Case 33 has been discussed. That was the one who was taken out on the fourth day.
Case 37 probably from the third to the fourth day drank a little water, probably not very much. On the whole it was one of the better experiments. On the sixth day he was taken out of the experiment.
Case 38 -- from the second to the third day the loss of weight of two hundred cc, although the kidneys alone eliminated three hundred cc.. This indicates with certainty an intake of water. From the fourth to the fifth day the weight remains the same. Nevertheless, this case was taken out of the experiment on the sixth day.
Case 39 has already been discussed. That is the 49-year-old who always drank water and actually did not participate in any experiment, really.
Case 40, from the third to the fourth day, increases in weight by one hundred grams. He certainly drank something. On the fifth day he was taken out of the experiment. That was the 16-year-old who was in a very brief experiment.
Case 41 has a relatively slight loss of weight from day to day. His total loss of weight within a six-day experiment period amounts to three kilograms. He begins with forty-nine kilograms and ends the experiment with forty-six. That is one of the cases who was rather clever. He took small amounts regularly and that is hard to prove. It is impossible for a person who is in a similar experiment for six days, when he has less calories than he needs, to lose only three kilograms in this long time. This loss of weight is less than what many people in the Schaefer group had.
Case 42. From the third to the fourth day the weight did not change - or, rather, he loses a hundred grams although the amount of urine was two hundred grams more than the intake. One must assume here again that up to three-quarters of a liter of water was drunk and, although from the fourth to the fifth day he eliminates part of this amount of water and had four hundred cc more urine, the loss of weight is only seven hundred grams.
That is hardly possible. He certainly drank water twice. He was taken out of the experiment on the seventh day.
Case 43 from the third to the fourth day of the experiment gains one hundred/grams; judging by the amount of urine alone he must have drunk five hundred cc of water at this time. Nevertheless, the experiment is interrupted on the sixth day.
And Case 44 is from the Schaefer group.
Q. Now, which groups drank water according to these tables?
A. Giving the subjects the benefit of the doubt, I have calculated that from the group of a thousand cc no one was more than three days without fresh water, not a single person. I figured that out subsequently. From the group which got five hundred cc of sea water about 20 to 25 percent showed good results. Those were all cases where the experiment was stopped in a short time, on the sixth day at the latest. Everybody that lasted longer was someone who drank water; and, to the best of my ability, and using methods which I think any doctor would approve of, I figured out the loss of body weights and I shall hand that statement in in writing later. There is not a single case who lost so much body weight that he was in any danger of damage to his health by loss from water.
Q. That chart can be checked by the curves - that is, an expert can compare them?
A. Yes. The total loss of weight is entered in this curve and that figure is taken from the chart.
DR. STEINBAUER: Mr. President, I should like to show these weight charts to the expert, which are in Document Book 2 and is No. 36. This is a photostat. If I may submit them now so that they may be show to Mr. Ivy and so that I may ask him questions about these charts, I will give it an exhibit number later. No, it will be Exhibit 23.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may present them to the witness in due time.
JUDGE SEBRING: As I understand your statement, doctor, you have certain weight charts which you would like to have the expert who is going to be called by the prosecution see and study, prior to the time that he takes the stand so that when it comes time for your crossexamination you may propose to him hypothetical questions based upon these figures and then you will then save time because he has had them available for study.
Is that correct?
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, you can consult prosecution to see when they can be submitted to Dr. Ivy, the expert.
DR. HOCHWALD: I shall do my best to get it through to Dr. Ivy, but, inasmuch as he is going to take the stand at one-thirty, I do not think it will be possible for him to study these charts before this afternoon. Possibly, if defense counsel will submit them now, Dr. Ivy will be prepared to answer questions submitted by defense counsel tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT: It may be submitted to the expert, Dr. Ivy, and he will consider them when possible.
DR. STEINBAUER: It is missing in your document book, Your Honors.
JUDGE SEBRING: What number did you give that?
DR. STEINBAUER: 23. This document consists of two parts, a photostat chart and a typewritten chart. The typewritten chart I have taken from the cross-examination by Mr. Hardy. It contains the experiments which were repeated.
Those are cases 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 29, and 31. I repeat, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 29, 31.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand that those numbers refer to the experimental subjects; is that correct?
