not rarely in younger persons (fourth and fifth decade) who give no
history of trauma, exposure to radiation, exposure to drugs, or to any
other known etiologic agent. It is possible, but not probable, that
radiation might aggravate a congenital cataract. Again, however, the
left eye appears uninvolved.
5. Question: Did the combined effect of radiation and exposure to a
minute concentration of DICDI cause, aggravate, accelerate or hasten
this cataract?
Answer: Exposure concurrently to a minute concentration of DICDI
would not aggravate the cataract formation.
t
References:
(1)Cogan, D. G.: Lesion of the eye from radiant energy. J.A.M.A.,
BEC’s Decision: \n rejecting the claim for compensation for the reason that the
disability was not due to injury sustained in the performance of duty or to
disease proximately caused by the employment, the Bureau made the following
pertinent findings of facts:
1, That the employee was not exposed to harmful concentrations of
the chemical di-isopropyt-carbo-di-imide.
2. That exposure of his person to the potentially harmful rays of
Cesium-137 contained within a metal cylinder filled with mercury was
minimal and not of sufficient duration, frequency and extent so as to
cause injury to the employee’s head, eyes or other parts of his person.
3. That the cataract of the right eye and incidental, transitory skin
changes about the head... were not caused, aggravated, hastened,
accelerated or otherwise adversely affected by any condition imposed
upon the employee by his employment.
143-145, 1950.
(2)Cogan, D, G. and Dreisler, K. K.: Minimal amount of X-ray exposures
causing lens opacities in the human eye. Arch, Ophthl., 50:30-34,
1953.
(3) Duke-Elder, Stewart: System of Ophthalmology, Vol. VII, page 791.
C. V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1962.
(4)Ellinger, Friedrich: Medical Radiation Biology, page 219. Charles C.
Thomas, Springfield, Hll., 1957.
(5)Rohrschneider, W., and Glauner, R.: Expermentell Untersuchugen
ueber die Wirkung der fraktionierten and protrahierten
Roetgenbestrahlung auf die Linse des Kaninchens. Arch. F. Ophth.,
140:700, 1939.
(6)Clapp, C. A.: The effect of X-ray andradium radiations upon the
crystalline lens. Am. J. Ophth., 15:1039, 1932.
(7)Milner, J. G.: Irradiation cataract. Brit. J. Ophth., 18:497, 1934.
(8) Ellinger, Friedrich: ibid, page 136.
The Bureau’s Assistant Medical Director concurred in the ophthalmologist’s
opinion:
The rationale given by [the ophthalmologist] appears overwhelming
and { concur with his opinion that work factors were not responsible for
the cataract in the right eye.
The medical officer where claimant worked stated that the chest and ring
badge worn by claimant did not show excessive exposure to Cesium-137; that
the extent of exposure was far below the amount necessary to cause or
competent to cause cataracts; that even if the claimant’s film badge worn on
the chest pocket was below the level of the open steel door on the conveyor
line that his ring badge should have also picked up any radiation if it was
present; and that even if the claimant’s film badge on the chest pocket was in a
position where it would not record the exposures, the monitoring and wipe ‘est
performed periodically would have shown any extensive amount of radiation
exposure.
116
117