PRIVACY ACT MATERIAL REMOVED HC mG eee wrinde ee duets fn eae doulc ments Gurig tine rau showers of 4.3-7.1 mr/hr., 3.t-6.0 mr/hr., and .14-.17 mt/hr. with the aircraft contamination at 14 me/hr.” A few days after the flight, on June 1, !957, appellant went to see a medical doctor complaining of nausea, diarrhea, abdominal pressure, numbness of his legs and body, dizziness, skin irritation and a sore throat. The doctor reported that he treated appellant on more than 30 occasions between June | and July 23, 1957; that during this period he had blood and mucus in his stools, and nose bleeds. The skin on the right side of his body, particularly his face, right elbow and right heel, was red, irritated and highly sensitive. He was was exposed to radiation contamination al the If in the monitoring equipment, namely 7.1 recorded as level highest appellant’s right mandible. On February 2, 1961, he was seen by a surgeon for ignoring radioactive decay, the surface dose that he would have received would be in the order of 35 milliroentgens. This level of radiation is infinitesmal and could not be considered under any circumstances a hazardous dose of radiation. In fact, in a diagnostic X-ray studies, a person having his chest X-rayed will receive the of course the during greater or dose in the order of 35 milliroentgens . chest X-ray. As has been noted ... for radiation to be carcinogenic a dose in the 1958 a benign osteoma was surgically removed from had had tenderness in that area for several months. A biopsy revealed adenocarcinoma of the parotid gland. On February 17, 1961 the surgeon performed radical surgery for the removal of the right parotid gland. The Tar of approximately 10 to 20 years following exposure of either the chronic of indicated that his surgeon had ‘been treating appellant, there was no report from this doctor in the record. a swelling of the right parotid gland below the ear lobe. He complained that he surgery entailed the excision of the right facial nerve, resulting in a complete and permanent facial paralysis which involved the right eye and eyelids. 41° body in 1 day or less would probably increase the chances of that individual developing a malignancy or leukemia later in life; that there is a latent period . acute type before one would expect the malignancy to develop. parotid He then negated a causal relation between appellant’s cancer of the that and exposure to ionizing radiation based largely on the Bureau's findings appellant’s exposure amounted only to 35 millircentgens: In November Appellant retired on disability under the Civil Service Retirement Act, effective April 29, 1965. He filed a claim for compensation under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act, attributing the development of the bone tumor removed from his lower right jaw in 1958 and the adenocarcinomaof the right parotid gland for which surgery was performed in {961, and the attendant ‘paralysis of the right side of his face and right eyelid, to his exposure to e radiation on May 29, 1957. = exposed to ionizing radiation to a portion of his body or his entire body overa short period of time, a dose in the order of 50 to 100 roentgensto theentire treated with penicillin injections, sulfa drugs, and between July 30 and October 1, 1957 appellant was treated by another medical doctor for urinary and rectal complaints. Examinations indicated gastrointestinal tract bleeding. He was referred to a surgeon for evaluation of these symptoms. Although evidence = Ne: eeee ne en oe involving long, protracted, chronic exposure, a dose in the order of one-half to one roentgen daily, approximately 5 days a week, over a period of several years, would increase the likelihood that the exposed individual would develop some form of malignancy; in cases of acute exposure, in which the individual is 4. Medical Evidence: The surgeon who removed appellant’s parotid gland gave » some support to appellant’s claim. He felt that the symptoms for which ’ appellant was treated in June and July 1957 closely resembled those of radiation sickness. However, he felt that he was not qualified to give an opinion as to whether appellant’s cancer condition and osteoma were related to his exposure to radiation. The Bureau of Employees’ Compensation requested a Board-certified specialist in radiology to give an opinion with respect to the issue. The Bureau forwarded the case record to the radiologist and requested that he use the f* statement of the facts accepted by the Bureau, dated September 30, 1966, as the basis for his opinion. The findings incorporated in that statement with respect to appellant's radiation exposure were derived from the statement of June 5, 1964 submitted by the Chief, Airborne Section, Geological Survey, US. Department of interior. The doctor reviewed the record, and he examined appeliant on November 23, 1966. in his discussion of the case, the radiologist stated in a report to the Bureau that it was an established fact that radiation is carcinogenic, that in cases mi/hr. and wore his clothes for five hours following this exposure, and order of hundreds of roentgens absorbed in the body is necessary and not the latent period between exposure and diagnosis of tumors had been less than four years as reported in the medical literature. In addition to this, the smaller the dose the greater the length of time Ifa required for tumor to become apparent if the etiology is radiation. portion a to more or roentgens 500 of exposure an person would receive of his body, it would not be anticipated that a tumor would result from such exposure before several years, probably ten to fifteen. For higher doses of tadiation in the order of 5000 roentgens, the latent period between exposure and the development of tumor would become shorter, rhaps five to ten years. during his exposure, i. Recause of these facts that was received a very low dose of fadiation, and that the latent period and the approximately three and one-half years between exposure development of his cancer of the parotid it appears extremely unlikely nt that radiation could be considered a causative factor in the developme of the tumor ofthe right parotid of said: He then questioned the accuracy of the Bureau's findings and you [ am assuming that the dose figures given in the report which is stated have forwarded me are correct. At one place in the record, it d to that the radiation detector devices aboard the plane were designe each for cone a plane, the beneath n radiatio of angle solid the survey 155 154 PRIVACY hor MATERIAL REMOVED