PRIVACY ACT MATERIAL removed ... this is a one cell type that we have had trouble with previously in that sometimes it might be called one thing and sometimes another.It depends upon what section of the tumor they are looking at; which pathologist is doing it. So that from what we have here I would be a little reluctant to make an assumption as to whether it is really epidermoid or whether it is an undifferentiated type. CASE NO. 52 In summary he stated that without knowing the cell typeof ‘the cancer he did not have a definite opinon at the time of the hearing as to the cause of the . oe ee oe oe ”¥, Union Carbide Corp. cancer, and at that point in the case it was a “fifty-fifty proposition” as to. whether his cancer was due to cigarette smoking or to exposure to radon gas, / and that it was a fair statement that at the time of the hearing an intelligent Type of Injury: Lung’ ie opinion as to causation could not be given in this particular case.' . Following the’ claimant’s death an autopsy and 2 radiochemjéal analysis of Colorado Becision: Compa epss st ” BS tissue from degeased’s body were performed. Repprts af Spese suidies were submitted to epidemiologist for his further opinion. He commented as sae! Date of Decision: 1970, follows: Claimant's Allegation: That he contracted lung cancer due to exposure to radon gas in uranium mining. Facts: This case was initiated by The new information is that his bone content of Pb?'° was 3800 pCi per Kg. of bone, and that the final microscopic diagnosis of his lung cancer was {World Health Organization] WHO 2B squamous cell undifferentiated. (WHO 2B is defined as small cell undifferentiated, similar to oat cell, but having larger or polygonal cells.) Both of these new items definitely increase my estimate of the odds on behalf of hi filing of a claim on October 4, 1967, where in he alleged tutbe beam disabled and left work on May 31, 1967 as the result of lung cancer. An X-ray taken during the that occupational radiation was the cause of his lung cancer. claimant’s yeatly physical examination on March 31 1967 showed an abnormal shadow in the upper lobe of the left lung and sputum Studies ln summary, in bone), had smoked about 30 cigarettes per day for about 40 years, biopsy were again done. Studies at this time showed Class IV cells of an undifferentiate had a WHO 2B lung cancer, was 60 years of age at development of lung cancer, and who had 14 years from start of mining to development of d Squamous cell carcinoma which eventually infiltrated both lungs. Claimant died on January 31, 1968 at age 60. idence indicated that the deceased starte d smoking had mined uranium for 14 years, had between 1000 and 1500 Working Level Months of exposure (as judged by 7!°Pb on that date showed Class II, Stage H cells present. Claimant was admitted to the hospital on June 23, 1967 where various tests including X-ray and lung cancer. All of the above factors except cigarette smoking are consistent with radiation as the cause ofhis cancer. ci and smoked between 1-% and 1-4 packs per day for bou t40 eats Information conceming his work histo ry showed that he was engaged in non-u ranium hard rock mining from 1946 until 1952 and mined uranium for thirteen years from 1953 until 1966. He started working for the defendant en in January ro According {o corporation records claimant Januaey (94 a total Colorady findings: The Referee found that decedent expired from an occupational disease produced by radioactive materials contracted at the respondent employer's uranium mines. An award compensating the case was expos iheo ghure Mayo 1967 WLM during the perio j d of employment from made. Medical Evidence: Prior to the claimant’s death a hearing was held during which an epidemiologist from the U.S. Public Health Service reported claimant's estimated cumulative exposure as approximately 900 Working Level Months and he said “.. . 1 would estimate that this exposure had increased his chances of developing lung cancer by a factor of 5 to 10”. When asked at this time whether or not from the information contained in the various medical reports he could state what type of cancer cell was present, he answered that he could not do so to his satisfaction. He pointed out that the word undifferentiated” used with the word “squa mous” presented a rather confli cting description of the cancer cell type and hesaid: 166 ‘For comments on cell type and causation see Vol. V, Studies in Workmen's Compensation and Radiation Injury, AEC 1969, Case No, 61, Athey v. Merry Widow Mine, pp. 136-137; for comments on cigarettes as causative factor, ibid at 137; Case No. 66, Williams v. Union Carbide Nuclear Co., at 142. i PRIVACY ACT MATERIAL REMOVED 167