20
Growth and Development Studies
a few instances showed conflict between there-
In evaluating the growth and developmentdata
corded date and the available circumstantial evi-
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 loca! 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
age data was undertaken. This amounted toa
on these children, serious inconsistencies in birth
dence.
Since almostall analyses of growth data depend
basically on the use of chronological ages, the
painstaking task of improving thevalidityof the
virtual reconstruction of the biologicalhistory of
the childhood population of the island. Interviews
were held with the parents, relatives, and village
elders. Cross-examinations were conductedto ob-
tain all relevant information. In spite of theseef-
Subject
No.
Table 10
forts, a significant lack of accurate informationre-
Skeletal Ages in 6-Year-Old Children
birth dates are necessary beforeclassification of
the children into age groups can be done with
reasonable validity.
Age at
mained in manycases. Further attempts to check
Sex
exposure,
mo
Chronological
agein 1959, yr
Skeletal age*
in 1959, yr
2
M
16
6 Me
4 %2
5
M
16
6 Ke
3
M
6
65
17
M
F
33
34
16
15
F
20
F
F
F
F
M
**
**
**
**
**
M
955962
980
996
814
6 M2
21%2
3 %2
6 *2
6 2
5 Ha
3 2
6 Yin
¢
6 Me
12
7K
6%
6 "2
6 2
6 H2
6142
t
t
6'%2
t
5 M2
*Greulich-Pyle standards.
An earlier analysis of the skeletal ages of the
Marshallese children had indicated possible re-
tardation 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 markedlyre-
tarded in skeletal maturation (Table 10). The
birth dates of these particular children seemed
firmly established. The boys showing mostretarda-
tion (#2,3,and5) were 16 to 17 months old and
the girl (#¢65) 15 monthsold at the time of expo-
**Control.
tNo film.
Table 12
Table 11
Comparison of Stature (1958, 1959, and 1960)
Height and Weight of 6-Year-Old Children
Skeletal age peers
Subject
No.
Height,
cm
Weight,
Ib
Height,
cm
Weight,
lb
2
3
5
6
65
33
108.3
102.2
98.8
106.3
98.4
115.8
41.5
39.5
36.0
41.0
33.0
43.8
99.3
95.3
104.8
109.0
—
118.2
32.0
32.5
36.1
41.0
—
47.4
955
962
980
996
117.5
108.3
112.8
108.0
47.5
42,3
43.8
35.0
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
54
814
112.5
111.7
47.5
43.0
_—
—
—
—
of Children With Retarded Osseous Development
With That of Their Next Younger Sibs
Stature, cm
Sex
Born
Subject (#5)
Sib
(#85)
M
M
10/20/52
9/7/54
Sib
Subject
Sib
Subject
Sib
Subject
Sib
M_ 1/3/55 898 97.1 104.1
M 9/11/52 98.5 102.2 106.7
M_ 6/ 8/54 97.6 986 113.0
F 12/4/52 93.0 984 1029
F 10/17/54 906 97.0 103.5
M 10/14/52 1004 106.3 1118
M 5/31/54 94.2 986 1048
Subject (#2)
(#91)
(#3)
(#83)
(#65)
(#86)
(#6)
(#84)
M
1958
1959
1960
93.7 988 102.2
95.5 100.9 108.0
10/23/52 103.0 1083 115.6