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 .