from the oral intake of this substance. This evidence of absorbability of methyl alcohol has been noted in optic atrophy observed clinically by ophthalmologists, and after death as observed in lipoidal degeneration. The regular recovery of methyl alcohol on the distillation of all organs derived from skin-treated animals, and the absence of similar conditions in control animals, constitute inescapable proof of absorbability. How great may the actual danger become? According to McCord, if the results obtained from monkeys may be applied to man, approximately 1 ounce (30 cc.) of methyl alcohol repeatedly in contact with the human body, under conditions favorable to retention and evaporation, constitutes a threat to well being. The threshold of danger by inhalation is well below 1,000 parts per million of methyl alcohol vapor. If this degree of toxicity obtained from monkeys applies to man, the vapors from one ounce of methyl alcohol entering the human body constitute a threat to life even when the exposure is distributed over two or three days. Perhaps the time has come to reappraise the situation that confronts us in the United States and decide whether it calls for further protective measures for the safety of the public. This is particularly true when elaborate studies have led the investigator to regard it as reasonable to assume that "practical hazards for human beings may be produced under conditions of apparently trivial exposures.” I have also letters from Mr. Frémont Wilson, consulting engineer, New York City; Mr. Patrick J. Sullivan, manager of Waterbury plant, the Kalbfleisch Corporation, Waterbury, Conn.; Dr. Emery R. Hayhurst, consultant, industrial hygiene, department of health, Columbus, Ohio; and a clipping from the Herald-Tribune, which I desire to have included in the hearings. Hon. HIRAM Bingham, WASHINGTON, D. C., April 16, 1932. Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR BINGHAM: My reading of bill, S. 3853, leads me to the conclusion that the household refrigeration industry will be greatly injured unless an amendment is made to the present form of said bill. 66 May I suggest for your immediate consideration the following amendment: On page 4, after line 7, insert the words: Except that the preceding provisions of this section (2) shall not apply to household refrigeration units of the self-contained hermetically sealed type." Very truly yours, FREMONT WILSON. Senator HIRAM BINGHAM, THE KALBFLEISCH CORPORATION, Congressional Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR BINGHAM: I wonder if you have taken fully into account all of the difficulties that may arise to confront various concerns manufacturing chemicals if the bill which you are sponsoring becomes a law. I can not conceive that you would wish all the restrictions on this industry brought about, and to the detriment of the industry, without any appreciable advantage. Will you not please reconsider your action in this connection and withdraw this troublesome prospective legislation? Very truly yours, Senator HIRAM BINGHAM, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. PATRICK J. SULLIVAN, Manager of Waterbury Plant. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Columbus, Ohio, April 7, 1932. MY DEAR SENATOR BINGHAM: In response to your letter of March 31, permit me to state that I think Senate bill 3853, To regulate interstate and foreign commerce in poisonous volatile substances intended for household consumption," is an important step in the right direction, while practically all of the common hazardous volatile substances appear to be named in the bill. 66 In section 2 (b) (3), lines 5 and 6 (page 4 of the printed bill), I would change the phraseology which now reads "In case of accident send for an inhalator to read, 'In case of accident send for a physician and in case the victim ceases breathing, apply artificial respiration by manual means at once." The purpose of this change is to save the person's life while waiting for an inhalator or any other apparatus to arrive, and to leave the points of procedures in the hands of the assumably most skilled person in the vicinity, viz, the physician, who may or may not consider it necessary to use an inhalator or other means, depending upon the circumstances. There are many legal features included in the various sections of the bill upon which I am, of course, unqualified to speak. I doubt very much whether I shall be able to be present in Washington on the occasion of April 19 when this bill is slated to be heard, hence my comments above regarding it. Yours respectfully, EMERY R. HAYHURST, Consultant Industrial Hygiene. [Special to the Herald-Tribune, April 19, 1932] ASPHYXIATED BY PLANT SPRAY ATLANTIC CITY, April 19.—George Kranich, 55 years old, was asphyxiated today by the fumes of an exterminating fluid he was spraying on plants in the hothouses behind his flower shop in Ventnor Avenue, according to the police. He was found unconscious on the floor and died on the way to the hospital. The hothouse was closed and was filled with fumes from the sprayer. Senator BINGHAM. I also have a letter from the Washington representative of the Manufacturing Chemists' Association of the United States, written by Dr. W. N. Watson, secretary, dated March 22, 1932, which is encouraging because it shows that the introduction of the bill and the work Professor Henderson has done on it in connection with representatives of the chemists' association has been productive of good. Doctor Watson says [reading]: Hon. HIRAM BINGHAM, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR BINGHAM: Reference is made to our conversation of March 21 concerning Federal volatile poison bill, S. 3853, in which I outlined the