Johns-Manville Appropriation for a New X-Ray Unit at the Manville Dispensary (1946)

Two papers from August 1946 asking for $9,858 to replace the 15-year-old X-ray machine at the dispensary of Johns-Manville's Manville, New Jersey, factory with a new General Electric unit. A report by the Industrial Engineering Department said the old machine could not take clear chest pictures of "heavy or thick chested people," who had to be sent to Somerset Hospital. The appropriation request of August 8 warned that blurred pictures "could be diagnosed as chest lesions or conversely small lesions could be missed." It added that some asbestosis cases, "most of whom are heavy people," might be reclassified with clear pictures.

What it shows

The Manville plant was X-raying its workers routinely, and its own engineers said the equipment was not good enough to diagnose chest disease reliably. The request asked for "fact-finding" photographs "because of its importance to our employees." It was approved on October 4, 1946, and copied to A. R. Fisher and other vice presidents at headquarters. A word before "asbestosis cases" has been typed over and cannot be read. Earlier X-ray records from this plant figure in the Szymanski case of the same year.

In Johns-Manville's chronology

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

Appropriation request dated 8/8/46 for x-ray modernization equipment at the dispensary of the Manville plant. The reasons given for the purchase include the inadequacy of the current machine to x-ray "heavy, chunky" people. The current machine requires an exposure of 7/10 of a second for heavy people. The normal exposure time is 1/10 of a second. The longer exposure time causes a risk of obtaining a blurred image resulting in false diagnosis of chest lesions or conversely, small lesions could be missed. It is also mentioned that the current equipment is of obsolete design, allowing secondary rays to scatter which could result in the sterilization of the nurses. Other inadequacies such as problems with high voltage wires. cables and x-ray tubes are discussed. The current equipment is also unable to produce readable pictures of back, ribs, or shoulders and can produce x-rays of legs and feet only with difficulty.

Approximately 400 routine x-rays are taken per month plus approximately 20 additional x-rays from accident cases.

The potential litigation by employees for asbestosis and silicosis is mentioned as a further reason for a new machine, and it is pointed out that the present x-rays would furnish poor evidence in the case of a court trial. The appropriation is number 951-E-2882 REV. An earlier appropriation dated 8/2/46 is attached.

Editor's note: J-M's description gives reasons not found in these two pages: about 400 routine X-rays a month, scattered rays that could sterilize the nurses, problems with cables and tubes, inability to X-ray backs and limbs, and possible asbestosis and silicosis litigation. It also calls 1/10 second the normal exposure; the engineering report calls it the "maximum safe exposure time."