‘Table 4 Weight and Height of Children (Mean Values) Males Weight Age Exposed 4 33,.7(5)** 7 42.3 (3) 5 6 8 9 42.0(1) 10 f1 64.0 (1) 68.0 (1) 16 17 18 114 (1) 12 13 14 15 19 79.0(1) 140 (1) Females Height Controls* 31.5(6) Exposed Controls 37.5 (5) 38.1(6) 33.3 (3) 44.2 (6) 47.8(4) 43.3 (3) 39.3(3) 45.2(6) 464(4) 55.0(2) 45.25(1) 50.5 (2) 64.6(5) 69.0(2) 51.5 (1) 53.0 (1) 57.3(3) 81.5(6) 83.0 (1) 100.0 (1) 121 (1) 132 (1) 102 (2) 127 (1) 124 Exposed 26 (1) 33 (2) 37.5(2) 425(2) 50.0 (1) 53.2(3) 50.0(3) 57.25(1) 57.3(6) 58.5 (1) 60.5 (1) 65.0 (1) 62.0(1) 115.0(1) 52.1 (5) 54.0(2) 62.0 (1) 65.0(1) 59.7(2) 64.7(1) (4) Weight 63.5(4) 56.0(2) Height Controls Exposed 37.3(3) 345(1) 47.8(5) 44.0(2) 68.0(3) 488(3) 40 (3) 37 (1) 39.5(2) 45.5(6) 40.2(2) 41.5(1) 45.4(6) 51.3 (7) 48.1 (7) 87.7 (3) 85 (1) £16.0(1) 51.7(2) 58.0(1) 108 (1) 106 (6) 58.0(1) 131 59.6(2) 106 (1) 113 (2) 98 (1) 60.0(2) 109 (1) 131 (2) 60.2(1) (2) Controls 113 (6) 48.8(5) 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 graphof the deviation from the American standard for this age groupin theirradiated and the Marshallese comparison groups of children. Statistical analysis by use of the ¢ test showsthat these are significantly different (P<.0.05). These children wereirradiated at ages 1 to 6 years, which appearsto be a sensitive period for such effects. Figure 6 shows the boneage of children from the same groups but 4 years younger, and it is apparentthatthere is no difference 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. Particulareffort was madeto obtain accurate accommodation and visual acuity tests, and results revealed no differences between the exposed and unexposed populations. However, because of difficulties in 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. accuracy of the results in many instances is some- between the groups. This is reasonable, since most 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 of certain abnormalities wasslightly * carrying out the tests through interpreters, the what 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 amongthe adults. Only one case of yaws was seen, in an Utirik child. As mentionedearlier, there was one case of leprosy in a young man which waspresent prior to irradiation. The indolentulcers ofhis feet