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, the subjects, according to these charts which we have discussed today.
DR. HOCHWALD: I just note that this typewritten sheet is only in German. Possibly Dr. Steinbauer has some list for the sake of the Expert Witness which he could and over.
DR. STEINBAUER: We can see from this big chart there are only a few figures -- a weight chart; there are none in English.
DR. HOCHWALD: Only the typewritten chart has an explanation to the numbers, and is given in German. I only want to know if you possess a translation.
DR. STEINBAUER: Because of the lack of time, it was not possible. It has not been translated as yet.
JUDGE SEBRING: I would suggest that if the translators have a copy of the German, one page I examined, they have written in pencil the English translation of the German text on that shoot.
DR. HOCHWALD: I will try to get the translations.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Counsel have any further questions?
DR. STEINBAUER: One very brief question.
BY DR. STEINBAUER:
Q. You testified about giving drinking water orally or intravenously, and you used various signs for that; one sign in the Chart is "HP". You said that was Hypotonic table salt. It was thought that that meant brain punctures, but I want you to state this "HP" is always at the end and has something to do with the interruption of the experiments.
Would you please with the aid of the chart show me very briefly where this "HP" is, that it is at the end of the experiment?
A. Yes, the "HP" also means that the experiment was interrupted. There was no puncture of the brain, in any cases, and I never in my life performed a puncture of the brain. It was a Hypotonic solution that was introduced. It is Oralor Parenteral; Oral means through the mouth, Parenteral means the introduction through the veins.
DR. STEINBAUER: I have no questions about the chart, but I should like to ask questions in the direct examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it is almost time for the recess. The redirect examination will wait until the close of Dr. Ivy's testimony.
The Tribunal will now be in recess until 1:30 o'clock.
(Whereupon the Tribunal recessed until 1330 hours, 12 June 1947.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 12 June 1947).
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, at this time the Prosecution desires to call Dr. Andrew C. Ivy to the witness stand?
THE PRESIDENT: Has the witness sheet been made for Dr. Ivy? It can be made as soon as possible.
MR. HARDY: I will have it completed and filed at a later date, you Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Beiglboeck will resume his place in the dock his testimony being interrupted due to an emergency call for another witness.
The Marshal will summon the witness Dr. Ivy to the stand.
Dr. Andrew C. Ivy, a witness, took the stand testified as follows:
THE PRESIDENT: The witness will raise his right hand and be sworn. Repeat after me?
I swear that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT: The witness will be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. HARDY:
Q Witness, what is your full name?
AAndrew Conway Ivy.
Q When and where were you born?
A I was born in Farmington, Missouri, February 25, 1893.
Q Will you at this time briefly outline for the Tribunal your educational background, specifying the degrees you hold, and other particulars thereof.
A I received my grammar school, education in several states Missouri, Tennessee, Georgia. I received my college education in Missouri. I received the Master of Science degree and the Doctor of Physiology degree from the University of Chicago, Doctor of Medicine degree from Rush Medical College in affiliation with the University Chicago. I have been granted the honorary Doctor of Science degree.
Q What has been your experience in the educational field, doctor?
A I taught physiology in the University of Chicago for four years, School of Medicine for four years at Northwestern University of Chicago for 20 years and now I am Vice President of the University of Illinois in charge of the College of Medicine, Dentistry, Pharmacy, and and at the same time distinguished professor of physiology in the graduate school of the University of Illinois.
Q Do you maintain membership in various medical societies? If so, would you kindly elicit for the Tribunal just what societies you are a member in?
A Member of American Council of Physicians, American Medical Association. I have been chairman of the Section of Physiology and Pathology of the American Medical Association. Member of American Physiological Society of which I have been president and member of the American Gastro-Enterological Assn. of which I have-been president, a member of the Society of Experimental Biology of which I have been past chairman, member of numerous other specialty societies and have been president for example of the Institute of Medicine Society of Internal Medicine of Chicago.
Q Will you outline for the Tribunal briefly what research experience you have had?
A My research as pertained principly to subjects in physiological and clinical investigation. Most of my work has been in the field of the alimentary tract, more recently in the field of aviation medicine. I have published some 900 articles in the various fields of research in medicine. During the War I was scientific director of the Naval Medical Research Institute which covered research in all fields of human biology.
