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
Ӵ, 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