2 Table 13 Comparison of Anthropometric Data (1959) on Children With Retarded Osseous Development With Those of Their Next Younger Sibs Subject No. 5 Agein 1959, yr Head Biacromial width,cm Bi-iliac width,cm Calf circumference, cm 21.6 (1) 22.0(2) 22.8(2) 21.6(1) 22.3 (-) 22.3(-) 20.8(1) 22.0(2) 23.0 (2) 21.6(1) 17.0 (1) 17.8(2) 18.02) 16.8(1) 16.9 (1) 17.02) 17.5 (2) 16.6 (1) 17.0 (2) 16.5(1) 22.0 (2) 20.8 (1) 22.6 (2) 21.4 (1) 22.6 (1) 23.6 (2) 20.1 (-) 20.1 (-) 22.4 (2) 21.3 (1) 33 (1) 100.9(2) 56.0 (2) 54.6(1) 48.3 (2) 2 91 3 83 65 86 6 6%2(2) 4%2(1) 6%2(2) 4%2(1) 6%2(2) 4%2 (1) 64i2(2) 41.5(2) 34.5(1) 39.5(2) 38.3(1) 33.0(2) 29.8(1) 41.0(2) 108.3(2) 97.1 (1) 102.21) 104.7(2) 98.4(2) 97.0(1) 106.3(2) 60.3 (2) 56.3(1) 57.4(1) 59.5 (2) 55.8 (2) 54.5 (1) 59.3 (2) 52.7 (2) 49.5 (1) 49.3 (1) 50.0 (2) 47.2 (1) 48.4 (2) 49.3 (2) 35.5(1) 988(1) Sitting height,cm circumference,cm 4%2(1) 4%2(1) 36 (2) Stature, cm 85 84 6%2(2)* Weight, Ib 98.6(1) 55.0(1) 46.0 (1) 48.3 (1) * Numbers in parenthesesrefer to ranking of each item, (1) indicating the younger child or the smaller measurement of the pair and (2) the older child or the larger value. sure to radiation. One boy ( =6) showedless re- tardation. One boy and onegirl, also about the same age, were exposedto radiation but did not show any retardation in bone development. The height and weight of the one exposed girl with retarded osseous maturation were consider- ably belowthose 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 two of the boys with skeletal retardation were taller and one shorter than the controls (Table 11). Comparison of the physical sizes of the children with retarded skeletal maturation with the physical sizes of their sibs brought out anothersignifi- cantfinding. Three (subjects #3, 5, and 65) of the five children with skeletal age retardation were 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 beentaller than their younger sibs. The difference in age between sib pairs Figure 11. Brothers. Left, #5, age 6; right, 3785, age 4 (1960). PRIVACY ACT MATERIAL REMOVED