20
q
!
I
t
_ t1Ob
MALES
z
r
¥
v
FEMALES
so
°
SN
4 -20}-
t
-
ra
——~
——
—
T
<
aa
_
Swe
EXPOSED
ae
7
2 +10b
-E
=
o
= of}
7 4
a
4
-30-
|
3-5
i
l
|
6-8
U
o2
AGE AT EXPOSURE (YRS)
1
3-5
+
'
“40
oo
<q
“
=
i
0-2
q
—— FEMALE
eee MALE
m™
r
—
—— CONTROL
L
u
q
CHILDREN BORN AFTER FALLOUT
i
ww
q
COMPARISON OF SKELETAL AGE
AND CHRONOLOGICAL AGE
1961 AND 1962
COMPARISON SKELETAL AGE
ANO CHRONOLOGICAL AGE
1961 & 1962 (POOLED DATA)
L
6-8
-10F
-20K
Figure 14.
a
one
7 Tt ee?
7 °
~
4
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
Figure f5.
months as compared with 2 monthsfor the control
Pyle, and he gained only 8.2 cm in stature so that
girls. The most marked retardation of skeletal
maturation, as well as the most marked statural
retardation, occurred in the 4 boys who were
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
exposed at 16 to 17 months of age (Table 8). In
have had decreased rates of weight gain, but the
decrease has not been as marked as in statural
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.
development. No. 3 is 6! Ib lighter than his con-
trols, corresponding to children =1 yr younger
than himself, whereas his stature is comparabie to
that of children ~»3 yr younger. No. 5 is 1144 |b
5 and No. 3, not only were more severely retarded
lighter than his controls, corresponding to children
in their development, but were retarded in the rate
-~2 yr younger. and his stature is comparable to |
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).
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 5°. yr behind the standards of Greulich
and Pyle. During the same 3-yr period he gained
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
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 monthsin
skeletal age from age 6 to age 9, which puts him
girls, There were no differences between children
of exposed parents and children of unexposed
6%. yr behind the standards of Greulich and
Table 8
Skeletal Age and Stature inMales Exposed at Age 16 to 17 Months
.
Ageat
Skeletal age minus
chronological age, months
Subject exposure,
No.
months Age 6
2
6
5
3
16
16
16
17
��� 22
-i1
—35
— 44
Height minus median contro! height, cm
Age 8
Age 9
Age 5
Age 6
— 28
— 20
— 59
— 66
-19
-l11
— 68
—78
— 2.3
—4.9
— 9.6
— 6.8
—
——
—
3.5
5.5
13.0
9.6
Age 7
—
—
—
—
1.9
5.7
15.3
10.8
Age 8
Age 9
— 2.8
- 63
— 17.9
—14.5
— 3.1
— 84
— 20.8
—17.9