The human sex odds at birth after the atmospheric atomic bomb tests, after Chernobyl, and in the vicinity of nuclear facilities

  • Hagen ScherbEmail author
  • Kristina Voigt
Research Article


Background, aim, and scope

Ever since the discovery of the mutagenic properties of ionizing radiation, the possibility of birth sex odds shifts in exposed human populations was considered in the scientific community. Positive evidence, however weak, was obtained after the atomic bombing of Japan. We previously investigated trends in the sex odds before and after the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant accident. In a pilot study, combined data from the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Norway, Poland, and Sweden between 1982 and 1992 showed a downward trend in the sex odds and a significant jump in 1987, the year immediately after Chernobyl. Moreover, a significant positive association of the sex odds between 1986 and 1991 with Chernobyl fallout at the district level in Germany was observed. Both of these findings, temporality (effect after exposure) and dose response association, yield evidence of causality. The primary aim of this study was to investigate longer time periods (1950–2007) in all of Europe and in the USA with emphasis on the global atmospheric atomic bomb test fallout and on the Chernobyl accident. To obtain further evidence, we also analyze sex odds data near nuclear facilities in Germany and Switzerland.

Data and statistical methods

National gender-specific annual live births data for 39 European countries from 1975 to 2007 were compiled using the pertinent internet data bases provided by the World Health Organization, United Nations, Council of Europe, and EUROSTAT. For a synoptic re-analysis of the period 1950 to 1990, published data from the USA and from a predominantly western and less Chernobyl-exposed part of Europe were studied additionally. To assess spatial, temporal, as well as spatial–temporal trends in the sex odds and to investigate possible changes in those trends after the atomic bomb tests, after Chernobyl, and in the vicinity of nuclear facilities, we applied ordinary linear logistic regression. Region-specific and eventually changing spatial–temporal trends were analyzed using dummy variables coding for continents, countries, districts, municipalities, time periods, and appropriate spatial–temporal interactions.


The predominantly western European sex odds trend together with the US sex odds trend (1950–1990 each) show a similar behavior. Both trends are consistent with a uniform reduction from 1950 to 1964, an increase from 1964 to 1975 that may be associated with delayed global atomic bomb test fallout released prior to the Partial Test Ban Treaty in 1963 and again a more or less constant decrease from 1975 to 1990. In practically all of Europe, including eastern European countries, from 1975 to 1986, and in the USA from 1975 to 2002, there were highly significant uniform downward trends in the sex odds with a reduction of 0.22% to 0.25% per 10 years. In contrast to the USA, in Europe there was a highly significant jump of the sex odds of 0.20% in the year 1987 following Chernobyl. From 1987 to 2000, the European sex odds trend reversed its sign and went upward, highly significantly so, with 0.42% per 10 years relative to the downward trend before Chernobyl. The global secular trend analyses are corroborated by the analysis of spatial–temporal sex odds trends near nuclear facilities (NF) in Germany and Switzerland. Within 35 km distance from those NF, the sex odds increase significantly in the range of 0.30% to 0.40% during NF operating time.


The atmospheric atomic bomb test fallout affected the human sex odds at birth overall, and the Chernobyl fallout had a similar impact in Europe and parts of Asia. The birth sex odds near nuclear facilities are also distorted. The persistently disturbed secular human sex odds trends allow the estimation of the global deficit of births in the range of several millions.


Atomic bomb test Chernobyl Distance trend analysis Ecological study Environmental health Environmetrics Logistic regression Low-level ionizing radiation Male proportion Nuclear facility Radiation epidemiology Radiation-induced genetic effect Sex ratio Spatial–temporal analysis 



The joint study on the sex odds near nuclear facilities in Germany and Switzerland has recently been carried out (Kusmierz et al. 2010). The authors like to thank Ralf Kusmierz from Bremen, Germany, for co-performing the NF-study and giving us the background for our data analysis approach.


