ACS on vinyl chloride: further clarification ACS has come up with a slight modification of its letter to the Oc­cupational Health and Safety Ad­ministration clarifying the Society's position on the agency's proposed "no detectable level" work-place standard proposed for vinyl chlo­ride. The position was first pre­sented at OSHA hearings in July.

As reported last week in C&EN (Aug. 26, page 6), ACS Executive Director Robert W. Cairns ex­plained in a letter to administrative law judge Gordon J. Myatt, who presided at the hearings, that there had been considerable misunder­standing about the Society's posi­tion. He explained that an errone­ous conclusion could be drawn if ei­ther of two sentences is taken out of context.

This original version of Dr. Cairns' letter states: "We would like to submit for the record the following clarifying statement as to what these two sentences were in­tended to state." The final version reads: "We would like to submit for the record the following clarifying statement as to what our statement was intended to state."

In both versions the same "fol­lowing clarifying statement" is made. To wit: "In the absence of knowing the tolerable limit for workers exposed to vinyl chloride, the standard should be set as low as can be detected by a currently accepted reliable analytical proce­dure—namely, at 1 p.p.m. At the same time, work should continue to define a threshold value so that, when it is defined, the standard may be suitably revised. Since de­velopment of the means to attain the recommended level may take time, we recommend a reasonable period for users of vinyl chloride to come into compliance."

Bear market claws most chemical stocks It's been downhill almost all the way this year for the stock market. And the shares of many major chemical producers have been no less able to fend off the onslaught of Wall Street's bears than have issues from other, currently less fa­vored industries. Major market in­dexes are off by 20 to 30%.

Ironically, chemical stocks are being clawed during a year when the overall outlook for industry, at least in the short run, rarely has

been brighter. Profits for 1974's first half topped year-earlier results by close to 50%.

Higher profits bring the promise of higher dividends as well, and several chemical companies— among them Celanese, Airco, American Cyanamid, Commercial Solvents, Pennwalt, and Du Pont— have sweetened their return to shareholders in recent weeks. Con­sequently, some chemical stocks now are selling at prices that, com­pared to earlier years, are relatively low multiples of annual per-share earnings and provide holders with relatively high dividend yields. The price-earnings ratio for Celanese, for example, is about 5 and the yield almost 9%; American Cyana­mid offers a p/e ratio of 7 and an 8% yield; Olin a p/e ratio of 5 and a better than 6% yield.

Chemical shares, moreover, con­tinue to get high marks from many investment advisers and brokers. Some are voicing skepticism about the outlook for continued gains in prices and profits next year in the wake of weaknesses elsewhere in the national economy, to be sure. More typical, however, is the com­ment last month by Value Line In­vestment Survey that "this is a good time to invest in chemical stocks." And Robert J. Eastman of the New York brokerage firm Blyth Eastman Dillon says: "We foresee above-average profit growth for

Chemical stocks this year: some up, more down

Air Products Allied Chemical American

Cyanamid Celanese Diamond

Shamrock Dow Chemical Du Pont GAF W. R. Grace Hercules IMC Monsanto Nalco Pennwalt Reichhold Rohm and Haas Stauffer Union Carbide Witco

Dow Jones Industrials

N.Y. Stock

1974 PRICE Jan. 2

$ 42

49%

19% 28%

26 571/4

160y2

8% 241/2 34 373/4

541/2 291/8

211/8

73/4

733/4 423/8

33% I73/4

855

Recent

$ 40% 33%

I81/2 30%

22% 58%

112% 7%

20% 30% 40% 55% 183/4

17 16% 68 373/4

41% 281/2

672

% Change

- 3 % - 3 2

- 7 +7

- 15 +2 - 30 -19 -16 - 1 0 +6 +2 -36 -20 +115 - 8 - 1 1 +21 +61

- 2 1

Exchange Composite Index 51.98 37.18 - 2 8

chemical companies through each year of this decade, even when gen­eral economic conditions are sluggish or amidst economic dis­tress in [other] major industries."

A few chemical issues have man­aged to show gains for the year to date. Witco Chemical and Reichhold Chemicals were among the handful of issues that hit new highs for the year last week.

Promising ulcer drug runs into trouble A drug that has generated much enthusiasm as an ulcer therapeutic may be on shaky ground, according to British medical scientists. In the U.S., the Food and Drug Adminis­tration has taken up the British lead and begun a safety probe of the new compound, called metiamide, but hasn't ordered a formal halt to trials in humans. However, FDA concern has, in effect, brought a halt to clinical trials in the U.S.

Even the drug's developer, SmithKline Corp., admits that it curtailed clinical trials here and abroad following a report from the British clinicians that the still-ex­perimental compound produced a blood disorder in two of an unspeci­fied number of patients. This disor­der, reversible agranulocytosis, is characterized by an abnormally low white blood cell count.

Earlier, in animal toxicology in­vestigations, metiamide adminis­tration produced depressed white blood cell counts in four of 68 dogs used in one study. The depression was reversible, however, and white cell counts returned to normal after the drug was withdrawn.

Metiamide has been applauded by clinicians who have worked with it as an effective treatment for peptic ulcers. The drug is a hista­mine H2 antagonist that prevents naturally produced histamine from initiating hypersecretion of hydro­chloric acid by the gastric mucosa. Overproduction of thé acid in the stomach is thought to be a prime factor in the formation of gastric ulcers.

SmithKline is hesitant to com­ment on the FDA review of meti­amide safety data, and FDA won't talk about the findings of its review panel, now complete, until they are presented to the FDA commission­er. So the whole question is still up in the air. But Britain's Council on the Safety of Medicine, the U.K. equivalent to FDA, has reviewed its data and decided to allow resump­tion of clinical trials.

Sept. 2, 1974 C&EN 5