20
a few instances showed conflict between the re-
Growth andDevelopment Studies
on these children, serious inconsistencies in birth
corded date and the available circumstantial evidence.
written birth records did not exist for most of the
basically on'the use of chronological ages, the
perspective of time. No local or regional events,
tragic or otherwise, were remembered to serve as
reference points. The births of some children had
been registered at Majuro, but even among these
the childhood population of the island. Interviews
Table 10
forts, a significant lack of accurate information re-
In evaluatingthe growth and development data
date information have been uncovered. Official
children. The parents actually had no realistic
Since almost all analyses of growth data depend
painstaking task of improving the validity of the
age data was undertaken. This amounted toa
virtual reconstruction of the biological history of
were held with the parents, relatives, and village
elders. Cross-examinations were conducted to obtain all relevant information. In spite of these ef-
mained in many cases. Further attempts to check
birth dates are necessary before classification of
Skeletal Ages in 6-Year-Old Children
the children into age groups can be done with
Subject
NO.
Sex
Age at
exposure,
mo
2
3
5
6
65
33
54
955
962
980
996
814
M
M
M
M
F
F
M
F
F
FE
F
M
16
17
16
16
15
20
12
**
**
**
**
**
Chronological
agein 1959, yr
Skeletal age*
in 1959, yr
6 M2
6 Sa
6 Ae
6 H2
6 Az
6 Me
6 “2
6%.
6 42
6 2
6 He
64a
4%.
2%
3%
5 a
3%.
7 Mo
T
t
t
6%
7
5 Az
*Greulich-Pyle standards.
**Control.
{No film.
reasonable validity.
An earlier analysis of the skeletal ages of the
Marshallese children had indicated possible re-
tardation in development among the exposed
group.° Since such comparisons required reference
to accurate chronological ages, further detailed
analyses of this type were deferred. It was noted,
however, that in the 6-year chronologic4l age.
group three boys and onegirl out of five boys and
two girls exposed to radiation were markedly retarded in skeletal maturation (Table 10). The
birth dates of these particular children seemed
firmly established. The boys showing most retardation (#2,3,and5) were 16 to 17 months old and
the girl (#65) 15 monthsold at the time of expoTable 12
Table 11
Comparison of Stature (1958, 1959, and 1960)
of Children With Retarded Osseous Development
With That of Their Next Younger Sibs
Height and Weight of 6-Year-Old Children
Skeletal age peers
Subject
No.
Height,
cm
Weight,
lb
Height,
cm
Weight,
lb
2
3
5
108.3
102.2
98.8
41.5
39.5
36.0
99.3
95.3
104.8
32.0
32.5
Sail
6
65
33
54
955
962
980
996
al4
106.3
98.4
115.8
112.5
117.5
108.3
112.8
108.0
Lil?
a
Stature, cm
Sex
Born
1958
1959
1960
Subject (=5)
Sib
(2285)
M
M
10/20/52
9/ 7/54
95.7
95.5
988
100.9
102.2
108.0
41.0
109.0
41.0
Subject (2)
Sib
(=91)
M
M
10/23/52
l/ 3/55
103.0
=89.8
108.3
97.1)
115.6
104.1
43.8
47.5
47.5
42.3
43.8
35 0
+3.0
118.2
—
—
—
—
—
—
47.4
—
—_
—
—
—
_
Subject {23}
Sib
(83)
M
M
9/11/52
6/ 8/54
98.9
97.6
102.2
98.6
106.7
113.0
Subject (65)
Sib
(+86)
F
F
12/ 4/52
10/17/54
93.0
906
984
97.0
102.9
103.5
Subject (#6)
Sib
(84)
M
MI
{0/14/52
5/31/54
100.4
94.2
106.3)
98.6
[11.8
104.8
33.0
—
as,