726
GROWTH AND RADIATION
POT
behind their peers in stature, are only 1 to
MEDIAN WEIGHTS 1956-1963
YT
TT
a
tT
UP
Tt
GIRLS
2 years behind in weight.
w——* EXPOSED
f20;-
Neither the boys nor the girls have
showed anysignificant differences between
o- —-o CONTROL
100
exposed and unexposed groups with re-
= 60
Skeletal ages, based on the standards of
spect to head circumference.
a
Qa
Greulich and Pyle,’ paralleled the statural
development of the children. The scattergrams of skeletal ages versus chronological
oO
a
-
60
o
ul
z
ages (Figs. 5 and 6) represent the pooled
measurements for 1961, 1962, and 1963.
40
20
0
4
1tottysytt yy
6
8
id
12
AGE (YEARS)
4
on the graph. Thesolid line on eachscatter-
ert
14
16
Fic, 4, Median weights of girls, 1958 through 1963.
No difference in the weight curves is apparent between exposed and non-exposed groups of girls.
fo ~ §25~“o
similar to those observed in the statures,
but the differences were smaller and none
were statistically significant. Even subjects
No. 3 and 5, who are approximately 4 years
T
T
T
14-—
x
o
a l2e
x
a
ea
a
7, (OE
o
a
Z
uw
x
=
“
o
8p
oo
§\—
2
°
l
1
4
6
|
8
oO *
o
oO
4
=
an
what less mature skeletally than the unexposed. The median skeletal retardation
of the exposed children was 9 months, as
compared with 3 months for the controls.
SKELETAL AGE va CHRONOLOGICAL AGE 1961-1963
T
—
a
I47-"
9° CONTROLS
QO
x
2
aa
tL
10
4
EXPOSED AT AGE [2-18 MOS]
EXPOSEO AT OTHER AGES
—
|
(2
CHRONOLOGICAL AGE {1 YEARS)
L
14
|
16
>ws
oo
8 CONTROL
5
x
oo.
8
Vo
‘
6 94
a
x
=
686
°
oh
2
8
x
6t
~]
OM
oo
<
Ga
T
EXPOSED AT AGE 12-18 MOS.
EXPOSED AT OTHER AGES
1o-
x
fs"
°
Boo °
|
o,o.
2
PO
ett
T
GIRLS
a
compared to the non-exposed. The measurements
on the boys exposed to fallout radiation at 12 to
18 months of age are represented by open squares
and indicate continued failure in skeletal maturation. The standard curve derived from Marshall
4 §36-Co
T
w
at
Islands data is represented by the solid line.
T
pt
12
examinations show general retardation (though not
Statistically significant over-all) of exposed boys
ct
than the girls, being on the average 8
months retarded, as compared with 3
&
Fic. 5. Skeletal age versus chronological age in
boys, 1961 through 1963. Scattergram of pooled
skeletal age assessment data from three separate
a
chronological ages than the norms published by Greulich and Pyle. However, the
boys were somewhatless mature skeletally
4
oom
aoa
oa
«
9
o
x
~
x
-
gfogp x
*
4
2
0
°
ae
x
o
exposed children. Both the exposed and.
unexposed Marshallese children tended to
be less mature skeletally at comparable
children, both boys and girls, were some-
WA
@
°
x.
ke
x
gram is a least squares fitting to the points
representing the measurements on the un-
months for the girls. Also, the exposed
SKELETAL AGE vs CHRONONLOGICAL AGE
BOYS POOLEO MEASURMENTS FOR 1961-1963
6
Thus, the same individual may be shown
at three different chronological age levels
=o
x
.
2
x
o
4
_
1
4
i
6
i
8
i
i0
!
12
CHRONOLOGICAL AGE (YEARS)
!
14
i
16
Fic. 6. Skeletal age versus chronological age in
girls, 1961 through 1963. No significant over-all
difference is apparent between exposed and non-
exposed groupsof girls.
2
“Ao.
Cs