20
Growth and DevelopmentStudies
In evaluating the growth and developmentdata
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
pray
2
Age at
exposure,
Sex
mo
M
3
5
M
M
65
33
54
955
962
980
996
814
F
F
M
F
F
F
F
M
6
Skeletal age*
in 1959, yr
6 he
4 Hi2
M
6 a
5 Ma
17
16
6 He
6 Kz
15
20
12
**
**
**
“*
**
6 ha
6 Ke
6 he
6!%2
6 M2
6 He
6 %2
6142
16
Since almost all analyses of growth data depend
basically on the use of chronological ages, the
painstakingtask of improvingthe validity of the
age data was undertaken. This amounted toa
virtual reconstruction of the biological history of
the childhood populationofthe 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 information re-
birth dates are necessary before classification of
the children into age groups can be done with
reasonablevalidity.
Chronological
age in 1959, yr
16
dence.
mained in many cases. Further attempts to check
Skeletal Ages in 6-Year-Old Children
Subject
No.
a few instances showed conflict between therecorded date and the available circumstantialevi-
2'%2
3 Ha
3 %e
7 Wa
t
t
Tt
6'%2
t
5 Ke
*Greulich-Pyle standards.
**Control.
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 outoffive 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,and 5) were 16 to 17 monthsold and
the girl (365) 15 monthsold at the time of expo-
tNo film.
Table 12
Table tl
Height and Weightof 6-Year-Old Children
Skeletal age peers
Subject
No.
Height,
cm
Weight,
lb
Height,
cm
Weight,
Ib
2
3
5
6
65
33
54
955
962
980
996
814
108.3
102.2
98.8
106.3
98.4
115.8
112.5
117.5
108.3
112.8
108.0
111.7
41.5
39,5
36.0
41.0
33.0
43.8
47.5
47.5
42.3
43.8
35.0
43.0
99.3
95.3
104.8
109.0
—
118.2
—
—
—
—
—
os
32.0
32.5
36.1
41.0
—_
47.4
—_
—
_
—
—
—
Comparison of Stature (1958, 1959, and 1960}
of Children With Retarded Osseous Development
With That of Their Next Younger Sibs
Stature, cm
Sex
Born
1958
1959
1960
Subject (#5)
Sib
(#85)
M
M
10/20/52
G/ 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
89.8
108.3
97.1
115.6
104.1
Subject (#3)
Sib
(#£83)
M
M
9/11/52
6/ 8/54
98.5
976
102.2
986
106.7
113.0
Subject (765)
Sib
(#86)
F
F
12/ 4/52
10/17/54
93.0
906
984
97.0
102.9
103.5
Subject (76)
Sib
(84)
M
M
10/14/52
5/31/54
100.4
94.2
106.3.
986
111.8
104.8