Even the very lowest levels of radiation are harmful to life, scientists have concluded in the Cambridge Philosophical Societyís journal Biological Reviews. Reporting the results of a wide-ranging analysis of 46 peer-reviewed studies published over the past 40 years, researchers from the University of South Carolina and the University of Paris-Sud found that variation in low-level, natural background radiation was found to have small, but highly statistically significant, negative effects on DNA as well as several measures of health.
The review is a meta-analysis of studies of locations around the globe that have very high natural background radiation as a result of the minerals in the ground there, including Ramsar, Iran, Mombasa, Kenya, Lodeve, France, and Yangjiang, China. These, and a few other geographic locations with natural background radiation that greatly exceeds normal amounts, have long drawn scientists intent on understanding the effects of radiation on life. Individual studies by themselves, however, have often only shown small effects on small populations from which conclusive statistical conclusions were difficult to draw.
"When youíre looking at such small effect sizes, the size of the population you need to study is huge," said co-author Timothy Mousseau, a biologist in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of South Carolina. "Pooling across multiple studies, in multiple areas, and in a rigorous statistical manner provides a tool to really get at these questions about low-level radiation."
Mousseau and co-author Anders MÝller of the University of Paris-Sud combed the scientific literature, examining more than 5,000 papers involving natural background radiation that were narrowed to 46 for quantitative comparison. The selected studies all examined both a control group and a more highly irradiated population and quantified the size of the radiation levels for each. Each paper also reported test statistics that allowed direct comparison between the studies.
The organisms studied included plants and animals, but had a large preponderance of human subjects. Each study examined one or more possible effects of radiation, such as DNA damage measured in the lab, prevalence of a disease such as Downís Syndrome, or the sex ratio produced in offspring. For each effect, a statistical algorithm was used to generate a single value, the effect size, which could be compared across all the studies.
The scientists reported significant negative effects in a range of categories, including immunology, physiology, mutation and disease occurrence. The frequency of negative effects was beyond that of random chance.
"Thereís been a sentiment in the community that because we donít see obvious effects in some of these places, or that what we see tends to be small and localized, that maybe there arenít any negative effects from low levels of radiation," said Mousseau. "But when you do the meta-analysis, you do see significant negative effects."
Read the full article at: sciencedaily.com
Tune into Red Ice Radio:
Walter Graham - Wi-Fi, Cellphone Radiation, Microwaves and Electrosmog
Alex Putney - Psycho Kinetic Abatement of Radiation, 2012 & Contact Accounts
James Corbett - Hour 1 - Fukushima Disaster Update
Helen Caldicott - Fukushima & Nuclear Energy
Robin Falkov - Useful Health Tips & Do It Yourself Living
Ken Rohla - Neutralizing Radiation, Chemtrails & Mind Control