neutron measurement probes. He reported that neutron exposure outside the box was negligible and that this operation lasted less than a month. This report indicated she also assisted on a few occasions as a radiation monitor, using a survey meter to monitor personnel leaving a radiation area to assure that they werefree of radioactive contamination and using a survey meter to measure the radiation intensity of radiation areas. A report from. the head of the chemical laboratory stated that the employee CASE NO. 44 Type of Injury: Bilateral Subca psular Cataracts. BEC'’s Decision: Claim Approved. No lost time from work due to condition . No Compensation. Claimant's Allegation: That her cataracts were due to handling radioactiv e materials over a period of time involving various assignments as a chemist. Facts: Claimant was employed as a physical science technician at at shipyard in 1957. She worked with radioisotopes in the radiochemical section of the chemical laboratory. Her job was to assist a radiochemist by performing numerous chemical tests and other work in connection with research and development projects and particularly in evaluating radiation samples taken from reactor plants of nuclear powered ships. Most samples were of reactor plant water containing a mixture of radioisotopes that must be separated before final analysis. She used electronic counting equipme nt such as multi-channel gamma_ spectrometers designed for use in radioche mical laboratories. The two most important functions of her position were: 1) the use of prescribed radiochemical techniques and methods for the purpose ofisolat ing radionuclides shielding of radioactive materials in work process was used or considered necessary; that activity levels were generally such that Atomic Energy Commission regulations did not require “Radiation Area” posting; and that Date of Decison: 1970. specific spent 50% of her time in a “tow-activity-level” area; that external exposure was negligible; that the major hazard was from ingestion or inhalation of unsealed radioisotopes; that no specific incidents or violations are known; that no on a quantitative basis; and 2) the concomitant application of techniques and methods of gamma fay spectrom etry and beta ray counting techniques for the purpose of evaluating the amount of a specific radionuclide on an absolute basis. Her resposibility was to maintain “good housekeeping”in the laborato ry by performing scheduled monitoring for radiation contamination, taking “‘wipes” and other samples and evaluating them, recording results and observin g meticulous care against contamination. Accordingly, her work required - continual surveillance to minimize contamination of working areas, apparatus utensils and personnel inasmuch as contamination posed both a health hazard and might ruin an analysis. A report from the radiological health officer where she was employe d indicated that claimant occasionally assisted with the calibrati on of film badges. The calibration apparatus consisted of a 10 curie cobalt-60 source in a collimated projector. The operators were protected by shielding and by a barrier between them and the radiation beam. On one occasion she assisted in the calibration of a thermal neutron generator. The generator consist°1 . of a shielded box containing a 10 curie neutron source. Access to the interior of the box was through holes, one or two inches in diameter, large enough to admit 138 stored radioactive materials consisting of a total of less than 10 millicuries were shielded by two inchesoflead. Records further indicated that claimant had been in the film badge program continuously from 1957. In January 1965 claimant received a routine eye examination as part of a radiological safety check. At the time for the examination she had no specific complaints. At that time film badge records showed her total cummulative exposure was | .690 rem. Medical Evidence: The eye examination showed claimant's vision was 20/25 right eye and 20/20 left eye best corrected. Slit lamp examination showed posterior subcapsular cataracts in each eye. The examining physician recommended that claimant undergo regular eye examinations at six-month intervals for at least a year and continue her regular duties and if no progression of the lesions became apparent in the next year the patient be examined annually for several additional years. The eye specialist further said: If there is still no apparent progression after this time, it would be very doubtful if her work was related to the occurrence of her lens opacities. A congenital basis or early pre-senile change would then be the most likely etiology, and no treatment would be indicated and the visual impairment is so slight that there would not be a notable disability. In June 1965 she was seen by another eye specialist who reported as follows: 4 The findings are in the right eye. There is a thin fluffy beaten gold vacuolized posterior subcapsular opacification in the visual axis which obviously does not interfere with vision since there is 20/20 visual acuity. In the left eye the changes are identical but not as marked, There is no fetal embryonal or nuclear change and no persistent or primary hyperplasia of the fetal vascular systems remnants are evident. The lesions are discrete and there is no branching or opacification towards the equatorial region which, of course, is obscured by theiris. The only 139