Letters Sent to Dr. Herman Schlundt, June 22, 1931

June 22nd, 1931. Fr. Herman Schlundt, University of lissouri, Columbia, Lo. Dear Dr. Schlundt: Thanks for your letter of June 18th, giving your reactions to my criticises of the report by the O.S.Department of Public Health. I don't doubt but what the copy of their report which I havo is a later edition than the one which you have, for I understand that this report was revised. Apparently there is no figure 13 in the copy of the report which I have - figure 12 constitute the last graph incor- porated in the report. Regarding the matber of segregating the employees, as I suggested, perhaps I had better make this point somewhot clear: I gathered from the conference in Bashington that the Public Health Service wes charged with the task of deternining whether the girls who have been employed in the application of luminous meterial to dials, etc., since 1926 were exposed - that 10 after pointing the brush with the lips had been discontinued - to B. hasard, and whethor or not there was any possibility of their accumulating radiocctive materials in their systems. If the group of girls thich they examined are treated as a whole, all except 74 of the group were employed prior to 1926, as well as subsequent thereto, and even though some of that group may have shown the presence of radioactive materials, it would not throw any light upon the question as to whether they were absorbing material under approved conditions as practiced subsequent to 1926. In discussing this point with Dr. Thompson and his Associates, they quite agreed with me that there should be a differentiation made. If we are to treat the group as a whole there would be no reason why we should not go out and examine all girls who were ever employed. The survey was not made with the iden of determining whether individual girls were active or not, but whether the industry as practiced since 1926, can be considered safe. With this in mind, which the Public llealth Service admits is the burden of their task, I cannot holp but feel that the Survey over emphasises its findings in exemini. workers who were employed prior to 1926. It was only thru the over zealousness of the clock companies to cooperate with the Dept. of Hoalth, that theyallowed the Department to examine all employees engaged at the time of the survey, regardless of whether their employment dated back to 1921, 122, 123 etc., or whether it