ae aig Wide betes PRIVACYA\ T MATERIAL REMOVED Vv vy eured And again he said: If the Bureau is comm itted to the Stated dosimetry then it can onl be concluded that there is no causal relat ionship between the radiation exposure and the disabilities and lesion claimed by My own judgment is that than the equipment the claimant himself may be a bette r dosimeter carried and that [the research ph sicist’s] theoretical analysis is valid. This being so... conclude that M had a signi ficant radiation exposure. " Although he was of the opini Pinion that the claima i nt had a signifi gemmasray dose of total bodyirradiation which produced moderate syinptoms and an inhomogeneously distributed beta-ray exposure, he concluded that One can consider the claimant himself as, so to speak, a biological dosimeter. The time sequence, the symp tom complex and the findin s described could all be associated with and due to moderate total-body gamma tay and cutaneous and mucous memb rane beta-ray expos ure the latter being both direct contact with rain and with the rain-wetted garments which were known to be contaminated. There are no inconsistencies of this interpretation with the calculated dosimetry and One must remember that in any biological response there are those few subjects which react at the lowest end of the dose scale. With respect to the cancer of the right parotid gland the radiologist concurred with the other specialist and concluded that this was not tadiation-induced and hesaid: At the presu med tevel of the total-body exposure such would not have been carcinogenic in so short a time. With respect to the beta-ra exposure such was not intense as the skin was not described as blistered or ulcerated and the penetration of beta-radiati on through the skin would not have been sufficient to be carcinogenic in the parotid gland Radioactive debris could not have reached the parotid dland b retrograde movem ent through its duct. ” rejecti On ngFebrua the cicins ry 22, 1968, the BEC denied modific ati n ofits ificatio i original igi order Thereafter, , further evidence with respect to the accuracy and complet of the data recorded by the instruments aboard the plane was furnished bythe nell ar es : Further, it is stated that the contaminat ionin’ the regionof the wera of the aircraft was much greater than elsewhere and the cl imant evidently Participated in the clean ing ofthe aircraft, How muchis much greater” Edo not know, but obviously, this is a factor j he direction of increase of dose. sin Chief Geophysicist, Airborne Geophysics Section of tne U.S. Ueotugical Survey. Appellant's supervisor, who had submitted the June 5, 1964 statement of the circumstances and extent of appellant’s exposure, which the Bureau accepted and relied upon, was his deputy. He stated that the instruments in the aircraft were designed to measure radioactive material on the ground, specifically radioactive ore deposits; that it was “not designed to measure the radioactivity in the aircraft along its surface, or the presence of small, high-intensity sources distributed within the plane.” He explained: By empirical [methods] and probably by calculation, it had been determined by the AEC Civil Effects Test Group that 70,000 counts per second in the aircraft at the instrument position meant that the plane was in gamma radiation flux of one (1) milliroentgen per hour. Small areas within the aircraft could experience high levels of radiation which would not be fully detected by the instrument. He stated, in summary, “The radiation level obtained by multiplying the counts per second by an empirical factor has little meaning in determining what level of radiation ‘ experienced.” The Bureau examiner appraised this report and determined that it contained no significant material which had not been already presented to the radiologist, or which altered the facts in any material way. A Bureau medical adviser agreed. Thereafter, the research physicist was given an opportunity to review the case again, and he submitted a supplemental statement of January 17, 1969. He re-emphasized the insufficiency of the information relating to appellant's exposure to radiation, and concluded with the following observation: I believe, in the absence of adequate instrumentation and the impossibility of reconstruction of the events that took place with adequate instrumentation, that an individual exposed to radiation can serve as a biological dosimeter. This has been proved to be of value in several radiation accidents. The Bureau determined that the above reports were not sufficient to require a change in its original decision, and on March 12, 1969 it again denied a modification thereof. Findings of the ECAB: The Board found that the case was not in posture for final decision. It set aside the compensation orders of the Bureau of Employees’ Compensation and remanded the case for further development of the record “to determine asyaccurately as possible the nature and extent of appellant’s exposure te radioactivity... .” In its decision the Board noted that the Bureau Examiner's evaluation of the accuracy and validity of the data with respect to the nature and extent of appellant’s radiation exposure on May 29, 1957 and the supplemental statement of facts based thereon which he made on behalf of the Bureau, involved a technical analysis and it said “However, there is nothing in the record showing his qualifications to offer expert evidence of this chasacter.” 158 159 PRIVAC) ( ACT MATERIAL REMOVED