33
in the exposed population will be compared with
those in the unexposed for differences that might
indicate possible premature aging effects. As
tion and various comparison populations since
exposure in March 1954. In Appendices 3 and 4
are listed the individual blood counts for 1959 and
parent thus far.
in Figures 33, 35, and 38. The blood data have
pointed out, such differences have not been apRESIDUAL BETA BURNS
Ten people continued to show residual skin
damagefrom beta burns sustained yearspreviously. Most of the residua consisted of very mild
changes, such as varying degrees of pigment alteration giving a mottled appearance, sometimes accompanied by a rougheningofthe skin (increased
rugosity). Some showed more pronounced changes,
such as atrophy and scarring. None of the more
severe residual lesions showed any gross evidence
of breakdown with the development of chronic
radiation dermatitis or any premalignant or malignant change. No biopsies were taken. Several
women who had sustained more severe necklesions
seemed to be showing an increase in pigmented
moles in and around the affected areas. However,
this is not certain, and these moles will be ob-
served carefully in the future for any suspicious
changes. In Table 20 are listed descriptions of the
residual beta burns seen in 1960. Figure 32 shows
healed beta burnsof the feet 5 years after exposure.
LABORATORY EXAMINATIONS
Hematological
In Appendices ] and 2 are presented summaries
of the mean blood counts of the exposed popula-
1960. The data are also summarized graphically
been classified as in the past according to age and
sex. The results of blood counts in the 1959 and
1960 surveys may be summarizedas follows.
White Blood Counts. The mean WBC in 1959
showed a further trend upward in both the exposed and unexposed populations, being slightly
lower in the former (see Table 21 and Figure 33).
The 1960 WBC level of the exposed people
showed a considerable drop from a mean level of
9500 in 1959 to 6500 in 1960 as compared with
the trend during the previous two years (no counts
were made on unexposed people in 1960). The explanation for this is not clear. The percentage distribution of the various white cell] levels was not
very different, however, from that of the previous
values.
Neutrophils. The neutrophils in 1959 (Table
21 and Figure 33) showed an increase corresponding to the increase in WBC in both exposed and
unexposed populations, the mean level also being
slightly lower in the exposed. A scattergram
(Figure 34) of the age distribution of the counts in
1959 shows a greater tendencyfor the younger
groups to have lower mean counts in the exposed
than in the unexposed populations. This was
noted also in 1958. In 1960 the average of neutrophil counts was 3500 for the exposed group compared with 4800 in 1959. This decrease corresponded with the decrease in the total white count.
DOE ARCHIVES
Table 21
Mean Leukocyte and Platelet Counts, 1959 and 1960, by Age and Sex
Rongelap exposed
1959
WBC (x10),
age >5
Neut. (1073), age >5
Lymph. (> 10°"), age >5
Auilingnae exposed
1960
1959
9.5+ 2.3% (60)** 65418 (54)
Unexposed
1960
1959
9.7+2.4(15) 7.32=4.3(14)
10.14 3.1(123)
3.2+25(15) 0.6-0.6(13)
2.4+ 2.3(123)
48+ 19 (60)
40+ 1.3 (60)
3541.5 (54)
2.7208 (54)
5.14£2.1(15)
3.741.1(15)
3.61.6 (13)
3.01.2 (13)
Eosin. (X10-7), age >5
5.0*+ 3.3 (60)
Baso. (107), age >5
0.4+ 0.6 (60)
Plate. (10-*), Malesage5-10 32.3410.0 ( 7)
2.7%08 (54)
0.40.11 (54)
6.02-4.2 (15)
0.5~0.8 (15)
40.9
( 2)
4.0+0.2 (13)
0.40.4 (13)
-
6.0+ 9.9 (123)
0.5% 0.8 (123)
34.6+10.8( 11)
26.843.7 ( 9)
~
31.14% 7.2( 52)
Mono. (107), age >5
Females
20+ 1.8 (60)
>10 244+ 9.9 (20)
25 27.6210.5 (29)
0640.2 (54)
26.3+6.0( 4)
~
5.2+ 2.1 (123)
4.1 1.4(123)
28.0+ 8.4( 54)
*Standard deviation.
** The numbers in parentheses are the numbers of people in the groups.
ee ee ee
meee ee
ee
eee
—
ee
eg
.