Table 4
Weight and Height of Children (Mean Values)
Males
Weight
Age
Exposed
4
5
6
33.7 (5)**
8
9
10
11
12.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
42.0(1) >
7
42.3.3)
»=—-64.0 (1)
68.0 (1)
79.0(1)
140
114
(1)
(1)
Females
Height
Weight
Height
Controls*
Exposed
Controls
Exposed
Controls
Exposed
Controls
34.5 (6)
33.3 (3)
44.2 (6)
37.5 (5)
38.1(6)
39.3(3)
45.2(6)
26 (Lt)
33 (2)
37.5(2)
37.3(3)
37 (1)
45.5(6)
345(1)
39.5(2))
40.2(2)
40 (3)
41.5(1)
45.4 (6)
55.0(2)
97.3(3)
64.6 (5)
69.0(2)
81.5(6)
83.0 (1)
100.0 (1)
121 (1)
132 (1)
102 (2)
127 (4)
4124 (4)
45.25(1)
50.0 (1)
51.5 (1)
53.0 (1)
57.25(1)
$7.8(4)
43.3 (3) 464(4)
65.0 (1)
62.0 (1)
50.5 (2)
53.2(3)
52.1 (5)
54.0(2)
57.3(6)
38.5 (1)
60.5 (1)
62.0(1)
65.0(1)
99.7(2)
64.7(1)
63.5(4)
42.5(2)
50.0(3)
560(2)
115.0(1)
108
(1)
113°
109
131
(2)
(1)
(2)
47.8(5)
51.3 (7)
68.0(3)
87.7 (3)
85 (1)
116.0(1)
106
106
98
131
113
(6)
{1}
(1)
(2)
(6)
44.0(2)
48.8(3)
51.7(2)
58.0(1)
58.0(1)
60.0(2)
60.2(1)
59.6(2)
48.8(5)
48.1 (7)
51.9(3)
54.7 (3)
55.0(1)
57.0(1)
58.0(6)
59,5 (1)
60.0(1)
61.8(2)
60.0 (6)
*Control children include unexposed Rongelap, Rita Village (Group B), and Utirik group.
**Numbers in parentheses represent numbers of children in groups.
children, particularly in the 4 to 9-year-old group.
Figure 5 shows a graph ofthe deviation from the
American standard for this age group in theirradiated and the Marshallese comparison groups
of children. Statistical analysis by use of the ¢
test shows that these are significantly different
(P<0.05). These children were irradiated at ages
1 to 6 years, which appears to be a sensitive period
for such effects. Figure 6 showsthe bone age of
children from the same groups but 4 years younger, and it is apparent that there is no difference
between the groups. This is reasonable, since most
of the children were born after the radiation exposure, and in a negative sense emphasizes the
differences between exposed and unexposed children in the older age groups.
Ophthalmological Examinations
Table 5 showsa list of the more prevalent (and
pertinent) disorders of the eyes found in the exposed Rongelap (including Ailingnae) and Utirik
people and in the unexposed groups. Similar
types of abnormalities were found in all groups.
The incidence ofcertain abnormalities wasslightly
5001203
ary
ié
higher in the exposed Rongelap people; however,
compared with last year there has been no increase. The possible significance of the increased
conjunctival and corneal abnormalities will be
discussed. Slit-lamp observations revealed no
polychromatic plaques or lenticular opacities
characteristic of radiation damage. Particularef-
fort was made to obtain accurate accommodation
and visual acuity tests, and results revealed no
differences between the exposed and unexposed
populations. However, becauseof difficulties in
carrying out the tests through interpreters, the
accuracyof the results in many instancesis somewhat uncertain.
Examination of the Skin
Impetiginouslesions were quite prevalent among
the children in both the exposed and unexposed
groups, as has been observed in the past. Fungus
infections of the skin were prevalent among the
adults. Only one case of yaws was seen, 1n an
Utirik child. As mentionedearlier, there was one
case of leprosy in a young man which waspresent
prior to irradiation. The indolent ulcers ofhis feet