The Daily Worker Newspaper, September 18, 1926, Page 9

Et 'O now that we know that lead “means “lead drop,” “lead colic,” paralysis, sterility, convulsions, insan- ity and death, let us procéed to the surgeon-general’s conference called to examine the harmful effects of tetraethyl and see what attempts have been made to protect the workers and the public against tetraethyl lead. The conference is made up of rep- Tesentatives of Standard Oil, General Motors, the Ethyl Gasoline Corpora- tion and professors and physicians re- tained by them, a few public health authorities, some individual professors who have helped the campaign against tetraethyl, and a representative of the A. ¥. of L. and two from the Workers’ Health Bureau. The conference is opened by the secretary of the interior and the chair is taken by the surgeon- general, The delegates are welcomed, thanked, congratulated and told not to be apprehensive of the outcome. The cabinet officer and the surgeon- general address the delegates rather diffidently. They are aware of the immense difference in rank between themselves—mere government officers —and these representatives of mighty corporations. The chairman regrets that there are too many delegates for them all to “get tegether around one table.” He begins by informing them that there aren’t any laws untler which the government could control the man- ufacture and sale of ethyl gasoline anyway. The whole tone of the con- ference is extremely cordial. Every- one modestly prefaces his statements with “I suggest” or “I submit.” Only occasionally a Standard Oil delegate “insists” or “declares.” Occasionally the weak and dilute humor common at scientific gatherings floats out over the meeting. But the first thing we must notice is the explicit statement by the sur- geon-general that the conference was called to consider the possible hazard to the public involved in the distribu- tion and sale of ethyl gasoline. In other words, the conference is not in the least concerned with the hazard to the workers involved in the manufac- ture. And it may pay us to remember that whatever findings this conference reached do not apply to the dangers to the workers involved in the manufac- ture, From time to time the fact is reit- erated that the conference is not con- sidering the hazards involved in man- ufacture. Just how little anyone is considering it may be seen from the statement of Mr. Frank Howard of the Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey. In his eagerness to show how safe it is to handle ethyl gasoline he over- steps himself and lets the cat out of the bag (from the stenographic re- port): “It has been handied without any precautions at all, without any- thing more than the most obvious pre- cautions, until the unfortunate acci- dent which happened in our pilot man- ufacturing plant last November, That was a manufacturing hazard, and is not a point of discussion hefe.” Other representatives of the corpo- rations speak on the indispensability of tetraethyl lead, of the tremendous industrial advance involved ‘in ethyl gasoline. Then Dr. Kehoe of the Cin- cinnati College of Medicine, retained by the Ethyl Gasoline Corporation, re- counts lengthy experiments which he has performed, all of which prove that ethyl gasoline is quite harmless to the public, ‘ However, the corporations are far from having a walkover. Some of the independent scientists who are there at their own expense proceed to give the corporation representatives sev- eral bad half-hours, Chief among *First part of this article appeared in the Sept. 11 issue of this magazine. hyl Is Back them is Yandell Henderson, professor of physiological chemistry at Yale. Prof. Henderson is apparently a man with a conscience. Certainly he is a man of broad knowledge and expe- rience in his line. He identified and fought the occupational disease of mercury poisoning among the Danbury hatters. During the war he was in charge of important work for the gov- ernment on poison gas and gas masks. And thus knowing something about poison gases, he was one of the lead- unwarned of any danger, filling tanks with the pure tetraethy! lead, getting his arms soaked in it, and contracting lead poisoning. But Dr. Kehoe has a ready answer for that. “Oh, yes,” says the doctor blithely, ‘we know of that case. But we had one of our own physicians examine the man. He didn’t have lead poisoning. He had neurasthenia.” After that we had better stop to catch our breath. For ourselves we believe the man had whooping-cough. By Jerger ers in the campaign against ethyl gas- oline. He talks with refreshing frank. ness: : me Die “1 find that the industrial people, men engaged in industry, chemists, take it as a matter of course that a little thing like industrial poisoning should not be allowed to stand im the way of great industrial advance.” He then takes Dr. Kehoe’s long ar- gument and proceeds to smash it to splinters, First: Dr. Kehoe attempts to explain away certain unfavorable results by showing that the dust in his experimental chamber contained 10 per cent lead. This, far from be- ing a defense, is a most severe indict- ment, for it shows what would be the conditions in a garage where ethyl gasoline ig used. Second: It is ad- mitted that lead is absorbed from ethyl gasoline thru the skin. What is going to happen in garages and among garage workers where gasoline is splashed around considerably? Third: The case of the Columbia experiment- ers. Two professors at Columbia Uni- versity were carrying on an investi- gation of ethyl gasoline. Despite the fact that they were fully aware of the danger, and in spite of a technique involving fastidious care, two of the experimenters were found to have ab- sorbed lead and were forced to dis- continue their work. Fourth: The fact that some of the animals in Dr. Kehoe’s experiments showed no symp- toms of lean poisoning proves nothing, as lead is cumulative. Prof. Henderson continues with a tremendously important statement: “Do not forget that lead is cumula- tive, Lead poisoning is almost com- parable in extent to tuberculosis as a disease in the body politic.” There are tens of thousands of people who have lead in their bodies but not yet enough to give them lead poisoning. Add to this an extra dose in the form of dust lying around the streets from automobile exhausts and you will push thousands of them over the brink into lead poisoning. So far 11 to 15 have been killed, between 50 