20
T
3
Ba
o
=
Q
-_
«
"Or
wa
MALES
__
1
.
3 “2020,
, sp
~
wf
*
a
a
v
Jos,
wm
i
u
al.
o-2
eee
me
—~+ == EXPOSED
i
é-a
2 +10 be
Fea
§
=
Oo
<
-
—— CONTROL
3-5
L
U
q
—— FEMALE
mt re MALE
5
Pat
“~
swe"
q
CHILDREN BORN AFTER FALLOUT
FEMALES
a"
T
COMPARISON OF SKELETAL AGE
AND CHRONOLOGICAL AGE
1961 ANO 1962
COMPARISON SKELETAL AGE
AND CHRONOLOGICAL AGE
1901 & 1962 (POOLED DATA)
1
2
AGE AT EXPOSURE (Y®3)
L
3-5
:
6-@
-
‘
4
Je
“20—_—
ws
3 “10
ns
oe
“20k
7
Figure 14.
w="
“
o
~
_
2
YEARS OF BIRTH
(YEARS AFTER FALLOUT)
13 months retarded skeletally as compared with 6
months for the average unexposed boy. The average skeletal retardation for exposed girls was 7
months as compared with 2 months for the control
girls. The most marked retardation of skeletal
maturation, as well as the most marked statural
Tetardation, occurred in the 4 boys who were
exposed at 16 to 17 months of age (Table 8). In
two of these, Subjects No. 2 and No. 6, the degree
of skeletal and statural retardation remained relatively constant from one year to the next: they
were behind in their development but were progressing at approximately the same rate as their
peers. However, the other two boys, Subjects No.
5 and No. 3, not only were more severely retarded
Figure 15.
Pyle, and he gained only 8.2 cm in stature so that
he is 17.9 cm shorter than his peers. With respect
to weight, No. 2 and No. 6 have maintained
weights <1 yr behind their peers. No. 5 and No. 3
have had decreased rates of weight gain, but the
decrease has not been as marked as in statural
development. No. 3 is 6% Ib lighter than his controls, corresponding to children ~1 yr younger
than himself, whereas his stature is comparable to
that of children >3 yr younger. No. 5 is 11% Ib
lighter than his controls, corresponding to children
in their development, ‘but were retarded in the rate
a-2 yr younger, and his stature is comparable to
of their development, so that they fell further
behind their peers each year. From age 6 to age 9,
No. 5 gained only 3 monthsin skeletal age, and at
age 9 is 584. vr behind the standards of Greulich
and Pyle. During the same 3-yr period he gained
only 8.7 cm in stature, while the controls gained
16.5 cm, and he now is 20.8 cm shorter than the
controls. Similarly, No. 3 gained only 2 months in
skeletal age from age 6 to age 9, which puts him
665 yr behind the standards of Greulich and
that of children almost 4 yr younger.
The skeletal ages of the children born after the
fallout were also somewhat retarded according to
the standards of Greulich and Pyle (Figure 15).
This was attributable primarily to the boys, who
have significantly more retarded skeletal ages than
the girls, the average retardation being 14 months
for the boys as compared with 2 months for the
girls. There were no differences between children
of exposed parents and children of unexposed
Table 8
Skeletal Age and Stature in Males Exposed at Age 16 to 17 Months
Skeletal age minus
.
Age at
chronological age, months
Subject exposure,
No.
months Age6
Age 8
Age 9
2
6
5
3
16
16
16
17
~ 22
-11
—35
-- 44
— 28
—20
— 59
— 66
-19
-11
— 68
— 78
Height minus median control height, cm
Age 5
Age 6
— 2.3
—- 4.9
— 9.6
— 6.8
~
—
—
3.5
55
13.0
9.6
Age 7
——
—
1.9
5.7
15.3
10.8
Age 8
———
—
2.8
6.3
17.9
14.5
Age 9
——
—
-—
3.1
84
20.3
17.9