  1. Auvinen A, Vahteristo M, Arvela H, Suomela M, Rahola T, Hakama I, Rytomaa T (2001) Chernobyl fallout and outcome of pregnancy in Finland. Environ Health Perspect 109(2):179–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bandazhevski Y, Mothershill C, Matsoukas C, Busby C (2009) The Lesvos Declaration. European Committee on Radiation Risk, International Conference in Molyvos, Lesvos, Greece, 6th May 2009. doi:
  3. Beratis NG, Asimacopoulou A, Varvarigou A (2008) Association of secondary sex ratio with smoking and parity. Fertil Steril 89(3):662–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boklage CE (2005) The epigenetic environment: secondary sex ratio depends on differential survival in embryogenesis. Hum Reprod 20(3):583–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bound JP, Francis BJ, Harvey PW (1995) Down's syndrome: prevalence and ionising radiation in an area of north west England 1957–91. J Epidemiol Community Health 49(2):164–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clapp R, Ozonoff D (2000) Where the boys aren't: dioxin and the sex ratio. Lancet 355(9218):1838–1839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Damgaard IN, Skakkebaek NE, Toppari J, Virtanen HE, Shen H, Schramm KW, Petersen JH, Jensen TK, Main KM (2006) Persistent pesticides in human breast milk and cryptorchidism. Environ Health Perspect 114(7):1133–1138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dickinson HO, Parker L, Binks K, Wakeford R, Smith J (1996) The sex ratio of children in relation to paternal pre-conceptional radiation dose: a study in Cumbria, northern England. J Epidemiol Community Health 50(6):645–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Drozdovitch V, Bouville A, Chobanova N, Filistovic V, Ilus T, Kovacic M, Malatova I, Moser M, Nedveckaite T, Volkle H, Cardis E (2007) Radiation exposure to the population of Europe following the Chernobyl accident. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 123(4):515–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dubrova YE, Grant G, Chumak AA, Stezhka VA, Karakasian AN (2002) Elevated minisatellite mutation rate in the post-Chernobyl families from Ukraine. Am J Hum Genet 71(4):801–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. ECRR2003 (2003) The health effects of ionizing radiation, exposure at low doses for radiation protection purposes. European Committee on Radiation Risk Green Audit 2003, ISBN 1-897761-24-4Google Scholar
  12. Ein-Mor E, Mankuta D, Hochner-Celnikier D, Hurwitz A, Haimov-Kochman R (2010) Sex ratio is remarkably constant. Fertil Steril 93(6):1961–1965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ericson A, Kallen B (1994) Pregnancy outcome in Sweden after the Chernobyl accident. Environ Res 67(2):149–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hertz-Picciotto I, Jusko TA, Willman EJ, Baker RJ, Keller JA, Teplin SW, Charles MJ (2008) A cohort study of in utero polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) exposures in relation to secondary sex ratio. Environ Health 7:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Huether CA, Haroldson K, Ellis PM, Ramsay CN (1996) Impact of prenatal diagnosis on revised live birth prevalence estimates of Down syndrome in the Lothian region of Scotland, 1978–1992. Genet Epidemiol 13(4):367–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jacobsen R, Moller H, Mouritsen A (1999) Natural variation in the human sex ratio. Hum Reprod 14(12):3120–3125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. James WH (1994) Occupations associated with low offspring sex ratios. Am J Ind Med 25(4):607–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. James WH (1997) Ionizing radiation and offspring sex ratio. J Epidemiol Community Health 51(3):340–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. James WH (2006) Offspring sex ratios at birth as markers of paternal endocrine disruption. Environ Res 100(1):77–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. James WH (2008) Evidence that mammalian sex ratios at birth are partially controlled by parental hormone levels around the time of conception. J Endocrinol 198(1):3–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. James WH (2010) Inconstancy of human sex ratios at birth. Fertil Steril 94(3):E53–E53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kusmierz R, Voigt K, Scherb H (2010) Is the human sex odds at birth distorted in the vicinity of nuclear facilities (NF)? A preliminary geo-spatial–temporal approach. In: Greve K, Cremers AB (eds) 24th EnviroInfo 2010. Bonn and Cologne, Germany, October 6th–8th 2010. Shaker, pp 616–626Google Scholar
  23. Lazjuk G, Verger P, Gagniere B, Kravchuk Z, Zatsepin I, Robert-Gnansia E (2003) The congenital anomalies registry in Belarus: a tool for assessing the public health impact of the Chernobyl accident. Reprod Toxicol 17(6):659–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lerchl A (1998) Seasonality of sex ratio in Germany. Hum Reprod 13(5):1401–1402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Luning KG, Frolen H, Nelson A, Roennebaeck C (1963) Genetic effects of strontium-90 injected into male mice. Nature 197:304–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Maconochie N, Roman E (1997) Sex ratios: are there natural variations within the human population? Br J Obstet Gynaecol 104(9):1050–1053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Martuzzi M, Di Tanno ND, Bertollini R (2001) Declining trends of male proportion at birth in Europe. Arch Environ Health 56(4):358–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mathews TJ, Hamilton BE (2005) Trend analysis of the sex ratio at birth in the United States. Natl Vital Stat Rep 53(20):1–17Google Scholar
