Nuclear Radiation Affects Sex of Babies, Study Suggests / Electromagnetic Radiation / Forums

Forums

4hv.org :: Forums :: Electromagnetic Radiation

« Previous topic | Next topic »

Nuclear Radiation Affects Sex of Babies, Study Suggests

Move Thread

LAN_403

Proud Mary

Sat May 28 2011, 08:04AM

Registered Member #543 Joined: Tue Feb 20 2007, 04:26PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4992

Nuclear Radiation Affects Sex of Babies, Study Suggests

ScienceDaily (May 27, 2011) â€” Ionizing radiation is not without danger to human populations. Indeed, exposure to nuclear radiation leads to an increase in male births relative to female births, according to a new study by Hagen Scherb and Kristina Voigt from the Helmholtz Zentrum MÃ¼nchen.

Their work shows that radiation from atomic bomb testing before the Partial Test Ban Treaty in 1963, the Chernobyl accident, and from living near nuclear facilities, has had a long-term negative effect on the ratio of male to female human births (sex odds). The research is published in the June issue of Springer's journal Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

Ionizing radiation from nuclear activity is known to have mutagenic properties and is therefore likely to have detrimental reproductive effects. It is thought that it may cause men to father more sons and mothers to give birth to more girls. Scherb and Voigt look at the long-term effects of radiation exposure on sex odds -- a unique genetic indicator that may reveal differences in seemingly normal as well as adverse pregnancy outcomes between maternal exposure and paternal exposure. In particular, they focus on sex odds data with respect to global atmospheric atomic bomb test fallout in Western Europe and the US, fallout due to nuclear accidents in the whole of Europe, and radioactive releases from nuclear facilities under normal operating conditions in Switzerland and Germany.

Their analyses show a significant male-female gap in all three cases:

* Increases in male births relative to female births in Europe and the US between 1964-1975 are a likely consequence of the globally emitted and dispersed atmospheric atomic bomb test fallout, prior to the test ban in 1963, that affected large human populations overall after a certain delay.
* There was a significant jump of sex odds in Europe in the year 1987 following Chernobyl, whereas no such similar effect was seen in the US, which was less exposed to the consequences of the catastrophe.
* Among populations living in the proximity of nuclear facilities (within 35km or 22 miles), the sex odds also increased significantly in both Germany and Switzerland during the running periods of those facilities.

Taken together these findings show a long-term, dose-dependent impact of radiation exposure on human sex odds, proving cause and effect. What is less clear is whether this increase in male births relative to female births is the result of a reduced frequency of female births or an increased number of male births. The authors estimate that the deficit of births and the number of stillborn or impaired children after the global releases of ionizing radiation amount to several millions globally.

Scherb and Voigt conclude: "Our results contribute to disproving the established and prevailing belief that radiation-induced hereditary effects have yet to be detected in human populations. We find strong evidence of an enhanced impairment of humankind's genetic pool by artificial ionizing radiation."

Story Source:

The above story is reprinted (with editorial adaptations by ScienceDaily staff) from materials provided by Springer Science+Business Media.

Journal Reference:

1. Hagen Scherb, Kristina Voigt. The human sex odds at birth after the atmospheric atomic bomb tests, after Chernobyl, and in the vicinity of nuclear facilities. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2011; 18 (5): 697 DOI: 10.1007/s11356-011-0462-z

Steve Conner

Sun May 29 2011, 07:34PM

Registered Member #30 Joined: Fri Feb 03 2006, 10:52AM
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Posts: 6706

Proud Mary wrote ...

It is thought that it may cause men to father more sons and mothers to give birth to more girls.

This makes no sense. It takes one of each kind to make a kid, how do you know which one is responsible for the gender of it?

Bored Chemist

Mon May 30 2011, 11:08AM

Registered Member #193 Joined: Fri Feb 17 2006, 07:04AM
Location: sheffield
Posts: 1022

Steve McConner wrote ...

Proud Mary wrote ...

It is thought that it may cause men to father more sons and mothers to give birth to more girls.

This makes no sense. It takes one of each kind to make a kid, how do you know which one is responsible for the gender of it?

Probably because the sex of the child is always, and only determined by the sperm, rather than the egg.

Proud Mary

Mon May 30 2011, 11:37AM

Registered Member #543 Joined: Tue Feb 20 2007, 04:26PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4992

Bored Chemist wrote ...

Steve McConner wrote ...

Proud Mary wrote ...

It is thought that it may cause men to father more sons and mothers to give birth to more girls.

This makes no sense. It takes one of each kind to make a kid, how do you know which one is responsible for the gender of it?

Probably because the sex of the child is always, and only determined by the sperm, rather than the egg.

That is what I had assumed too.

Steve Conner

Mon May 30 2011, 09:34PM

Registered Member #30 Joined: Fri Feb 03 2006, 10:52AM
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Posts: 6706

Well then, it still makes no sense. If fathers are fathering more sons, there can't also be more daughters. A, because the father determines the sex of the child, and B, more compared to what. If there are more of both, then there's no bias, the birth rate has simply gone up overall.

I smell confused journalist and doubt the facticity of the rest of the article. Maybe it's a typo and they meant "less".

Avalanche

Mon May 30 2011, 10:36PM

Registered Member #103 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 08:16PM
Location: Derby, UK
Posts: 845

Can I also vote for it making no sense... I've read it a couple of times, and the only way it could make vague sense would be if the sons were never actually born

Ash Small

Wed Jun 01 2011, 01:59PM

Registered Member #3414 Joined: Sun Nov 14 2010, 05:05PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4245

I assumed it meant that where one parent was exposed to radiation, and the other not exposed, the sex of offspring tended to be the same as the parent that was exposed.

There are other factors here, I remember reading somewhere that male sperm is more energetic, but but doesn't survive as long as female sperm, which is less energetic, but has more stamina, and survives longer. It's also not simply a question of 'the first sperm to reach the egg fertilises it', the sperm then has to 'break through' the egg membrane, which can take some time. The male sperms can become tired, and die, whereas the female sperms have more stamina.

Time of ovulation is also important. If the egg is already in the fallopian tube, male sperms will get to it first, if the sperms are already present when ovulation occurs, the female sperms will be more likely to impregnate it as they have more stamina.

I've still no idea how radiation could have the claimed effect, though, unless women exposed to radiation produce eggs with thicker membranes and men exposed to radiation produce weaker (or fewer?) female sperms.

(For male and female sperms, read XY and XX respectively)

Moderator(s): Chris Russell, Noelle, Alex, Tesladownunder, Dave Marshall, Dave Billington, Bjørn, Steve Conner, Wolfram, Kizmo, Mads Barnkob