PRIVACY ACT MATERIAL REMOVED
HC mG eee wrinde ee duets fn eae doulc ments Gurig tine rau showers of 4.3-7.1
mr/hr., 3.t-6.0 mr/hr., and .14-.17 mt/hr. with the aircraft contamination at
14 me/hr.”
A few days after the flight, on June 1, !957, appellant went to see a
medical doctor complaining of nausea, diarrhea, abdominal pressure, numbness
of his legs and body, dizziness, skin irritation and a sore throat. The doctor
reported that he treated appellant on more than 30 occasions between June |
and July 23, 1957; that during this period he had blood and mucus in his
stools, and nose bleeds. The skin on the right side of his body, particularly his
face, right elbow and right heel, was red, irritated and highly sensitive. He was
was exposed to radiation contamination al the
If
in the monitoring equipment, namely 7.1
recorded
as
level
highest
appellant’s right mandible. On February 2, 1961, he was seen by a surgeon for
ignoring radioactive decay, the surface dose that he would have received
would be in the order of 35 milliroentgens.
This level of radiation is infinitesmal and could not be considered
under any circumstances a hazardous dose of radiation. In fact, in
a
diagnostic X-ray studies, a person having his chest X-rayed will receive
the
of
course
the
during
greater
or
dose in the order of 35 milliroentgens
.
chest X-ray.
As has been noted ... for radiation to be carcinogenic a dose in the
1958 a benign osteoma was surgically removed from
had had tenderness in that area for several months. A biopsy revealed
adenocarcinoma of the parotid gland. On February 17, 1961 the surgeon
performed radical surgery for the removal of the right parotid gland. The
Tar
of approximately 10 to 20 years following exposure of either the chronic of
indicated that his surgeon had ‘been treating appellant, there was no report
from this doctor in the record.
a swelling of the right parotid gland below the ear lobe. He complained that he
surgery entailed the excision of the right facial nerve, resulting in a complete
and permanent facial paralysis which involved the right eye and eyelids.
41°
body in 1 day or less would probably increase the chances of that individual
developing a malignancy or leukemia later in life; that there is a latent period
.
acute type before one would expect the malignancy to develop.
parotid
He then negated a causal relation between appellant’s cancer of the
that
and exposure to ionizing radiation based largely on the Bureau's findings
appellant’s exposure amounted only to 35 millircentgens:
In November
Appellant retired on disability under the Civil Service Retirement Act,
effective April 29, 1965. He filed a claim for compensation under the Federal
Employees’ Compensation Act, attributing the development of the bone tumor
removed from his lower right jaw in 1958 and the adenocarcinomaof the right
parotid gland for which surgery was performed in {961, and the attendant
‘paralysis of the right side of his face and right eyelid, to his exposure to
e
radiation on May 29, 1957.
=
exposed to ionizing radiation to a portion of his body or his entire body overa
short period of time, a dose in the order of 50 to 100 roentgensto theentire
treated with penicillin injections, sulfa drugs, and between July 30 and October
1, 1957 appellant was treated by another medical doctor for urinary and rectal
complaints. Examinations indicated gastrointestinal tract bleeding. He was
referred to a surgeon for evaluation of these symptoms. Although evidence
= Ne: eeee ne en oe
involving long, protracted, chronic exposure, a dose in the order of one-half to
one roentgen daily, approximately 5 days a week, over a period of several
years, would increase the likelihood that the exposed individual would develop
some form of malignancy; in cases of acute exposure, in which the individual is
4. Medical Evidence: The surgeon who removed appellant’s parotid gland gave
» some support to appellant’s claim. He felt that the symptoms for which
’ appellant was treated in June and July 1957 closely resembled those of
radiation sickness. However, he felt that he was not qualified to give an opinion
as to whether appellant’s cancer condition and osteoma were related to his
exposure to radiation.
The Bureau of Employees’ Compensation requested a Board-certified
specialist in radiology to give an opinion with respect to the issue. The Bureau
forwarded the case record to the radiologist and requested that he use the
f* statement of the facts accepted by the Bureau, dated September 30, 1966, as
the basis for his opinion. The findings incorporated in that statement with
respect to appellant's radiation exposure were derived from the statement of
June 5, 1964 submitted by the Chief, Airborne Section, Geological Survey,
US. Department of interior. The doctor reviewed the record, and he examined
appeliant on November 23, 1966.
in his discussion of the case, the radiologist stated in a report to the Bureau
that it was an established fact that radiation is carcinogenic, that in cases
mi/hr. and wore his clothes for five hours following this exposure, and
order of hundreds of roentgens absorbed in the body is necessary and
not
the latent period between exposure and diagnosis of tumors had
been less than four years as reported in the medical literature. In
addition to this, the smaller the dose the greater the length of time
Ifa
required for tumor to become apparent if the etiology is radiation.
portion
a
to
more
or
roentgens
500
of
exposure
an
person would receive
of his body, it would not be anticipated that a tumor would result from
such exposure before several years, probably ten to fifteen. For higher
doses of tadiation in the order of 5000 roentgens, the latent period
between exposure and the development of tumor would become shorter,
rhaps five to ten years.
during his exposure,
i. Recause of these facts that
was
received a very low dose of fadiation, and that the latent period
and the
approximately three and one-half years between exposure
development of his cancer of the parotid it appears extremely unlikely
nt
that radiation could be considered a causative factor in the developme
of the tumor ofthe right parotid of
said:
He then questioned the accuracy of the Bureau's findings and
you
[ am assuming that the dose figures given in the report which
is stated
have forwarded me are correct. At one place in the record, it
d to
that the radiation detector devices aboard the plane were designe
each
for
cone
a
plane,
the
beneath
n
radiatio
of
angle
solid
the
survey
155
154
PRIVACY hor MATERIAL REMOVED