PRIVACY ACT MATERIAL REMOVED
|
a
sires te diipilt Ue feasioie tu
suggest that the
mont ve in the cabin of
the airplane could not be adeq
uately
mo
red
by the devices in the plane itself.
Also, if it is true that the
ares went off scale, as ,
Stated, it does not seem
ai
plause
ible that such equipment would “go
z off scale” ”at at a dose level of 7
pe
letter transmittin & his
i report to the Bureau.
' the raditolog
spree iat there were
olo s
certain factors in the case, rela
ting to the oxteneat
exposure, that were “not certa
in”. H
statement of appellant’s su perv
i
isor
dated June 5, 1964
64 contaii ned thon”
available record of the actual
d ose rate in
i the plan
, e;, thatWin
in the
the le
Ft a
lette
counts per second dose rate
tr
were converted to a mr/hr. dose
rate
and
that
i
hadosto assume that thiiS Was an accurate
id
j
‘
radiation
dose rate in the plane.
and valid
interpretation
of the
oe rs
He concluded his report by saying:
doin, . ‘ ihard to understand
why the crew ofthis airplane
who were
& cloud tracking afte
r an atomic weapons tests
were not wearing
i
radiation detection devices o
dosimeters.
n their bodies, such as film badges or pocket
In 1966 a skin cancer was removed
from appellant’s nose. InJanuary
1967
furthernodes.
surgery was
perf.
;
lymph
performed on appellant’s neck for adenocarcinoma of the
In April 1967 the Bureau denied a
‘
wi
3
eh
vag
appellant requested reconsideration,
PP
the 6 large crystals there were 2 smalt crystals for use in areas of very high
radiation when the large crystals had reached their saturation point, that when
the radiation level exceeded the ability of the 6 crystals to count it, as it did
during the May 29, [957 flight, they switched to a small crystal; that the smal!
crystals were not as accurate or as sensitive, that they were capable of reading
much larger quantities of gamma rays but could not read small quantities; and
that the use of the small scintillation crystals drove the equipment “off scale’.
He stated that there was no precise means of translating the counts per
second
the equipment went “off scale”. He explained
that in addition to
yardsticks of radiation, such as
provide a reliable measure as to the amount of radioactivity contained in the
water which was within the cone, and had no relevance with respect to the rain
water which struck the front of the plane and entered the cockpit.
On July 31, 1967 a Bureau examiner prepared a supplemental statement of
the facts accepted by the Bureau, in which he dismissed the challenges to the
accuracy and sufficiency of the radiation monitoring data previously accepted
as a measure of appellant's radiation exposure on May 29, 1957. In the
statement of facts he said, among other things:
... There is no competent evidence to indicate the instruments were
in error to any great degree. The suggestion of error is argument which
will not be permitted to cloud theissue.
... The Bureau accepts that the monitors were capable of measuring
Other Evidence: In his request for
reconsideration the appellant challenged
the
“ accuracy and sufficiency of the
radiation monitoring data accepted
by the
Bureau as a measure (OF of the
the t type and amount ofradiatio
i
n to which he
exposed during the flight in question
and upon which the radiologist's medic
al
' Optnion was based. In support
of his contention, appellant submi
tted a
that most of the radiation which they
saw would be from below the airpla
equipment measured only the gammaray
s, not the lower energy X-rays ‘ot
alpha or beta rays, and it was desig
ned to discriminate against and did
not
measure gamma rays of energy below 50 KeV.
nn
the further stated that the readings
of the equipment were not exact, and
degree of exactness varied from mont
h to month, or from one season t
another, that changes in the Sensit
ivity of the equipment occurred: that
sometimes
other common
tain waler, that there may have been alpha and beta radioactivity associated
with the atomic debris in the rain water which the equipment on the plane was
not capable of measuring; and that the reading of the radioactivity below the
airplane made by the equipment was only applicable to the particular rain
ellant’s
’s claimclai f
i
.
me sonmpensation. The
supplementary Statement by a quali
fied electronic technician who w
responsible for the maintenance and
operation of the recording equipm nt
aboard the plane. The electronic techn
ician stated that the mea ng
suipment aboard the plane consisted
of six crystals, mounted just inside the
eo the plane, about 3 inches abov
e the belly, in such a way that the
loo ed down toward the tail end of the
aircraft so that they would see
:
in a 45-degrée angle in all directions fromi
t. The crystals were encompassedin
" & metal shield to keep out radiation
scattered from the side of the plane, so
reading into
milliroentgens. The readings taken by the equipment aboard the plane did not
as much as 500,000 c.p.s. and that at no time during the flight did the
gammacount exceed that value. The fact that momentary saturation or
overloading occurred on a more sensitive range of the monitor does not
invalidate the recorded readings.
The Bureau submitted the case record to another Board-certified specialist
in radiology for an opinion with respect to the issue. The Bureau again
requested that its statements of accepted facts dated September 30, 1966 and
July 31, 1967 should serve as the doctor's frame of reference.
In his report the specialist in radiology noted that the dose-rate equivalency
upon which the conclusions of the prior medical opinion and the Bureau’s
denial rested were “without supporting documentation” and impressed him as
‘very low”, that, accordingly, fre had obtained an analysis of the dosimetry
data by a research physicist in the Radiation Branch of the National Cancer
Institute which showed that the dose to which appellant was exposed was, in
fact, 35 roentgens rather than 35 milliroentgens, as assumed by the Bureau.
The radiologist was of the opinon that the stated exposure was not valid and he
said:
As you can see from my development, | have very strong doubts
about the validity of the stated dosimetry and in any event it is very
156
i$7
PRIVAC' Y ACT MATERIAL REMOVED