recommendation of the executive committee of this association that the question of labeling volatile poisonous products used in the household, which involved a hazard to life or health, be handled by a voluntary arrangement with the Surgeon General, and also indicating our desire to cooperate with the United States Public Health Service to that end. Yesterday afternoon I had an opportunity to discuss this question with Surgeon General Cummings, and his reaction to this procedure was favorable. He indicated the additional desirability of close coopération with the State public health officials in order that such a development may be nation-wide in its scope. He also indicated that he would be glad to advise our association of the attitude of the executives of the public health association to this arrangement following contact with their officials. On receipt of word from Doctor Cummings on this latter point I will promptly notify you and in the meanwhile, if you so desire, I presume you could make direct contact with Doctor Cummings on any other phases of this matter. The above development, we believe, is a favorable indication that the question of labels on volatile poisons entering the household can be handled by voluntary arrangements with the United States Public Health Service. Should there be any further questions arise in your mind on this matter please do not hesitate to advise me, and you may rest assured that I will keep you advised of any further developments on this subject. Very truly yours, W. N. WATSON. Senator BINGHAM. It would be very much better, Mr. Chairman, if this whole matter could be done without the necessity of stringent law, by voluntary action of the chemists in connection with the Public Health Service. I fear, however, from the statements in some of the letters I have received that quite a number of people would refuse to do anything which would in their opinion endanger the sale of their products. The question for you to determine is whether the products mentioned in the bill are poisonous, whether in the amounts mentioned they really constitute a danger, whether the provision made for protecting the public against those poisons is too drastic, and whether it can be done in a better way. I submit the bill for your earnest consideration and study. I now ask that you hear Professor Henderson, one of the most distinguished authorities on toxic cases in the world. He was employed in the building of the Hudson Tube to determine exactly the amount of fresh air needed to take care of the carbon monoxide that is constantly put forth by the thousands of automobiles going through the tube. Thanks to his careful study and exact scientific knowledge there has been no case of poisoning in that tube, where we might expect there would be a large number. He also had a very distinguished service during the World War in providing means of meeting poisonous gases and devising gas masks. The CHAIRMAN. We will be very happy to hear from Doctor Henderson. First, I shall ask the reporter to include in the record the following communications. (The documents referred to attached are here printed in full, as follows:) CLIFTON CHEMICAL Co. (INC.), CHAIRMAN SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We are manufacturers of deodorizing and moth cakes. These are made of paradichlorobenzene. Under the terms of this bill it may possibly be considered a “halogen compound of hydrocarbons." However, it is not considered a poison in any way, manner, or form except to moths. It is not to be considered harmful to human beings. You probably have personal experience with this product in that you have observed round cakes of this material in public wash rooms. Chlorine is undoubtedly poisonous in itself, but not necessarily so in its compounds. A classic example of this is in common table salt, which is made of sodium and chlorine. Observe, nobody considers table salt poisonous. In view of the above information, we respectfully suggest that the bill be made more specific as to which chlorine products of hydrocarbons should be labeled as volatile poison and thereby exclude harmless ones such as paradichlorobenzene. Respectfully yours, CLIFTON CHEMICAL CO. (INC.). E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & Co. (INC.), CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Referring to United States Senate bill No. S. 3853 which is also known as the Federal volatile poison act, we manufacture and sell paradichlorobenzene, which comes within the provisions of that bill as now drawn. However, we wish to respectfully call to your attention pages 10 and 11 of the attached Farmers' Bulletin 1246 and page 15 in Farmers' Bulletin 1353, both of which were issued and distributed by the United States Department of Agriculture, stating briefly that paradichlorobenzene is nonpoisonous to persons and domestic animals under ordinary conditions, although it is poisonous to insects confined in its fumes for a sufficient length of time. Therefore we trust that United States Senate bill No. S. 3853 will be changed so as to exclude paradichlorobenzene for the reasons mentioned above. Respectfully yours, FREDERICK W. WOLFF, Sales Manager of Intermediates. Senator CHAS. L. MCNARY, Washington, D. C. THE EXPELLO CORPORATION, DEAR SENATOR MCNARY: We have recently had brought to our attention bill No. F3835, Federal volatile poison act. In this bill we understand paradichlorobenzene is included. We are very pleased to write that for the last five years we have manufactured and displayed to the drug and department stores of this country, a product known as Expello, the base of which is paradichlorobenzene. When we started displaying this product, we were informed through