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