fluoroscopic unit. Measurement of the output at the table panel gave a value of 4.5 1/minute for 90 Kvp and 5 ma. Room shieldingis adequate. dorsum of his right hand certainly could have been caused by radiation exposure. It should be noted, however, that similar lesions There is a lead lined protective shield for the technician. Persons needed mayalso be related to active radiation. No tead shielding is needed on the doors as the hallway has only partial occupancy (occupancy factor y 4) and the distance is sufficient to 2. | would recommend acceptance. in the room wear protective aprons and where needed, protective gloves. 3. There appears to be no residual disability. reduce the barrier requirement to a negligible value since secondary protectionis all that is required. BEC's Decision The claim was approved for epidermoid carcinoma dorsum right hand. However, no compensation benefits were payable as claimant had no lost time; had accrued no medical bills; there was no permanent disability; A condemned T.B. Building fluoroscope was also described in the 1958 report as follows: and no residual of the injury. This installation consists of an antique vertical panel fluoroscope powered with an old mechanically rectified high voltage unit and an air insulated X-ray tube in a lead glass shield. This unit is considered unsafe and should probably be junked. The milliameter does not function and therefore it is not possible to know the value of the milliamperage. However, screws have been installed to lock or limit the adjustment of the control switches to certain maximum values. The Kvselector is locked at button C although the minor Kv switch has full range of adjustment. When the unit has been set for what appears to be the normal setting the dose rate at the panel was 9 r/minute which is within handbook 60 requirements. However,it is not possible to determine what the actual kilovoltage or milliamperage is. Also no attempt was made to determine the filter as this would have required dismantling the equipment. No attempt was made to measure the stray radiation but due to the open construction it probably is quite large. If this unit is retained, the control should be modified or repaired so that the milliameter is operable and a careful protection survey made of the stray radiation. It is suggested that consideration be given to the question as to whether a fluoroscope is actually needed for this service and if so, the unit should be replaced with a modern type of equipment. In a letter dated September 18, 1970, the chief technician of the department of radiology at the hospital stated that prior to the installation of the Keleket 300 ma Radiographic-fluoroscopic unit described in the above report the claimant used from 1946 to 1950 a Keleket fluoroscope (no radiography) consisting of a tilt-type table with air insulated X-ray tube in a lead glass shield, installed approximately in 1930. He further stated that there was no record of the output of this fluoroscope and both the radiologist and the chief technician at the hospital are deceased. ““‘However,”’ he said, “the fluoroscope being of open construction similar to the condemned T.B. Building fluoroscope, probably allowed a considerable amount ofstray radiation”. Medical Opinion: In a report dated December 18, 1970 the acting medical director of the Bureau made the following statements regarding the claim: 126 ed ie 1. Cutaneous damage from X-ray often appears many years after significant exposure. The type of lesion which claimant had on the 127