1
7
Lymphocytes.
~~
a1g°4
35
e
a
e
counts in the exposed group for the first time
showed about an equai distribution in the exposed
population of counts above and below the mean
6
ee
nN
wn
UNEXPOSED
36) of the age distribution of the lymphocyte
*
Op I
30 |
un
evels of the unexposed people. The cumulative
percentage distribution curves of the exposed and
°
unexposed (Figure 37) showed close approxima-
Oo
tion. The 1960 absolute lymphocyte counts also
showed a decrease corresponding to the WBC de-
Figure 39. Individual platelet counts of exposed males
plotted against age, 1959. Solid line represents mean level
of comparison male population.
“9
The mean level of the lympho-
cyte counts (Table 21 and Figure 33) in 1959
showed a slight increase over the 1958 values. The
mean levels were about the same in the exposed
and unexposed populations. A scattergram (Figure
=
nN
oO
PLATELETS
——
mp n +
ag
crease, the mean dropping from 4000 in 1959 to
2700 in 1960.
Eosinophil and
Eosinophils and Monocytes.
monocyte counts showed a slight increase in 1959
over the 1958 levels and were slightly greater in
1
the exposed population. As noted in 1958, a large
{
as
40 —
|
“38h
=
percentage of the population had eosinophil
counts >>5% of the total white count (1959, 44% of
|
n Or
2 |
°
*
exposed population and 39% of unexposed; 1960,
46°: of exposed, no data on unexposed). The levels
of - nophils and monocytes in 1960 were not
*
ee
:
°
UNEXPOSED
9°
a
= 25
4
very different from the 1959 levels. (Basophils are
discussed below in connection with leukemia.)
=
21 and Figure 38) were slightly lower than in 1958
Platelets.
in both the exposed and unexposed populations.
The mean deficit in platelets in the exposed population was about the sameas last year ( — 9.3% for
the males and — 11.3% for the females). Age distribution scattergrams for the individual!piatelet
counts in both males and females of the exposed
aad
4
—
a
zoi
°
*
a
4
e
i
q
isk
ell
0
°
L
9
L
20
1
30
L
50
30
AGE
1
60
=
L
70
population showed more counts below than above
a0
[(YR}
Figure +0. Individual platelet counts of exposed femaies
plotted against age, 1959. Solid line represents mean level
of comparison female population.
the unexposed mean curve (Figures 39 and 40).
This was also borne out by comparison of the
cumulative percentage distribution curvesfor the
exposedand unexposed populations: the latter
showed continued displacement to theleft (Figure
41). The significance of the continued platelet depression in the exposed population is also indicated by the finding of levels < 250,000 in 37% of
the exposed group but in only 24% of the unexposed.
Because of technical
Erythropoetic Function.
CUMULATIVE, PERCENT
difficulties, the hematocrit levels were not con-
sidered reliable for the 1959 survey. Samples containing ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid as an
oO SYRS POST EXPOSURE a
& COMPARISON POPULATION
i
29
i
37
a
45
|
33
|
6!
PLATELETS xq *
Figure #1. Cumulative distribution curve,
Rongelapplatelets, 1959.
MlLi_i_ |
C8SSsll
Mean platelet counts in 1959 (Table
9
anticoagulant appeared to have a lower hematocrit than untreated venous or finger stick blood.
Ie
3
?
x
f
‘
*)
>
Db
wn
33
j