27

in Section ['V. The other physica] findings, which

Table 15

have been carefully tabulated in the individual re-

Age at exposure, vr
Rongelap group

<10
10-19

in utero
Ailingnae group

<10
Unexposed group
Born 1945-1954
Born 1935-1944

No. males

No. females

10
3

9
9

2

4

22

19

3

il

]

7

skeletal development (left hand and wrist) was
initiated,#! and systematic documentation of anthropometric data was started. The documentation was continued during the succeeding examinations on subjects considered to be in the growth
phase (generally through age 20). The data recorded regularly included standingheight(stature), body weight, head circumference, head

width, head length, chest circumference, biacromial width, and calf circumference, and spo-

radically included sitting height, chest width, chest
depth, and buttocks circumference. (See Appendix 7.)
,
The development of secondary sex characteristics was qualitatively assessed according to the
standard criteria generally accepted in growth
studies (Greulich et al.,42 Shuttleworth*?). Such
procedures included the staging of breast developmentin girls; estimation of the type, pattern,
and amountof bodyhair(facial, pubic, axillary, —
etc.); and staging of the growth of penis andtestes
in boys. During several examinations, photographic documentation was doneas part of the
assessment of growth status and physique.
The roentgenographic evaluation ofskeletal
development was done bythe inspectionaltechnique of Greulich and Pyle,*! and the American
standards were used for comparison.
2. Physical Findings

The early post-exposure examinations indicated

that the youngerchildren, in general, manifested

more extensive and more severe radiation injury

than the older children and adults. Following re-

covery from the acuteeffects of radiation, the overall physical status of the children appeared to be
norma! except for the subsequent developmentof
thyroid abnormalities, which are discussed below

noninfectious diseases, congenital anomalies, and

physiological variations has been noted in both exposed and unexposed children.
3. Growth Status

Interpretation of the anthropometric data and

assessment of the growth status of the exposed

Rongelap children have been complicated by (a)
radiation injury to the thyroid gland, (b) partial
or total thyroidectomies in the children who developed thyroid neoplasia, and (c) the administration of thyroid hormoneto the entire exposed Rongelap population since September 1965. If the

data on the three children (Nos. 3, 5, and 65) who

were obviously hypothyroid and had markedly
small body measurements are excluded, comparisons of mean stature and skeletal! age indicated no
statistically significant difference between the exposed and unexposed children for either boys or
girls.
Compared with American norms, the mean
skeletal ages at given chronological ages for each
group were, for unexposed girls, quite similar, but
for unexposed boys, they appeared to be delayed
by 6 to 7 months at each chronological age.
Earlier preliminary comparisons had suggested
that boys exposed at age <5 years were retarded
in statural growth compared with unexposed boys.
The current analysis excludes those with a specific
diagnosis ofhypothyroidism. The individual growth
and development curves for 13 children exposed
at age <5 and their controls are shownin Figures
21 and 22. Theeffect of thyroid treatment on the
two boys (Nos. 3 and 5) is evident. Several other
children (Nos. 2, 19, 65, 42) had a tendencytoward retarded development, which may have been
improved by thyroid medication.
Onthe 4 children exposed in utero, careful examinations have resulted in no unusual physical findings. The growth progress of 3 of them has been
similar to that of age peers (see Table 16). One
boy (No. 85) has had a head circumference
smaller than the average for unexposed males and
a slightly retarded pattern of skeletal maturation,
buthis statural growth curve was comparable with
that of unexposed males. .

wake

Composition of Pediatric Groups, 1972

ports for each survey, indicate no definite pattern
of abnormalities that would differentiate the exposed children from the unexposed comparison
children. The usual spectrum of infectious and

Select target paragraph3