leading to the job site. There is no evidence that protective clothing was worn. In April 1963, at the age of 33, claimant experienced dizziness, malaise and being short-winded and he sought medical attention. During the summer of 1963 claimant noted a striking loss of hair on his face and body. Because of persistent anemia he was hospitalized. In September 1963 he was hospitalized with the finding of aregenerative or aplastic anemia. He received repeated transfusions, cortico-steroids, hormones and vitamins from September 1963 CASE NO. 38 until March 1966. By May 1969 the marrow had completely recovered and claimant was then asymptomatic. Type of Injury: Aplastic Anemia. Medical records showed that during claimant’s periods of exposure he received no medication except “‘griseofulvin” — 9 tablets of 500 mg each for trichophyton, an infection of the skin. The lesions cleared and did not recur BEC's Decision: Claim Accepted. No compensation. No permanent disability and no lost time. All intermittent periods of absence were covered by annual and sick leave. Reimbursement for medical expenses and travel expenses incidental to testing was made. for one year. In June 1962 he took six more tablets again with prompt disappearance of the skin lesions. Medical Evidence: A hematologist reviewed claimant’s entire hospital records and he expressed the following opinion: Date of Decision: 1970. Claimant's Allegation: That his illness was caused by radiation exposure during {Claimant] was working in an area where there was potential employ ment. exposure to X-ray radiation. He did not always wear a dosimeter to detect the amount of radiation exposure ....In addition, there is no record of any blood examinations during the period of his employment. From a review of the history and pertinent clinical and hematologic Facts: Claimant was employed as an electrician for a Government agency. He first commenced work in September 1961. He was assigned as an electrician to assist in the installation and testing of an MeV electron generator, a dynamitron accelerator. His job included maintenance, trouble shooting and electrical construction on certain jobs. He also worked on a night shift for a period of time and evidence indicated there was less supervision of his exposure to radiation. The claimant wore no film badge or dosimeter. In performing work in one building evidence showed he worked in two or three feet of work space and that four dosimeters were shared by eight men involved in this job. The occasions and amount of exposure could not always be determined since dosimeters were not available for all workers and the monitoring was only checked at intervals. It was necessary for him to remove the belt whenever he replaced defective tubes or parts. After this particular assignment was completed he returned two or three hours a week. The period of exposure was from September 1, 1961 through January 1962 and on infrequent occasions until October 1962. No symptomsof radiation exposure were found in any of the other personnel on this job. On March 19, 1963 2 private contractor was called in to inspect a simulator in another building. The job site was on a bridge crane suspended from the cefling and about 60 feet from the floor. The job of the private contractor was to make radiographic records of some 300 high stress points. They shot these found st floor level was in the range of .02 mR/hr which was considered safe tolerance for personnel. However, danger signs were placed on the catwalk 120 [claimant's] occupation and the development of the aplastic anemia. The attending intemist supported the relationship as probably being due to prolonged exposure and the same opinion was expressed by the staff of one of the hospitals where claimant had been treated. The possibility of a drug induced marrow depression was considered andit appeared that the drug fulvicin (griseofulvin) an antifungal drug, was the only medicine that might have been involved. One medical doctor expressed the opinion that the radiation was the more likely cause of the claimant’s illness than was the drug. He supported this opinion by stating that the administration of the second course of the drug did not immediately effect any noticeable change in the patient's symptoms. The Bureau’s Medica! Director noted that the medical opinion negating the drug in question as e causative factor was based on facts that were “not quite accurate” since other medical evidence showed that the claimant's lesions cleared after a ten-day course of treatment with the drug. However, he also noted the medical support for the relationship between the radiation and the disease and he said: ee a ee cl eee —eemegeeto, X-rays on March 20, 21, 25, 26, and 27, 1963. Two employees of the contractor stood behind the X-ray machine and the claimant was also on the bridge the entire time of the operation pointing out where the pictures were to be made and positioning the direction of the shots, He was within 10 to 15 feet of the X-ray machine which was a LX 140 KVP with a fixed 2mA. Seventy-one exposures were made and the exposures were of 3 minutes each. The radiation findings, in my opinion, there is a definite causal relationship between In summary the Bureau has accepted that the claimant has been exposed to a degree of radiation, shortly following which he had symptoms consistent with anemia and the subsequent diagnoses of aregenerative anemia treated for several years with good response and return of normal matrow-function. There is support for the relationship between the radiation and the disease, the time relationships are good and in my opinion, after reviewing the entire record, the relationship 121