H.D. ANDERSON, ESQ., D. G. FELMN,
RESEARM & DEVELOPMENT, SOUT1iAMFTON.
MILLBANK.
DGF/BMS/46D
Dear Mr. Anderson,
1 st August, 1962
I write in answer to your letter of 19th July,
enclosing a
letter from R.H. Star of Sydney, referring to two
items In
Campbell-Johnsons' synopses.
Dealing first with the Item referring to the work
of Dr. Rojr
at the Chester Beatty, I feel sure that the Item
in the DAILY
MIRFOR for 19th June undoubtedly refers to a
letter to NATURE
(Volume 194, 1089) published on 16th June. I
enclose duplicate
copies of a photostat of this article in case you
wish to send
one to Mr. Star. This Is an extension of the work
of Roe,
Salamann and Cohen (published In Brit. J. Cancer
1959, 13, 623)
in which the co-carcinogenic activity of the
phenolic ira~tion
of cigarette smoke was Investigated. Roe now shows
that
unadulterated smoke condensate is more
carcinogenic than a pure
solution containing fifty times as much benzpyrene
as is present
in the condensate and that when he re-enforces the
benzpyrene
content of smoke condensate by fifty times,the
carcinogenic
activity is greater than that of unadulterated
condensate. The
mixture Is more carcinogenic than an arithmetic
summation of the
effects of the two components separately. It is
true that tie
is working with small groups of mice but the
results as they
stand support the hypothesis that smoke condensate
contains
co-carcinogenic substances.
As far as I am aware, Roe is not developing a
special filter
for phenols and I understand from T.M.S.C.-that
the remainder of
the article, which refers to this, was a bit of
journalistic license
on the part of the DAILY MIRROR, who took the
opportunity to link
Roe's work with the Lorillard press release. He
had possibly
referred to Wynder's work on the telephone to the
DAILY MIRROR
writer*When the article was publishedp he
Immediately got in touch
with T.M.S.C. to disclaim responsibility for the
statement which
he found embarrassing.
The other item quotedp synopsis 7297, Is based on
misinterpret-
ation of the abstract of the paper, which was
presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Association for
Cancer Research at
Atlantic City. The abstract was circulated as an
attachment to
CURRENT DIGEST for April 1962, which is produced
by T.I.R.C.
CZ)
BATCo document for Province of British Columbia 8
November 1999


H.D. Anderson, Esq. - 2 - 1st Augustj 1962
The abstract reads as followss-
"From intramuscular transplants of mouse lung
tissue
and methylcholanthrene, epidei=id carcinomas arose
in
6 of 30 mice (20%) on an adequate diet
supplemented by
injections of vitamin A, in 3 of 33 mice (9%) on
the same
diet without supplementary vitamin A# and in only
one of
2-5 mice (4) on a diet deficient of vitamin A.,
The mice were
Balb/C males.
These findings suggest an hypothesis that
Increased
intake3 of vitamin A by human populations In
recent decades
may play a role in the increased incidence of
epidermaid
carcinomas of the lungs through promotion of
carcinogenesis
by polycyclic hydrocarbons such as occur in
cigarette
smoke ........... .
It is thus apparent that the tumour which was
produced was
not stimulated by a chemical extracted from
cigarette smoke,
because methyleholanthrene has never been found in
cigarette smoke.
The paper by Mffhlbock, which you mention, Is a
new bit of
information to me, but I find now that he is not
the only person
who has claimed to have produced lung tumours by
exposure to
cigarette smoke. Essenberg has also claimed a
similar observation.
(SCIENCE 19529 1169 561). The tumours found in
both cases,
however, are said to be adeno-carcinomata and not
bronchogenic
carcinomata. They are, therefore, of a different
cellular type.
To the best of my knowledge, bronchogenic
carcinomata have been
produced by inhalation only by Wiseley, Kotin,
Fowler and Trivedi
(Proc. Am. Soc. Cancer Res. 1962, 3, 278) by
exposing mice to
artificial smog, following repeai~-d infection
with strains of
mice Influenza virus. Arthur Vorwaldt (of Ydchigan
7) has also
produced tumours by administering beryllium dust
to animals.
Other methods of producing lung tumours with
conddnsate have
been described by Macklocko whom you mention, but
who had to
administer killed tubercule bacilli at the some
time.
Prof. Norton Nelson, in Now York, insufflated the
lungs of
mice with benzpyrene dust and demonstrated, by
fluorescence
microscopyt that it had reached the bronchi. But
he never found
a lung tumour.
Lastly, there are the nitroadmines, some of which
when
Lr]
110
BATCo document for Province of British Columbia 8
November 1999


H.D. Anderson, Esq. 3 - let August, 1962
administered orally, pxoduced lung tumours in
rate.
It may be worth remarking that the theory that the
increase
in lung cancer Is due to better nutrition, is hard
to square with
other statements that lung cancer is found more
frequently in
the poorer classes than among the well-to-do, even
where there
is a similarity in cigarette consumption.
Star.
I hope that this information is helpful in
replying to
Yours sincerely,
Q\~ q -'~
" Ak, \J
D. G. FELTON
BATCo document for Province of British Columbia 8
November 1999