H. M. Jackson to J. A. Parks at Marrero on Following Up Dr. Bristol's X-Ray Readings (1969)

A one-page confidential memo of November 5, 1969, from H. M. Jackson, manager of J-M's industrial health program, to J. A. Parks at the Marrero, Louisiana, plant, sending Dr. L. J. Bristol's individual readings of the plant's workers' chest X-rays. The readings used standard terms rather than the proposed UICC criteria, Jackson explained, since those were not yet universally accepted and one aim of the study was to test them. "The reports should not just be placed in file," he wrote: positive findings were to be reviewed by Dr. Gidman (evidently the plant's doctor), questionable films and poor-quality X-rays rechecked, and for workers with "occupationally related conditions, not previously identified," the plant was to consider "whether the present work assignment and/or environment is appropriate."

What it shows

Bristol's readings had found more lung disease at Marrero than the plant doctors had (39 cases against 16, in Jackson's October 1969 report to J-M's president). Here Jackson tells the plant to act on the new findings, including possible transfer out of dusty work. The memo does not mention telling the workers themselves.

In Johns-Manville's chronology

Johns-Manville's own chronology of what the company knew describes this document as follows:

Letter from Jackson to J.A. Parks at Marrero concerning x-ray study by Dr. L.J. Bristol, 11/5/69. Jackson returns individual reports of x-ray interpretations made by Bristol and advises that the classification had been done in the "standard terminology," since the proposed UICC criteria have not been universally accepted. He notes that one of the objectives of the Bristol study has been to evaluate the validity of the UICC criteria.

Jackson advises Parks that the reports should "not just be placed in the file." "At a minimum: {1} those with positive findings should be reviewed by Dr. Gidman to determine whether any additional, local, immediate action is indicated; (2) those for whom there are questions raised should be reviewed to determine what further action, if any, should be undertaken; (3) those for which the quality of the film is commented on, should be reviewed to determine whether additional x-rays should be taken now or at the time of the next regular periodic examination; (4) if there are some with occupationally related conditions, not previously identified, you should review and consider whether the present work assignment and/or environment is appropriate."