TT$MFTtdTPrPSYyY Trem? thc STATURAL GROWTH 1958-1962 BY AGE AT EXPOSURE at IGOk Ll 150 140 tad & J 2 I130r <q ~wh . a , % lOO” 90/- 2 fy @ “ oS oi _ BOYS heen EXPOSED —— CONTROL @® BIRTH YEAR 2 4 4 ft 6 pt 6 8) le i4 iG 18 CHRONCLOGICAL AGE (YRS) q ~ 90 7 & - 2 al w aed = Zz< 70 5 tad = - 60r- +. soL- ec RROI _ CONTA oe x me ae eee Lia pigidbd ee Lit Ee i - the group with exposed parents were, on the average, 4 months younger than their controls (the boys with unexposed parents). The median difference it stature between the two groups was 4.4 cm, and from their growth curves the boys with exposed parents would be expected to be 2.3 cm shorter on the basis of the age difference. Since much of the difference in stature was readily accounted for by the age difference, the data did not justify a conclusion that there was a difference in stature associated with the exposure of the parents. The girls of exposed parents did not differ in 6 an Figure 4. noted in the previous study. However, the boys in + ' 20 showed trends parallel to those of their statures (Figure 5). However, the weights were more variable, and the differences were notstatistically significant. The exposed girls did not differ significantly from their controls in either stature or weight at any age level (Figures 6 and 7). Among the children born after the fallout, the males with exposed parer:..» were smaller in stature at all ages than those with nonexposed parents (Figure 8). The difference wasstatistically significant ut ages | through 4. This trend had been = ' t (EXPRESSED AS AGE AT EXPOSUREINDICATED BY == ft ; ! : CIRCLED NUMBER) Jot 4 } 1938 - 1962 HO} 4 “ Ok MEDIAN WEIGHTS 120 4 ~ od z 120r- TOT TTT tT od . IN. 4 130 eyo I70- 1407- 8 wm 12 16 1G ~CHRONOLOGICAL: aE TYAS} Figure 5. 5 20 . age fromtheir controls; nor werethgte age differ- ences begweon anyof, the comparison groups of children borngigforéfallout. The boys of exposed parentsdid noi ‘differ significantly from the boys of unexposed”parents in weight or head circumference (Figures 9 and 10). The girls of exposed parents did not differ from the girls of unexposed parents in stature, weight, or head circumference (Etguren, % Ag, and Jan. « beatae etal, apes,’basedzan the standards reu- lich and.RByle, Paraiededthestatiral development of the childrenBoth the exposedar a. contrat Mar- shallese chiTdtén tended to be’tess pic“skeletally at compgstiate,haondtogical ages | he#otms publishedby Ghectichand:Pyle (Fig@e"'4). Hoiw- tally thin :.gitts; ever;th ba & ra neeIe$s mature,skele- o average.7. months retarded, a 1 eee “with dnihsforrthe ‘pitts. Also,the’cupates ehiidren ‘were. sian less matute -sketeraRy thar. the contsols. acdian skeletat retardation bfthe exposed etildremewas'8 months, as compared with 3 months for the controls. The difference in skeletal maturation associated with exposure was more prominent in the boys than the girls. The average exposed boy was