20
Growth and DevelopmentStudies
a fewinstances showed conflict between the re-
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 no realistic
perspective of time. No Jocal 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 amongthese
Skeletal Ages in 6-Year-Old Children
No.
2
Age at
Sex
exposure,
M
3
5
6
65
33
54
M
M
M
F
F
M
mo
age in 1959, yr
Chronological
Skeletal age*
16
6 Ke
42
6'%2
t
6 H2
6' 42
6'M2
5 %e2
17
16
16
15
20
12
955
F
980
F
**
M
+
962
*“*
F
996
F
814
6
6
6
6
6
6
%2
Ke
Ke
Ka
He
Ke
**
6 Ke
+.
6 %2
in 1959, yr
2'%2
3 Ke
5 K2
3 S42
7 S2
t
t
t
*Greulich-Pyle standards.
**Control.
{No film.
Height and Weight of 6-Year-Old Children
Skeletal age peers
Subject
No.
Height,
cm
Weight,
Ib
Height,
cm
Weight,
Ib
2
3
5
6
65
108.3
102.2
98.8
106.3
98.4
41.5
39.5
36.0
41.0
33.0
99.3
95.3
104.8
109.0
—
32.0
32.5
36.1
41.0
—
955
962
980
996
117.5
108.3
112.8
108.0
475
42.3
43.8
35.0
—
ae
—
—
—
—
—~
��
814
111.7
43.0
115.8
112.5
Since almostall analyses of growth data depend
basically on the use of chronological ages, the
painstaking task of improving the validity ofthe
age data was undertaken. This amounted toa
virtual reconstruction of the biological history of
the childhood population of the island. Interviews
were held with the parents, relatives, and village
elders. Cross-examinations were conducted to obtain all relevant information. In spite of these ef-
43.8
47.5
mained in many cases. Further attempts to check
birth dates are necessary before classification of
the children into age groups can be done with
reasonable validity.
An earlier analysis of the skeletal ages of the
Marshallese children had indicated possible retardation in development among the exposed
group.” Since such comparisonsrequired 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 mostretardation (+ 2,3,and5) were 16 to 17 monthsold and
the girl (2-65) 15 monthsold at the time of expo-
Table 12 Dog ARCHIV ES
Table ?1
33
54
dence.
forts, a significant lack of accurate information re-
Table 10
Subject
corded date and the available circumstantial evi-
118.2
—
—
47.4
—
_—
Comparison of Stature (1958, 1959, and 1960)
of Ch dren With Retarded Osseous Development
‘th That of Their Next Younger Sibs
Stature, cm
Sex
Bom
1958
1959
1960
Subject’
(5)
Sib
(= 85)
M
M
10/20/52
9/ 7/4
«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
89.8
108.3
97.1
115.6
104.1
Subject (+3)
Sib
(83)
M
M
9/11/52,
6/ 8/34
98.5
97.6
102.2
98.6
106.7
113.0
Subject (265)
Sib
(286)
F
F
12/ 4/52?
10/17/54
930
906
984
97.0
1029
103.5
Subject
(#6)
Sib
(+84)
M
M
10/14/52
5/31/44
100.4
942
106.3
986
111.8
104.8
ab
ee ee
eee
ow ree ce
ee