An interesting question, undoubtedly with a complicated answer.   I found this an interesting read: Padmanabham VT, Sugunam AP, Brahmaputhran CK, Nandini K, Pavithran K: Heritable anomalies among the inhabitants of regions of normal and high background radiation in Kerala: Results of a cohort study 1988– 1994. Intl J Health Services. 2004, 34: 483-515. (available here at RG).

Sister Margaret,

You sould explicitly clarify this 'a lot of' how much is exactly. You should address to the offices of your Public and National Security Sectors, because of they are responsible for the regular measurements of the radiational background; regular environmental quantification of radionuclides of your Country; and, again, regular information to the population.

Because of, in general, the answer to your question is: No, there is not!

You could pay attention to the following data and links:

Activity of U (pure) is 35 Bq.(kg)-1. Bq unit [s-1].

Natural abundance of U in soil, for example, is up to 12 mg.kg-1 (0.00042 Bq.(kg-1 soil)).

General data about radioactive exposure:

Exposure [Sv] 0 - 0.5 (no symptoms).

Exposure [Sv] 0.5 - 2 (Radiation death 5 %, 60 days)

Exposure [Sv] 50 (10 mins to the Chernobyl reactor core after its explosion)

Exposure [mSv/a] 20 (40 years work in mining, fatal cancer risk 3.2%).

Effective dose after intake of 234U is ca. 4.10-8 Sv.Bq-1 (http://www.nature.com/jes/journal/v19/n5/pdf/jes200840a.pdf)

You can pay attention to http://www.nrc.gov, as well.

 Thanks John for your great contribution. I have read the article recommended and it is quite informing on anomalies with due consideration to different etiological groups. I did a study in Zambia that looked at origins of children with Spina Bifida that were treated at the two main hospitals in Zambia managing children with Neurological problems. The results of the study showed that Spina Bifida was prevalent in the Southern Province of Zambia known to have uranium deposits.

Article Ethnic Pattern of Origin of Children with Spina Bifida Manag...

Dear Bojidarka,

Thanks for your scientific response. It was greatly appreciated. While doing my PhD, one of my study results showed that the majority of the children with Spina Bifida came from one particular region of Zambia. Investigations revealed that Uranium mines are found in those areas.

It is well established that human pregnancy and fetal development are susceptible to parent''s environmental exposure to chemical, biological and physical agents. The USA and Canadian Mines have been abandoned due to anomalies related to such exposures. Given that Uranium is being mined in areas where the origins of children with spina bifida was prevalent, one can easily link Uranium exposure to the anomalies. Find attached my article.

Sr. Margaret

Article Ethnic Pattern of Origin of Children with Spina Bifida Manag...

Sister Margaret,

I have focused attention to your study, however, there are serious remarks associated with 'Quality of the analytical information provided to the Society'. This is a term from the 'Quality assurance'. Part of this area includes analytical chemistry and methodological developments of instrumental methods, techniques and protocols. The 'Quality assurance', includs quality control and quality assessment of the information, in a general context, and to the chemical data, in particular one.

You could pay attention to the following:

1. Towards radiological effect of naturally occurring U-sources you have understood from my refs that there is not fatal radiological effect.

Towards the general high toxicity of U - like other heavy metal - it is toxic!

You have written: ..."but also arsenic, copper, and other heavy metals, as well as remaining radionuclides"....(p. 860, row 9, left-column). However, there are not experimental evidence about relationship between heavy-metal toxicity and SB in your study.

The data in figure 4 should be correlated with figures/data showing quantitative assessment of heavy metals, including not only radionuclides, but other inorganic xenobiotics per region.

2. SB is associated with toxicity of organics, as well. Or a correlation between the data in figure 4 and analytical studies dealing with organic xenobiotics to the same regions should be given.

3. SB is associated with dietary regime of the pregnant women. Your results, however, are not correlated with such as data per region, too.

It has been written:..."yeating red/ white soil during pregnancy in most Zambian women is a great source of concern especially those found in the Southern Province of the country"...(p. 858, rows 13-14, left-column)

However, in the nature U forms hydroxides and carbonates. The latter forms are very stable chemical compounds even under intake. Therefore, there is a high probability of a toxicological effect with different from U or other radionuclides - even not heavy metals - origin.

You have cited a ref [11] as informational source. But it is a report by Ltd Company ('Ltd' means only a domestic/local registration in front of a local Court, with limited activities/responsibilities). It is not also public accessible, to the Society as whole and therefore the quality of the information in this report, is under obstruction as well.

There are absent from independent reports by your Security Services from periodic routine analysis, as I have written in my previous posting. It cannot be excluded possibility that these cases are associated with crimes, but in your study is absent from data about case-reports and lawsuits as well.

4. Much of needed information about genetic factors of SB is missing in this publication. These are statistics per regions about SB cases in the families of the children.

5. There is lack of statistical distribution of SB cases per population/per region(s), in general context.

6. It is not included a comparative analysis with other cases of neuropathies of same/similar type (If there are any!?).

7. It is not shown information about medical intervention(s) during pregnancy.

......

In general, your analyses do not use stable measurement system, evidencing involvement not only of U, but also any other element and/or chemicals from soil, water, food and more potential sources of contaminations, into these cases of SB. There is every reason to expect a deviation from the probabilistic confidence about the chemical origin of, in general, BS in these regions, due to lack of data about points 3-5. Thus, there is no reason to assume relationship between U, as has been written in the title of your paper and BS in these regions. Or it cannot be achieved the needed level of acceptability of your information.

When the conclusions are not reliable, then so-called "scientific paper", like yours, for example, represents very frequently, a bad "journalistic writing". The scientific "literature", however, cannot be regarded as a newspaper.

Chemistry is an experimental science, operating with property of evidences. The independent (in terms operators, equipment, laboratories and more) verification of chemical information by 'physical' methods and instrumentation is compulsory requested. Theories are used, explaining phenomena of the matter and its chemical transformations and reactivity, but even mental viewing in 'theoretical chemistry' and/or 'theoretical physics' need evidencing by experimental measurements. Otherwise, they are completely rejected.

A comparative analysis with other Countries, in this case is inapplicable as well. Because of, your paper cannot be regarded as 'scientific' study. It is not associated with 'absolute' chemical information, which to be based on physically (absolute) defined standards of chemicals. You have advanced hypotheses, involving 'U' to explain fatal cases, but you have published, in fact, only a sociologic-statistical ''study''. These hypotheses lack experimental support/evidences, but, your sociological-statistics is based on fatal BS cases.

Thanks Bogidarka for your very scientific explanation. I can see your passion in your answer, but I think you have missed the point and this has led you to comment about my paper in that manner. Well taken but next time look at the whole context. The paper simply highlighted the observation and you can not take away that finding. If you read my abstract well, you would have appreciated my recommendation to have a study done that could help understand such findings. Researchers like you should guide and help clinicians carry out a study to confirm  assumptions rather than being negative in your writing.