2. There is no etiological relationship between the veteran's presence in the vicinity of two atomic bomb tests in July 1946 and the subsequent onset of arachnoiditis, cauda equina. In support ofits conclusion that veteran's disability was not incurred in or . wert aggravated by military service, the Board said: There is no support for the contention that since specific reasons for development of arachnoiditis by the appellant have not been isolated by physicians, there must be a causa! relationship between the present condition and possible exposure to atomic radiation approximately 20 years earlier. The veteran has produced no medical support for his theory that overexposure to radiation could cause arachnoiditis. Independent research performed by the Board’s staff has not produced such support. Furthermore, the official report of Operation Crossroads, written by [the] official historian of Joint Task Force One, shows that film badges used to measure nuclear radiation following the blasts in question revealed no cases of overexposure to atomic radiation as a result of that operation. The present case is not analogous to the Board’s 1968 decision, the case of another veteran to which the veteran’s representative refers. The veteran in that case developed granulocytic leukemia after direct exposure to radioactive materials, including actual entrance into the underground impact site of an explosion within a few days of the blast and after carrying, by hand, radioactive materials in addition to being present, apparently in the openair, at the time of nuclear explosions. Of primary importance in that case was the conclusion that he received radiation approximating !00 roentgens and medical evidence of a direct relationship between exposure to significant amounts of radiation and the subsequent development of leukemia. Present case presents no comparable basis for a favorable decision. CASE NO. 7 Type of Injury: Bronchiolar Carcinoma of the Left Lung; Hypertrophy of the Prostate with Chronic Prostatitis; Fibrotic Contracture of the Bladder Outlet. BVA’s Decision: Denial Affirmed. Date of Decision: 1968. Appellant's Allegation: That his carcinoma of the left lung in 1961 (i} was etiologically related to carcinoma of the right testicle for which service connection is established, and (ii) the medical treatment which he received for his testicular tumor, especially the roentgen therapy to the left hilar region given in September 1946, contributed to the pulmonary carcinoma; and that his prostatic and renal conditions in 1965 and 1966 were caused by radiation therapy he received in June and August 1944, Facts: Veteran served in military from August 1942 to July 1945. While in service he was treated for a malignant tumor of the right testicle. A right orchidectomy was performed. He was subsequently treated with X-ray therapy from June to August 1944. After service, he received other medical treatments including roentgen therapy to the left hilar region given in September 1946. In December 196! he was again hospitalized. A tumor for which the lower lobe of the left lung was removed was diagnosed as a bronchiolar carcinoma. In November 1965 there was a clinical diagnosis of fibrous contracture of bladder outlet and pyelonephritis. In October 1966, there was also a diagnosis of prostatic hypertrophy, probably benign, of moderate degree and prostatitis. Medical Evidence; \n view of the specific allegations advanced, the Board submitted the clinical and other medical records to the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology for their examination, review and opinion. Three of the questions asked the Institute of Pathology were as follows: Is there any relationship between the lung tumor and the treatment which the veteran received for possible residuals of the testicular tumor, especially the roentgen therapy to the left hilar region given in September 1946? Is the [lung tumor} related to the testicular tumor for which right orchidectomy was performed in service in May 1944? Is there any relationship between the radiation therapy of June to August 1944 to the back and abdomen and the genitourinary disorders reported in April and October 1966? 32 33