TABLE 2: THYROID SURGERIES, 1985-1987 Identification Number & Group Age at Diagnosis 67 - Rongelap 822 - Comparison - Sex Year of Surgery 45 F 1985 Papillary/follicular carcinoma plus occult papillary carcinoma Consensus Diagnosis* 44 M 1985 Normal] 2172 - Utirik 45 F 1985 Follicular adenoma . 2172 - Utirik 34 F 1985 Occult papillary carcinoma 2225 - Utirik 39 F 1985 Adenomatous nodule 2251 - Utirik 37 F 1986 Follicular adenoma plus occult papillary carcinoma * Majority diagnoses, based on interpretations by: Dr. L.V. Ackerman, Health Sciences Center, SUNY, Stony . Brook, NY; Dr. W.A. Meissner, formerly with New England Deaconess Hospital, Boston, MA; Dr. A.L. Vickery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Dr. L.B. Woolner, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. TABLE 3: THYROID NODULES DIAGNOSED AT SURGERY THROUGH 1987 Adenomatous nodules Rongelap (67)* Ailingnae (19)* Utirik (167)* Comparison (227)** 17 Adenomas Papillary cancers Follicular cancers 2 5 - Occult cancers l 4 - - - ] 1] 4 4 4 1 2 1*** . 5 Qaeee NOT INCLUDED arethe following unoperated (and therefore unconfirmed) nodules: Rongelap — 1; Ailingnae’ — 1]; Utirik — 1; Comparison — 5. INCLUDED areall consensus diagnosesof a panel of consultantpathologists; two different lesions were detected in one person from Rongelap, one from Ailingnae, and two from Utirik. * Numberof persons (including those in utero} who were originally exposed. ** This numberincludesall persons who have been in the Comparison group since 1957 (see page 18}. Some have not been seen for many years; others were added as recently as 1976. *** Equally divided opinion in one case; follicular carcinoma vs. atypical adenoma. **** Majority opinion in one case; occult papillary carcinoma vs. follicular carcinoma. The same patient had Iyvmphocytie thyroiditis. 10