20
a few instances showed conflict between the re-
Growth and DevelopmentStudies
In evaluating the growth and development data
on these children,serious inconsistencies in birth
date information have been uncovered. Official
written birth records did not exist for most of the
children. The parents actually had norealistic
perspective of time. No local or regional events,
tragic or otherwise, were rememberedto serve as
reference points. The births of some children had
been registered at Majuro, but even amongthese
Table 10
Skeletal Ages in 6-Year-Old Children
corded date and the available circumstantial evidence.
Since almost all analyses of growth data depend
basically on the use of chronological ages, the
painstaking task of improving thevalidity of the
age data was undertaken. This amounted toa
virtual reconstruction of the biological history of
the childhood population ofthe island. Interviews
were held with the parents, relatives, and village
elders. Cross-examinations were conducted to obtain all relevant information. In spite of these efforts, a significant lack of accurate informationremained in manycases. Further attempts to check
birth dates are necessary before classification of
the children into age groups can be done with
Subject
Age at
reasonable validity.
exposure,
Sex
2
3
5
6
65
33
M
M
M
M
F
F
16
17
16
16
15
20
6
6
6
6
6
6
%2
%2
2
H2
H2
Ke
4 %2
2'K2
3 2
5 %2
3 42
7 2
955
962
980
996
814
F
F*
F
F
M
**
*
**
**
“*
61%
6 2
6%
6 2
6M,
t
t
6'%2
+
5 Me
M
age in 1959, yr
Skeletal age*
No.
54
mo
Chronological
12
6 2
in 1959, yr
t
*Greulich-Pyle standards.
**Control.
tNo film.
An earlier analysis of the skeletal ages of the
Marshallese children had indicated possible retardation 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 chronological age
group three boys and onegirl out of five boys and
two girls exposed to radiation were markedlyretarded in skeletal maturation (Table 10), The
birth dates of these particular children seemed
firmly established. The boys showing most retarda-
tion (#2,3.and 5) were 16 to 17 months old and
the girl (+263) 15 monthsold at the time of expoTable 12
Tabie 11
Comparison of Stature (1958, 1959, and 1960)
of Children With Retarded Osseous Development
Height and Weight of 6-Year-Old Children
Skeletal age peers
Subject
No.
Height,
cm
Weight,
lb
Height,
cm
Weight,
Ib
2
3
5
6
108.3
102.2
98.8
106.3
41.5
39.5
36.0
41.0
99.3
95.3
104.8
109.0
32.0
32.5
36.1
41.0
33
34
955
962
980
996
115.8
112.5
117.5
108.3
112.8
108.0
43.8
47.5
47.5
42.3
43.8
35.0
118.2
—
—
_
—
—
47.4
—
~
—_
—
—
65
814
98.4
111.7
33.0
43.0
~
_
_
_
With That of Their Next Younger Sibs
Stature, cm
Sex
Born
1958
1959
1960
Subject (#5)
Sib
(#85)
M
M~
10/20/52
3/ 7/54
95.7
95.5
98.8
100.9
102.2
108.0
Subject (#2)
Sib
(#91)
M~
M
10/23/52
1/ 3/55
103.0
898
108.3
97.1
115.6
104.1
Subject (#3)
Sib
(#83)
M
M
9/11/52
6/ 8/54
98.5
97.6
102.2
986
106.7
113.0
Subject (#65)
Sib
(#86)
F
F
12/ 4/52
10/17/54
930
90.6.
984
97.0
1029
103.5
Subject (#6)
Sib
{ #84)
M
M
10/14/52
5/31/54
106.3
98.6
111.8
104.8
100.4
94.2