Q Have you been a member of the Committee on Clinical Investigation of the National Research Council?
A I have been a member of several committees of the National Research Council of the United States. I was a member of the Committee on Clinical Investigation since 1939, a member of the Committee on Decompression Sickness, a member of the Committee on Fatigue-and Nutrition as related to industrial workers. I am a member of the Committee on Aviation Medicine, also of the National Research Council.
Q Were you also a consultant to the plans of the Quartermaster General of the United States?
A Yes. Consultant of the Surgeon General of the United States Army in the Division of Nutrition, consultant to the Board of Medicine and Surgery of the United States Navy.
Q And in addition to your duties as consultant to the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery of the United States Navy you were scientific director of the Naval Medical Research Institute?
A Yes. I served in that capacity for 9 months during the later part of 1942 and most of 1943. My function was to organize the staff of the institute and start its production in research.
Q Doctor, I will interrupt you for a moment. In as much as this interrogation is in the English language, after I ask a question if you will, kindly hesitate for a moment before answering so that the interpreter can properly interpret the answers and questions into the German language.
And, more recently, doctor, have you served in the capacity as an expert to the Secretary of War, selected by the American Medical Association?
A Yes, I have been serving in that capacity, selected at the request of the Secretary of War by the Board of Trustees of the American Medical Association.
Q First of all, in this examination, doctor, I desire to ask you some questions relative to research in the field of aviation medicine. First, what are your research qualifications relative to explosive decompression or the situation to which persons flying in a pressure cabin aircraft would be exposed when flying at 40 to 60 thousand feet if the cabin were ruptured by gun fire?
AAs a member of the Committee on Aviation Medicine and the Committee on Decompression Sickness of the National Research Council I recently published two articles on problems pertaining to decompression sickness. One appeared in the Journal of Aviation Medicine early last fall. Another in the Journal of the American Medical Association, I believe either in December or January.
Q What are your research qualifications relative to decompression sickness or pressure drop sickness?
A I have just indicated that. I have made a special study of the cause and symptoms of chokes or coughing which occur under certain conditions at high altitude. I made a special study of the cause of bends or pains in the region of the joints on exposure to high altitude. I have made a special study of free fall through the air. In 1940 and 1941 we had a professional parachute jumper bail out or jump out of the plane at an altitude of 32,500 feet and fall without opening the parachute to a level of around 2000 feet where he opened his parachute. We were interested, in the effect of free fall on heart rate and respiration and other physiological functions. This jumper had attached to him 100 pounds of physiological apparatus. We had electrodes connected to his chest so that the heart beat could be broadcast out over the air down to the ground to be recorded on a wax disc. We had a device, a recording barograph, so a curve of the rate of fall through the air could be made. We had a neurograph or an apparatus for making; a record of the rate of amplitude of respiration and other devices for making studies of the physiological responses to free fall from high altitude.
Q. Have you done any research work relative to rescue from high altitudes?
A. This particular problem on free fall pertained to the problem of rescue from high altitudes because it was our belief that perhaps it was most advisable for aviators when they had to ball out from their plane at altitudes particularly above 35,000 feet, to take a free fall.
Q. Well then those were studies on periods of useful consciousness when exposed without oxygen at different altitudes?
A. Well, we made studies on periods of free consciousness at various altitudes is order to find out how long one would be able to write or to think effectively and efficiently when exposed without supplemental oxygen at high altitudes. To be specific, if an aviator were exposed without a supplementary oxygen supply to an altitude of 30,000 feet where there is not enough oxygen to supply the brain for a very long period of time, how long would it be before he would lose consciousness, or how long would it be before it would be unable for him to write? Or if he were exposed to 40,000 feet without supplemental oxygen, how long would he be able to write?
Q. How did the United States Army Air Corps equip its high altitude flying personnel for escape at high altitudes?
A. They were equipped with an oxygen mask which was attached by rubber tube to a bail-out bottle of oxygen. In it was a quantity of oxygen was compressed into the bail-out bottle which was in a pocket on the pants leg. The supply of oxygen was adequate to keep the flyer adequately supplied with oxygen until he reached a level of 15,000 feet, where a supplemental oxygen supply was no longer required.
