17 Table 5 eer 4 — a eee ee ee Summaryof Physical Findings in Children Exposed (26)* Exposed in utero(+) 8 0 0 1 0 0 i 0 0 0 0 ] j 0 Chronic impetigo (active) Moiluscum contagiosum Tinea versicolor Tineacruris Chronic otitis media Acuteotitis media Palpable liver (over 3 cm) Adenopathy Cheilosis Warts Vitiligo Furuncle Rash 2 0 3 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Nonexposed Nonexposed Rongelap of exposed parents (24) <6 years (38) >6 years(50) Nonexposed Majuro (12) 6 0 0 0 2 + 7 2 0 0 4 2 3 2 0 0 0 2 3 0 l 0 0 3 0 0 l 4 0 l 0 0 0 6 2 4 0 _2 2 0 2 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *Number examined. For the Rongelap population a table of most probable birth dates was eventually worked out. Although a few inconsistencies and uncertainties still persisted, these dates of birth were considered to be best estimates and were used in calculating the ages of the children for the analyses. Biologic compatibility of the birth dates within each family group was carefully checked, and physiologic compatibility of status and age for each child was examined. With the establishment of a presumptive date ‘of birth for each child, analysis of the growth and development data was undertaken. Anthropomet- ric data obtained during 1958, 1959, 1960, and 1961 were used in the initial analysis.* Growth data from examinations prior to 1958 had been collected by several different observers, and this earlier material will be tabulated and analyzed in a subsequent study. Although a numberofphysi- cal and physiological parameters were measured, the present analysis waslimited to stature, weight, and skeletal age. In the very young age groups head circumference data were also evaluated. The study population wasdivided into 5 groups: (1) children born before the fallout and living on Rongelapat the time of fallout (exposed group), (2) children born before the fallout but not living on Rongelap at the time of fallout (control group), *The present pediatrician (W.W.S.) actively participated in each of these surveys except the one in 1960. me tow. tae we mew eee em (3) children born to mothers who were pregnant when exposed to fallout (exposed i utero group), (4) children born subsequentto 1 January 1955 to parents one or both of whom were exposedto fallout (exposed parents group), (5) children born subsequent to 1 January 1955 to parents neither of whom were exposedto fallout (control group for exposed parents group). Because someof the distributions encountered in these data did not grossly approximate normality or even symmetry of distribution, and because many of the groups were too small to justify making any assumptions about the parameters of the populations from which the samples were drawn(and in many instances too small to permit calculations of any meaningful measureofvariability), all analysis of data was done by nonparametric statistical methods.* All measures of central tendency men- tioned were medians, andall graphic presentations comparing groups were plotted in terms of medians of the groups. Any descriptive differences between groups mentioned were differences between medIans. All tests for significance of differences between groups, unless otherwise specified, utilized the Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance.* Because the comparisonsofskeletal ages and chronological ages involved related distributions, the Walsh test’® and the Wilcoxon matched-pairs *Weare grateful to Dr. Kenneth Griffith ofthe M.D. Anderson Hospital, Houston, Texas, for carrying outthe statistical analysis. 1ATUEEEFEE enn wc ee cee