20
Growth and DevelopmentStudies
a few instances showed conflict between there-
In evaluating the growth and development data
corded date and the available circumstantial evi-
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 rememberedtoserve as
reference points. The births of some children had
been registered at Majuro, but even among these
Table 10
Skeletal Ages in 6-Year-Old Children
Subject
Age at
No.
Sex
2
3
5
6
65
M
M
M
M
F
54
955
962
980
996
814
M
F
F
F
F
M
33
exposure,
mo
F
Chronological
age in 1959, yr
Skeletal age*
—in 1959, yr
16
17
16
16
15
6
6
6
6
6
2
%2
Aa
H2
he
4 2
21%2
3 K2
5 %2
3 %2
12
**
**
**
**
**
6 a
61%
6 a
6 Ke
6 H2
62
T
t
T
6'%2
t
5 2
20
6 2
7 Sie
*Greulich-Pyle standards.
dence.
Since almostall analyses of growth data depend
basically on the use of chronological ages, the
painstaking task of improving the validity of the
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 conductedto obtain all relevant information. In spite of these efforts, a significant lack of accurate information remained in manycases. Further attempts to check
birth dates are necessary before classification of
the children into age groups can be done with
reasonable validity.
Anearlier 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 andonegirl 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,and 5) were 16 to 17 monthsold and
the girl (#65) 15 monthsold at the time of expo-
**Control.
tNofilm.
Table 12
Table lt
Comparison of Stature (1958, 1959, and 1960)
Height and Weight of 6-Year-Old Children
Subject
No.
Weight,
lb
2
108.3
41.5
99.3
32.0
°
65
oes
O84
PO
33.0
lose
v
ao
h
112.5
47.5
33
54
955
962
102.2
115.8
,
10g ?
980
119.8
996 |
108.0
B14
Cry
Skeletal age peers
TS
Height,
Weight,
cm
Ib
Height,
cm
3
111.7
a re
bu ig it
39.5
95.3
32.5
43.8
118.2
47.4
tb 3
_
7
_
—
_
43.8
35.0
43.0
of Children With Retarded Osseous Development
With That of Their Next Younger Sibs
_
_
—
_
Stature, cm
Sex
Born
1958
Subject (#5)
M_
10/20/52
95.7
Subject (#2)
Sib
(#91)
M 10/23/52 103.0 108.3 115.6
M 1/3/55 89.8 97.1 104.1
Sib
(#85)
Subject (#3)
M
M
Sib
(#83)
_
Sib
(#86)
=F
—
Subject
(#6)
M
—
Subject (#65)
Sib
(#84)
M_
F
M
9/ 7/54
9/11/52
6/8/54
95.5
1959
1960
98.8 102.2
100.9
108.0
985 102.2 106.7
97.6
986 113.0
10/17/54
90.6
97.0 103.5
10/14/52.
100.4
12/4/52
5/31/54
93.0
94.2
984 1029
106.3
111.8
98.6 104.8