Q. Did the flying personnel also wear an electrically heated suit?
A. Yes, the suit was electrically heated until the time they left the plane. It was not electrically heated, however, after they left the plane. But the warmth of course would be retained for some time after leaving the plane.
Q. With this equipment could the flying personnel of the United States Army Air Corps abandon a plane at heights up to 40,000 feet?
A. That is correct.
Q. Could they abandon a plane at any higher altitudes with this equipment?
A. They could abandon the plane at a higher altitude, but they might lose consciousness because at altitudes above 40,000 feet in order to adequately oxygenate the blood it is necessary to supply 100% oxygen under pressure.
Q. What is the chief danger in bailing out at altitudes of 40,000 feet? I imagine the cold would be one danger, and then the unconsciousness feature. Would those be the two dangers that they would encounter?
A. If you did not take a free fall or open your parachute within a few seconds after leaping out, you would be subject to the hazard of freezing an exposed part, particularly, and to lack of oxygen.
Q. Now in the development of this equipment used by the United States Army Air Corps for flying personnel who escaped from high altitudes was it necessary to use prisoners as experimental subjects to develop that equipment?
A. No. As a matter of fact, it was unnecessary to use human subjects except to test the equipment after it had been made. It was possible on the basis of theoretical considerations to determine the amount of oxygen that had to be put in the bail-out bottle in order to preserve con sciousness or to maintain an adequate oxygenation of the blood from a certain high altitude to a lower altitude where a supplementary oxygen supply would be unnecessary.
Q. Dr. Ivy, are you familiar with the evidence which has been presented before the Tribunal in connection with the high altitude experiments conducted at the Dachau concentration camp?
A. I am.
Q. Have you had the opportunity to study the report written by Ruff, Romberg, and Rascher, which is Document No. 402 found in Document Book No 2?
A. I am.
Q. Do you have Document Book 2 before you, Doctor?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you kindly turn to Page 88 of the English Document Book, and you will note therein a report of an experiment. Can you tell us whether or not it was necessary to perform such a hazardous experiment as set forth in this document?
A. I do not believe that it was necessary to do this experiment in order to determine the equipment to supply aviators who have to bail out of an airplane at high altitude.
Q. Do you think it was necessary to subject these human beings to such a prolonged period of unconsciousness due to oxygen lack to find out whether or not it would be best to supply bail out oxygen equipment and to take a free fall part of the way from 40,000 feet if the oxygen equipment were not available?
A. No, I believe that the information which was obtained by these experiments on human beings could be obtained from animals, as is indicated by the results of Lutz and Wendt referred to in the document. The differences between the responses of the human subjects and the animals as reported by Lutz and Wendt were not sufficient, in my opinion, to warrent the performance of these quite hazardous experiments.
Q. Prof. Ivy, do you consider the experiments which are described in this document, that is the group Romberg and Rascher report, Document No. 402, to have been particularly dangerous?
A. I consider them to be dangerous because of the prolonged period of unconsciousness to which the subjects were exposed. For example, they were unconscious for periods of around twenty minutes, and they were disoriented for periods of around thirty to ninety minutes. That is a dangerous period of oxygen lack to which to expose the brain. I agree that since these workers followed the electrocardiogram demonstrates that the heart of those subjects was not momenterially affected or significantly affected by this prolonged exposure to oxygen lack. But these experiments do not show, or the results do not show that the cells of the brain were not injured. One of the higher faculties of the brain is learning, and we know that the learning process is rather sensitive to oxygen lack, and the only way to check against the possibility of damage of the learning mechanism by prolonged exposure to oxygen would have been to have determined the I.Q. of these subjects or the ability of these subjects to learn before and after the subjects were exposed to such a prolonged period of oxygen lack.
MR. HARDY: I wish to interrupt you for a moment, Dr. Ivy. May it please the Tribunal, it has been called to my attention that defense counsel for Ruff and Romberg are not present, end inasmuch as this testimony will affect their cases, I at this time will ask Dr. Ivy to set aside his testimony concerning the high altitude experiments, and I proceed to the sea water experiments.
I am advised that Dr. Sauter and the other defense attorney may be here this afternoon. If not, we can take it up tomorrow in their presence.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you see to it that counsel for Ruff and Romberg are notified of the fact that this testimony is to be given?
