20 T T Tt q 4 q q J q tT COMPARISON OF SKELETAL AGE AND CHRONOLOGICAL AGE 1961 AND 1962 | COMPARISON exis at AND CHRONOLOG! AGE 1961 & 1962 (POOLED DATA) =P MALS FEMALES oe z ¥ = -~k s i 2 ‘ — 7 ¥ fos ™, 7 aww— FEMALE re MALE 2 +lOr . oo 4 § a oreeoe EXPOSED I oO? 1. 3-5 i 6-4 I u i O2 AGE AT EXPOSURE (1AS} —+ a — —— Se ‘ “10k 4 —_t u 0 ¥ ——— CONTROL «3 J 3-5 “ - —S<— NY 7 CHILDREN BORN AFTER FALLOUT } 6-6 ~20- Figure 14. ai aw” we" 7 4 1 2 YEARS OF BIRTH (YEARS AFTER FALLOUT) 13 months retarded skeletally as compared with 6 months for the average unexposed boy. The aver- Figure 15. age skeletal retardation for exposed girls was 7 months as compared with 2 months for the control 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 ts comparable to that of children >3 yr younger. No. 5 is 11% Ib lighter than his controls, corresponding to children ew2 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). 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 girls. The most marked retardation of skeletal maturation, as well as the most marked statural retardation, occurrcd 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 rela- tively 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 in their development, but were retardedin the rate 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 554. yr 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 monthsin skeletal age from age 6 to age 9, which puts him 6%. yr behind the standards of Greulich and Table 8 Skeletal Age and Stature in Males Exposed at Age 16 to 17 Months Subject exposure, Skeletal age minus chronological age, months: - Height minus median control height, cm No. months Age 6 Age 8 Age 9 Age 5 Age 6 Age 7 Age 8 Age 9 2 6 5 3 16 16 16 17 — 22 -—)1 —35 — 44 — 28 — 20 — 59 — 66 -—19 —11 — 68 —78 — 2.3 — 4.9 ~ 9.6 — 6.8 — — — — — — — — — —— — — 3.5 5.5 13.0 9.6 1.9 5.7 15,3 10.8 2.8 6.3 17.9 14.5 3.1 84 20.8 17.9