PRIVACY ACT MATERIAL REMOVED = n hie oS Table 13 nae, = Comparison of Anthropometric Data (1959) on Children With Retarded Osseous Development With Those of Their Next Younger Sibs Subject Agein Weight. Stature, 3) 85 2 6%2(2)" $%2(1) 6M2(2) 36 (2) 33 (1) 41.5(2) 9881) 100.972) 108.32) 3 83 65 86 6 B+ 6%2 (2) 4%2(1) 6%2 (2) 442(1) 6%2(2) $%2(1) 39.5(2) 38.31) 33.0(2) 298(1) 41.0(2) 35.5 (1) 102.21) 104.702} 98.4(2) 97.0(1) 106.302) 98.6 (1) No. Ol * 1959, vr 4¥%2(1) Ib 34.501) cm 97.101) Sitting Head Biacromial width.em width,cm circumference, cm 34.601) 36.0(2) 60.3 (2) 48.3 (2) 46.0 (1) 52.7 (2) 216(1) 20912) 22 8 (2) L700) 178 (2) 18.0 (2) 22.0 (2) 20.8 (1) 22.6 (2) 574 (1) 39.502) 35.8. (2) 54.501) 59.3.2) 355.0/1) 49.3 (1) 50.0 (2) 47.2 (1) $8.4 (2) 49.3 (2) 48.3 (1) 22.3(-) 22.3 (-) 20.8 (1) 99.0(2) 23.0(2) 216(1) 16.9 (1) 17.0 (2) 17.5 (2) 16.6 (1) 17.0 (2) 16.5 (1) 22.6 (1) 23.6 (2) 20.1 (-) 20.1 (-) 29.4 (2) 21.3 (1) height.cm circumference,cm 36.301) 49.5 (1) 21661) —_Bi-iliac 16.8 (1) Calf 21.4 (1) * Numbers in parentheses refer to ranking ofeach item, (1) indicating the younger child or the smaller measurement of the pair and (2) the older child or the larger value. : -” ne ? r sure to radiation. One boy ( +6) showed lessre- tardation. One boy and one girl, also about the same age, were exposed to radiation but did not showany retardation in bone development. The height and weight of the one exposed girl with retarded osseous maturation were considerably below those of chronological age peers (Table 11). However, measurements on the one exposed girl with normal bone development ( #33) were not inferior to those of control chronological age peers. She wasslightly smaller than her control skeletal age peers. For the boys, unfortunately, there were insufficient control chronological age peers for calculation of means. Comparison with skelatal age peers indicated that tw of the boys with skeletal retardation were taller and one shorter in stature in 1960 than their next younger. sibs (Table 12; see also Figure 11}. Increment data indicated that these three children failed to show satisfactory statural gain during the past two years, even though in 1958, at the age of 5% years, all three had been taller than their younger sins. The difference in age between sib pairs oe . shorter thanthe controls (Table 11). Comparison of the physical sizes of the children with retarded skeletal maturation with the physical sizes of their sibs brought out another signifhcant finding. Three (subjects #3, 5, and 65) ofthe , five children with skeletal age retardation wére, Figure L1. Brothers. Left, +3, age 6; right. =85, age 4 (1960). PRIVACY ACT MATERIAL REMOVED ware ET eer ee