MR. HARDY: I will, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: What phase of the witness' examination are you about to take up?
MR. HARDY: Seawater experiments. I note that counsel for Becker-Freyseng are present. Is it possible that Dr. Pelkmann is here in the court house? I wonder if Dr. Stein-bauer can answer that?
DR. STEINBAUER: Dr. Pelkmann is on a trip.
MR. HARDY: Then in view of that, Your Honor, I will ask to proceed with the sea water experiments and interrogate Dr. Ivy concerning them. I don't know what we can do about the absence of Dr. Pelkmann, inasmuch as he is out of the city.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q Dr. Ivy, what has been your experience relative to the larger problem of survival on a raft at sea or the potability of sea water?
A In 1939, as a member of the Committee on Clinical Investigation for the National Research Council, I was asked to make an investigation of the best procedure for packing drinking water in cans for use as emergency drinking water aboard rafts. As a result of that study, canned water was produced and was supplied to the rubber rafts that are part of the equipment of airplanes. I was also asked to make a study of survival rations for rubber life rafts, and the ration that is now being used by the U. S. Army and Navy for that purpose is a part of that development. I might say, that when I was at the Naval Medical Research Institute as scientific director, I served as a collaborator in the project which led to the desalination or the removal of salt from sea water in order to render it potable. In that connection, I might say that the chemical method which we developed is, from a chemical technological standpoint, very much like that which was developed by Dr. Konrad Schaefer. We carried it further, however, and developed it, insofar as its application to conditions aboard a raft is concerned, so that it was very efficient. We used plastic bags which could be packed in a very small space and which would be used for carrying out the chemical reaction.
Q Did you ever make a study of the toxicity of sea water?
A The toxicity of sea water, yes. It's one of the first experiments that we performed at the Naval Medical Research Institute. There were three subjects. I served as one subject, the first day taking only 108 calories in the form of candy. I consumer 600 cc of sea water which had a salinity of approximately 3.4$ and a sodium chloride or table salt content of 3%. The second day I consumed 800 cc of the sea water. The Third, day, 1000 cc, or in three days, I consumed a total of 2,400 cc of sea water. At the end of that time I was rather markedly dehydrated and rather intoxicated to the point of developing hallucinations.
A second subject, who served with me voluntarily, was a hospital corpsman. He did not follow directions. The first day he became so thirsty that he consumed a total of 1,000 cc of sea water. The following morning he was so thirsty that, within the course of three hours, he consumed an additional 1,000 cc, which caused him to develop vomiting and diarrhea. We stopped the continuation of the experiment on this subject. The other subject was a doctor who did not consume the sea water in quantities to which I consumed the sea water. He consumed, as I recall now, only 800 cc of sea water in three days.
Q And what effect did that have on him?
A That quantity of sea water had no particular effect on him. No deleterious effect.
Q Then what studies did you make during the course of this experimental series?
A We made rather elaborate studies of changes in the composition of the blood and changes in the output of urine. We were primarily interested in knowing, purposes of confirmation of literature, the effect of drinking sea water on ourselves, and also in confirming data already in the literature regarding the capacity of the human kidney to concentrate salt in the urine.
Q To what extent can the human kidney concentrate salt or chlorideexpressed as sodium chloride?
A In this and subsequent studios we performed on this subject we found that tho human kidney will concentrate sodium chloride or table salt to the extent of from 1.8 to 2%. Now, occasionally in the literature you will find a figure as high as 2.3%. I know of only one such figure that has been reported in the literature, However, and I have always been skeptical about the accuracy of that figure, and when I read in the Record the report that certain subjects of Dr. Beiglboeck concentrated salt in the urine to the extent of greater than 2.3, or even as high as 3, I felt that that was due to inaccuracy in the use of chemical methods.
Q What is the concentration of salt in sea water, Doctor?
A That varies depending upon the source of the sea water. As I indicated some time ago, the salinity of the sea water we used which was picked, up off the coast of Norfolk, Virginia and had a salinty of around 3.4%. Sometimes, water taken from the ocean has a much lower salinity than that. The reason for that generally is that the sea water is removed too near the mouth of a river which would dilute the salt in sea water. The average salinity of sea water from the oceans throughout the world, according to my recollection, is somewhere between 3.4 and 3.5%. That means that it contains around 2.9 to 3.2% table salt.