and 100 poisoned more or less severely, Why are the figures so vague? “We have not heard of all the cases, and I do not know just what inference to draw from that.” Prof. Henderson reads a letter from a man describing how he worked in a blending station in Whiting, Ind, Prof. Henderson informs the confer- enee-that the fact ‘that few cases of lead poisoning were reported where ethyl gasoline was used proves noth- ing as “999 ordinary practicing physi- cians out of a thousand would fail to recognize lead poisoning when the lead is inhaled.” He then delivers a parting shot. “On Mareh 13, 1922, I + » . and others were asked by the company to make an investigation. + . + | intimated | was willing pro- vided we could do it freely, without any dictation, and simply to find the facts. The investigation was not made.” Miss Burnham of the Workers’ Health Bureau estimates that, roughly, 770,000 workers, not reckoning those engaged in its manufacture, would be exposed to the danger of lead poison- ing if the use of ethyl gasoline be- comes general. She wants to know why there is no authoritative list of the actual deaths and injuries. It seems the conference admits 11 killed and 149 injured. Amidst all these claims and counterclaims she wants to know what happened to the poi- soned men after they were laid off or discharged. Were they re-employed in other industries or did they remain permanently injured? However, these are trifles. The con- ference passes a resolution calling for an investigation by a small committee to be chosen by the surgeon-general, and adjourns. The conference was in May, 1926, and in January, 1926, the investigating committee made its report. The re- port vindicated ethyl gasoline. And yet, as we read the report itself, it seems to be far less of a vindication than we had thought after seeing the headlines in the papers. In fact, it seems as if the gentlemen comprising the committee are exceedingly cau- tious about attaching their names to any definite statement that ethyl gaso- line is safe in use. We read: “In conclusion we beg to say that we are conscious of the fact that the conclu- sions to which we have come in this report, altho based upon most careful conscientious investigations, are sub- ject to the criticism that they have been derived from the study of a rela- tively small number of individuals who were exposed to the effects of the ethyl gasoline for a period of time relatively brief when we consider the i eaehsininniaiiadiapilpabssioniunantiie By N. SPARK. possibilities in connection with lead poisoning. A more extensive study was not possible on account of the limited time. It remains possible that if the use of leaded gasoline becomes widespread conditions may arise very different from those studied by us, which would render its use more of a hazard than would appear to be the case from this investigation. Longer experience may show that even such slight storage of lead as was observed in these studies may lead eventually in susceptible individuals to recogniz- able lead poisoning or to chronic de- generative diseases of a less obvious character, “Your committee begs to report that in their opinion there are at. present no good grounds for prohibiting. the use of ethyl gasoline of the composi- tion specified, provided its distribution and use are controlied by proper reg- ulations.” And now the joker! Quick! A list of regulations are drawn up which are recommended to the several states. Somewhat similar to the way regula- tions against lynching and child labor are recommended to the several states. However, altho this report.is a half- hearted vindication, it is nevertheless a vindication, impartial investigation? Let us sult the technical journals,” “~ -“** An editorial from Chemical and Met- allurgical Engineering: “Early re sumption of the national distribution of ethyl gasoline as a result of the favorable outcome of the surgeon-gen- eral’s investigation will be welcomed by more than one of the chemical en- gineering industries, . .. The raw material required in this synthesis and other ingredients in the anti-knock compound held an interest for many branches of chemical indus- try.” An engagingly frank note in the Journal of Industrial and Engineering F chemistry: “Too often the enth of the manufacturer leads hitn to mih- imize the hazards both to the employe and the public and his investigations are not as thorough as could be wished. Then, too, in contrast with the present case” (of course, in con- trast with the present case) “an emer- gency may arise and pressure be brought to bear upon him before he discontinues manufacture.” And now, having seen how danger ous ethyl gasoline is, let us attack the whole fraud about its indispensability. Are there, as the Ethyl Gasoline Cor poration would like to maintain, no other substances which eliminate the knock? There are several... Each has its own advantages and disadvan- tages. First: A mixture of 60 per cent ben- zol and 40 per cent gasoline produces absolutely no knock. So effective is this mixture that it is taken as a standard in discussing anti-knock properties. “Mitchell’s gas” is an ex- ample of a benzol blend. The dis- advantage is that there is no present possibility of producing benzol in any- where near sufficient quantities to take care of all the gasoline used. Second: Gasoline produced by the process know as “cracking”—so-called “cracked gasoline”—has natural anti knock qualities, due to the fact that it contains oils of the benzol type. It is claimed, however, that cracked gas- oline does not increase in efficiency with higher compression, Third: The Gulf Refining Company, the Sun Of] Company, the Texas Com- pany are all selling gasolines of un- specified composition which they claim are anti-knock, Their claims as to the efficacy of their fuels are just as much (or as little) worthy of belief as the claims of the louder-mouthed Standard Oil. One thing is certain, that ina couple of decades the attempt of the Ethyl Gasoline Corporation to manufacture and distribute for general use such a fatal substance as tetraethyl lead will be recognized as one of the most co- lossal pieces of impudence and stu- pidity in the whole history of chemical industry. . But for the present “Ethyl is back!” And unless the workers who have to handle it take drastic action there will be increasing lists of victims of this “great industrial advance.” Was it based onan , i ; Lap Ae E Oo aw —_—