20
a few instances showed conflict between the re-
Growth and Development Studies
In evaluatingfie growth and development data
on these children, serious inconsis:<ncies 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 local or regional events,
tragic or otherwise, were remembered to serve as
reference points. The births of some children had
been registered at Mfajuro, but even among these
corded date and the available circumstantial evidence.
Since almost all analyses of growth data depend
oasically 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 historyof
the chiidhood 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-
forts, a significant lack of accurate information remained in many cases. Further attempts to check
Table 10
Skeletal Ages in 6-Year-Old Chiidren
birth dates are necessary beforeclassification of
the children into age groups can be done with
reasonable validity.
Sex
Age at
exposure,
mo
Chronological
age in 1959,vr
Skeletal age"
in 1959, yr
2
3
5
ME
M
M
16
17
Ib
6 Ma
6 M2
6 M2
+ M2
2'%2
3 %2
65
F
15
6 2
3 Hz
6
M
16
6 "2
33
54
955
962
F
M
F
F
20
12
**
**
6 M2
6 Me
6M
6 2
996
814
F
M
“*
**
6 Me
6'M2
980
F
**
6 2
3 2
An earlier analysis of the skeletal ages of the
Marshallese children had indicated possible retardation 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,
7 %2
t
t
f
group three boys and onegir! out offive boys and
two girls exposed to radiation were markedly retarded itn skeletal maturation (Table 10), The
6%
f
3 %2
*Greulich-Pyle standards.
**Control.
however, that in the 6-year chronologicdl age:
be
Subject
No.
birth dates of these particular children seemed
firmly established. The boys showing most retarda-
tion (#2,3,and5) were 16 to 17 monthsold and
the girl (+65) i3 months old at the time of expo-
tNo film.
Table 12
Table Li
Comparison of Stature (1958, 1959, and 1960)
of Children With Retarded Osseous Development
With That of Thetr Next Younger Sibs
Height and Weight of 6-Year-Old Children
Skeleta] age peers
Subject
No.
Height,
cm
Weight,
Ib
Height,
cm
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
34
955
112.5
117.5
47.5
47.5
—
—
962
980
996
Bit
108.3
112.8
108.0
Lt1.7
11855 10
42.3
43.8
35.0
43.0
—
_
—
—
Stature, cm
Weight,
Ib
32.0
32.5
4 36al
“44.0
a,
47.4
—
—
~
—
—
—
Sex
Subject
Sib
Subject
Sib
Subject
Sib
(43)
(=85)
(£2)
(=91)
($3)
(#83)
Subject (265)
Sib
M
M
M
MM
M_
F
Born
1958
1959
1960
10/20/52 95.7 988
9/ 7/54 95.5 100.9
10/23/52 103.0 108.3
1/3/55 898 97.1
9/11/52 985 102.2
6/ 8/54 97.6 98.6
102.2
108.0
115.6
1041
106.7
113.0
12/4/52
98.4
102.9
106.3
111.8
93.0
(=86)
F
10/17/54
906
Subject (=6)
M
10/14/52
1004
Sib
(=84)
M
5/31/54
94.2
97.0 103.5
986 1048