18
50
7
Pr
ae
|
7
]
50)
,
40
L
30}-
|
LIMITS # 15S.E.
}-
_|
4|
4
30
|
_
l
LS,
2_,8
oO
LENS FLECKS
7
4
lot
L
a
MALES
ol
lal
4
7
7
a
30+
20-
4
20
i
L
10
l
20
i
30
i
tJ
4
|
4
Lo
Lo
-
7
L
4
_ CONTROLS
r
eo
|
!
2
4
“
=
™
j
4
a
Le
{
r MALES
40
Limits 2 15.€.
30
(Oh
+
[renee
z
T
LIMITS +25S.E.
—
7
had
baad
w
0
4
“
__ ~- CONTROLS
i
¢
.
=
a
20
20
40--
.
LIMITS £15.E.
4
|
|
.
FEMALES
40
=
FEMALES
4
i
40
1
]
50
L
i
I
60
l
:
t
70
i
i"
iy,
36
}
40
ig
50
AGE AT Exam (yrs)
AGE AT EXAM (yrs)
Figure 19. Counts of subcapsularflecks (made as described in the text) averaged
within each exposure group for persons of similar age. Left: Unirradiated Marshallese people. Right: People exposed to 175 rads fallout radiation in 1954.
Results
the difference was less. (Two fleck counts > 150
were excluded from analysis.)
a ome
The fleck counts were analyzed separately for
Nonexposed males had fieck counts that inmales and females, and, within each-ex
-ereased with age, but in contrast to that for nonri, exposed females, the rise was slower and appeared
group, were averaged for consecutive igt
age to produce age-specific subgroups. The.average
to besfinear with time. Males exposed to 175 rads
fleck count andstatistical limits exten
one
were the smallest group, which may contribute to
standarderrorto either side were then ce Buced_— : thre erratic fleck counts obtained.
for each subgroup. (Persons over 61 yeae
i The levels of confidence were generally low bewere omitted.) The results are showr
“cause of the nature of the examination and the
for the controls and for the irradiated. ie
numbers of persons examined. Confidenceat the
Each subgroup of the latter is conng
95% level was found only between nonexposed
solid line to its presumedlocation on.
males averaging 16 years of age and (1) the oldest
control curveatirradiation 15 years@im
nonexposed male subgroup, and (2) 175-rad exexamination. Theindividualfleck co
posed females older than 25-yedieaf examination.
in Appendix 3.
2
Although somefine structure hagdbeenkmplied,
In the nonexposed females the numb
Sees 4 the results for each group cahbe tepeasénted by a
flecks rose rapidly during adolescence.watiat a
ie
t line.
! ¥,%. tO ge
much slowerrate thereafter. Femalegage
‘4 ee 3
20 years at exposure exhibited the great afi mi
ference from their nonexposed counterparts,(Fleck -=#goneprimary finding in this survey.viasene
een
counts were not obtained on persons< 15 years . 3, Hnu@bsincreasein lens flecks with
rease
en
of age, but would likely be lower than in persons ~- posed males and females. Whereas tf
> 15 years of age.) Females who were mature at gp more rapid during-adolescéiice,lens
ales rose at a lower but -comstant rate;
exposure also yielded fleck counts higher than
consequently, fleck countsin malestidnot equal
those of comparably aged nonexposed females, but
i
~_
sedde
pied
ms ee
woe
at