f ret R he Gudid spelled out what informatio n the Bureau should obtain for the ecord: PRIVAC y ACT MATERIAL REMOVED i‘ A report from the Atomic Energ y Commission. presenting all available data with respect to the atomi c test detonation on May 28 1957 and the faltout tesulting therefrom. 2. More detailed information regarding the nature of the radioactive measurement instruments on the plane, , and the specifi C rea i instruments. CHAPTER Il , sng oF thos 3. More complete medical findings includ ing, if any, blood tests and reports of laboratory test results. DIGEST OF CALIFORNIA STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND RADIATION CASE er aie Board also gave guidel . ines for medic, al opini ons concerning causal ‘ wige ationship if the bik, i | additional information, coupled with that CASE NO. 50 already in the Mm case, did not permit an appropnate expert to make “a fairly accurate determination regardi garding the nature and amount of a llant’s radiati adiation ppe exposure, and it said: 7+ 4M appropriate medical specialist shoul d be requested to make an estimate of the nature and amount of such exposure, using appellant and his symptoms as a biological dosimeter, as Suggested by the experts Based upon these estimates and the evide nce in the case record the appropriate specialist should then express an opinion as to whether there is any relationship between appellant’s radiation exposure and his medical conditions. v. The California State Compensation Insurance Fund Claim No. 330442 Type of Injury. Cataracts. Califurnia Decision. Compensation Granted. Date of Decision: 1965. Claimant's Allegation. The cataracts in both eyes resulted from radiation exposure during the course of his employment. Facts: Claimant went to work as a physicist at a radiation laboratory in October 1950. In his work he was around accelerators but his entire recorded external whole body exposure from the time of his employment through August 15, 1962 was shown by his film badges to be only 0.61 R. His medical history, as given to the State Compensation Insurance Fund by his personal physician did not indicate any history of radiation exposure other than chest X-rays and dental X-rays. Neither his past history, his preplacement physical examination on October 25, 1950, nor subsequent physicals in 1952, 1953 and 1955 revealed any cataract problem. Medical Evidence’ As patt of 2 routine examination on July 9, 1956, for employees who worked around accelerators, an ophthalmologist discovered the cataracts and suspected radiation. At this time the claimant was 36 years old. The doctor found claimant to have a very definite posterior sub-capsular area of lens opacity of moderate extent in the right eye and slight in the left eye, the entire lens of both eyes being otherwise free of opacities. He suggested claimant be examined by another oculist with more experience with radiation cataracts. He was then examined on October 9, 1956 by an ophthalmologist who was selected because he had spent some time in Japan studying the radiation effects resulting from atomic bombs dropped there and had seen a nuinber of tadiation cataracts. He advised that the lesions in claimant’s eyes 161 AL REMOVED PRIVACY ACTIMATERI