reliable sources that the gas or fumes from paradichlorobenzene which are caused by its evaporation were not injurious to humans or animals and we can truthfully state at this time that during these last five years, employees in our factory who have been in constant contact with the product and with the volatile gas have enjoyed excellent health and are in even better condition to-day than they were a few years ago. One thing we have noticed in particular with the girls employed in close contact with the product, is the fact that they very seldom have colds, and we strongly believe that there is no ill effect from this product. Yours very truly, JOHN R. MATHES, President. HOOKER ELECTROCHEMICAL CO., New York, April 16, 1932. Hon. CHARLES L. McNARY, Chairman Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. MCNARY: Our attention has been called to bill No. S. 3853 introduced in the United States Senate by Senator Bingham of Connecticut and known as Federal volatile poison act. Section 2 of the bill covers a definition of the term "poisonous volatile substance" in which is included under (a) (11) “all halogen compounds of hydrocarbons in a concentration of five per centum or more." Paradichlorbenzene, a product we manufacture, is a halogen compound of a hydrocarbon and is, therefore, apparently included under this subdivision. The product has become widely known and quite generally used as a household moth preventive and is of very real value to the housewife. We refer you to the United States Department of Agriculture, Farmers' Bulletin No. 1353 issued July, 1923, and revised in June, 1931, from which we quote the following: "Paradichlorbenzene is a white crystalline substance, which vaporizes slowly at ordinary temperatures, forming a gas apparently heavier than air. This gas is nonpoisonous to man, but poisonous to clothes moths and other fabric pests when they are exposed to it in tight containers. The fumes do not injure fabrics." We are writing to bring to the attention of your committee, our firm belief that paradichlorbenzene, a most useful product in every household, can not be fairly classified as a volatile poison in its effect on human beings and, therefore, should not be included in the products covered by Senator Bingham's bill. Respectfully yours, A. O. LOEFFLER, Hooker Electrochemical Co. INSECTICIDE AND DISINFECTANT MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION (INC.), Hon. CHARLES L. MCNARY, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MCNARY: This letter is with reference to Senate bill No. 3853 introduced February 29 by Senator Bingham of Connecticut and referred to the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry of which you are chairman. This bill defines as a volatile poison all halogen compounds of hydrocarbons a concentration of 5 per cent or more. In The bill provides in lines 3 to 7, inclusive, on page 4 that such a substance shall be labeled with a figure showing a skull and crossbones and the words "The fumes are poisonous. Do not inhale. Avoid contact with the skin. case of accident send for an inhalator." and such additional or other warning or direction as the Surgeon General may specify. Paradichlorobenzene is a crystal substance used almost exclusively for killing moths. It emits an invisible fume or vapor which in the proper concentration is destructive to moth life. It is a halogen compound and under the terms of the Bingham bill would have to be labeled as a poisonous substance. Paradichlorobenzene can not by the wildest stretch of the imagination be considered dangerous or harmful to human life. This fact can easily be substantiated. We therefore vigorously protest against that portion of the bill which would make it provisions apply to a chemical substance such as paradichlorobenzene and urge when a hearing is held on this bill that this protest be given due consideration. In general we are in sympathy with the purpose of the bill; in fact we are glad to cooperate in any move which will insure greater safety to the human family. After reading the bill, however, we are of the belief that certain portions of it have been rather loosely drawn and need considerable clarification. Very respectfully yours, Hon. CARLES L. MCNARY, H. W. COLE, Secretary. CLEAN-HOME PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Chairman Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: My attention has just been called to Senate bill No. S. 3853, known as Federal volatile poison act. We favor legislation that protects the public from the dangers of using poisonous preparations but we are informed that the present bill includes certain chemicals which are not poisonous to humans and/or animals. We ask that a thorough investigation be made to decide which chemicals are poisonous and which are not. As an example, the present bill includes paradichlorbenzene. This chemical, as it is packaged by our compay and many others, is safe. An investigation will prove this. If passed as it now stands, Senate bill No. 3853 would cause many companies like our own unwarranted expense and, in the case of our comparatively small company, would require the laying-off of over 100 people whose families are dependent on their wages. We ask no favors; only fairness. MELVILLE KEIM, President. NEW YORK, N. Y., April 19, 1932. CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY: We are opposed to United States Senate bill S. 3853, known as Federal volatile poison act, by reason of its incorrect interpretation of conditions as they actually exist. We feel its adoption would be folly and of no value whatsoever. We hope its substances will be altered materially to meet conditions as they exist. MAGNUS MABEE & REYNARD (INC.). |