the Radium Emanation Corp. Graybar Building came in to see me because of his blood picture which gave a white count of 4500. Out of curiosity I made an elec- trometric test on him and found him to be positive with the gamma ray machine. He hasn't worked for them since last May and says he never wore the clothes he had on in their plant. The expired air test was positive but not conclusive because of the many interruptions and number of people who dropped in one me during the three hours