Q When one drinks sea water containing approximately 3.3% salt, the kidney, in order to excrete the excessive salt, must use body water. Is that correct?
A That is correct. If you drink sea water that contains 3% of table salt and if the kidney cannot concentrate salt to a greater extent than 1.8% then, in excreting the remainder of the salt from the body, body water, which otherwise would not be excreted, would have to be used in the excretion of the extra salt. This would bring about unusual, or greater than otherwise would occur, excretion of body water.
Q Well, if a person were given sea water to drink, would they dehydrate faster than if they were given no water to drink?
A Yes, that is correct up to a certain point. The body, under conditions of lack of intake of fresh water, can excrete a small quantity of table salt which might come from a small amount of sea water. For example, if I were to start fasting, after two, three or four days the output of urine - my output of urine would be approximately 400 cc. That would contain less than a ram of salt or it would contain only a fraction of 1% of salt, so it would be possible for me to take in maybe a gram or a gram and a half of salt in the form of sea water so as to increase the concentration of salt in my 400 cc of urine up to a concentration of 1.8%.
Q Well, Doctor, would you say that if persons were given 500 or 1.000 cc of sea water daily to drink that they might die sooner than if a person was given no water?
A There is no question about that.
Q Well, would you refer to the official transcript of this trial on page 8483 of the English transcript? Do you have that with you, Doctor?
INTERPRETER: What date is that, please, Mr. Hardy?
MR. HARDY: This is the afternoon session of 3 June 1947, the testimony of Dr. Volharl. Page 8483 of the transcript, in the middle of the page, beginning with the words: "However, the experiments didn't give a definite supportive evidence of that." Does the interpreter have that sentence?
INTERPRETER: Yes.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q Now, Doctor, here, in the testimony of Professor Dr. Volhard, it states as follows:
"However, the experiments didn't give a definite supportive evidence of that, but they did have an important result. Not only the obvious result, namely that the Schaefer water was superior to anything else, but also the observation that the kidneys can, nevertheless, concentrate water so astonishingly well, up to the concentration of sea water, that, in the future, one could give the advise that in cases of sea distress, instead of being completely thirsty one could rather drink 500 cc of sea water and, in that manner, increase the salt content of the blood but would not have to be afraid of dehydration quite so quickly."
Now, is it true that the human kidney can concentrate salt to the extent that salt is present in sea water?
A No, it is not true. The statement is not true and the reasoning is not true and it would be a very dangerous statement to make for people at sea on a raft. It would lead to their death in the course of around 6 to 14 days. I mean, sooner than from 6 to 14 days, depending upon the environmental conditions.
They would die sooner, drinking 500 cc of sea water a day, then if they drank no water.
Q. Have you had an opportunity, Dr. Ivy, to read extensively this testimony of Professor Vollhard?
A. Yes, I have read all of it.
Q. I wish to point out to you on page 8484 of the record that Professor Vollhard testified that drinking sea water treated with Berkatit would have serious consequences after six days and lead to death if continued. Now, is that statement on the part of Professor Vollhard inconsistent with the statement on page 8483 which you have just analyzed?
A. Yes, I believe that it is inconsistent and I agree with the statement you just read on page 8484.
Q. Then you agree that Berkatit is nothing more than sea water without the taste, is that right?
A. That is correct.
Q. In studying these experiments of Professor Beiglboeck and the charts and records could you tell us whether or not these experiments were necessary?
A. They were not necessary in order to determine whether or not Schaefer water could be taken without harming the body. That would be determined by a chemical test. We have set up public health standards where the chemical composition of potable water, Schaefer water, produced would be analyzed to see if it came up to these chemical requirements, and a number of experiments have been done to demonstrate that sea water in quantities larger than 100 to 200 cc's, as I have already indicated, have a deltarious action on the body when sea water is the only source of water, and it is well known that there is no fruit juice or similar organic material which can be added to sea water which will neutralize the effects of salt on the body. All that one had to do would be to add some Berkatit to this sea water and study it chemically, as Dr. Konrad Schaefer did, to see if the salt in any way were modified, and there was no reason really to do that, because a person who knew anything about bio-chemistry would know that you could not modify table salt in any way so as to modify its effect on the body.