  29. Metneki J, Czeizel AE (2005) Increasing total prevalence rate of cases with Down syndrome in Hungary. Eur J Epidemiol 20(6):525–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mocarelli P, Gerthoux PM, Ferrari E, Patterson DG Jr, Kieszak SM, Brambilla P, Vincoli N, Signorini S, Tramacere P, Carreri V, Sampson EJ, Turner WE, Needham LL (2000) Paternal concentrations of dioxin and sex ratio of offspring. Lancet 355(9218):1858–1863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Muerbeth S, Rousarova M, Scherb H, Lengfelder E (2004) Thyroid cancer has increased in the adult populations of countries moderately affected by Chernobyl fallout. Med Sci Monit 10(7):CR300–CR306Google Scholar
  32. Muller HJ (1927) Artificial transmutation of the gene. Science 66(1699):84–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Neel JV, Schull WJ (1991) The children of atomic bomb survivors: a genetic study. National Academy, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  34. Neel JV, Schull WJ, Awa AA, Satoh C, Otake M, Kato H, Yoshimoto Y (1989) Implications of the Hiroshima–Nagasaki genetic studies for the estimation of the human “doubling dose” of radiation. Genome 31(2):853–859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nussbaum RH (2009) Childhood leukemia and cancers near German nuclear reactors: significance, context, and ramifications of recent studies. Int J Occup Environ Health 15(3):318–323Google Scholar
  36. Padmanabhan VT, Sugunan AP, Brahmaputhran CK, Nandini K, Pavithran K (2004) Heritable anomalies among the inhabitants of regions of normal and high background radiation in Kerala: results of a cohort study, 1988–1994. Int J Health Serv 34(3):483–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ramsay CN, Ellis PM, Zealley H (1991) Down's syndrome in the Lothian region of Scotland—1978 to 1989. Biomed Pharmacother 45(6):267–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ruckstuhl KE, Colijn GP, Amiot V, Vinish E (2010) Mother's occupation and sex ratio at birth. BMC Public Health 10:269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Scherb H, Voigt K (2007) Trends in the human sex odds at birth in Europe and the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant accident. Reprod Toxicol 23(4):593–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Scherb H, Voigt K (2009) Analytical ecological epidemiology: exposure–response relations in spatially stratified time series. Environmetrics 20:596–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Scherb H, Weigelt E (2003) Congenital malformation and stillbirth in Germany and Europe before and after the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant accident. Env Sci Pollut Res (Special Issue) 1:117–125Google Scholar
  42. Scherb H, Weigelt E, Brüske-Hohlfeld I (1999) European stillbirth proportions before and after the Chernobyl accident. Int J Epidemiol 28(5):932–940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schull WJ, Neel JV (1958) Radiation and the sex ratio in man. Science 128(3320):343–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schull WJ, Neel JV, Hashizume A (1966) Some further observations on the sex ratio among infants born to survivors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Am J Hum Genet 18(4):328–338Google Scholar
  45. Schull WJ, Otake M, Neel JV (1981) Genetic effects of the atomic bombs: a reappraisal. Science 213(4513):1220–1227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shen H, Main KM, Andersson AM, Damgaard IN, Virtanen HE, Skakkebaek NE, Toppari J, Schramm KW (2008) Concentrations of persistent organochlorine compounds in human milk and placenta are higher in Denmark than in Finland. Hum Reprod 23(1):201–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sperling K, Pelz J, Wegner RD, Schulzke I, Struck E (1991) Frequency of trisomy-21 in Germany before and after the Chernobyl accident. Biomed Pharmacother 45(6):255–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sperling K, Pelz J, Wegner RD, Dorries A, Gruters A, Mikkelsen M (1994) Significant increase in trisomy 21 in Berlin nine months after the Chernobyl reactor accident: temporal correlation or causal relation? BMJ 309(6948):158–162Google Scholar
  49. Spix C, Schmiedel S, Kaatsch P, Schulze-Rath R, Blettner M (2008) Case–control study on childhood cancer in the vicinity of nuclear power plants in Germany 1980–2003. Eur J Cancer 44(2):275–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sternglass EJ (1971) Environmental radiation and human health. In: Neyman J (Ed) Sixth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  51. Terrell ML, Berzen AK, Small CM, Cameron LL, Wirth JJ, Marcus M (2009) A cohort study of the association between secondary sex ratio and parental exposure to polybrominated biphenyl (PBB) and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB). Health 8:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. UNSCEAR (2000) Sources and effects of ionizing radiation, vol I. United Nations, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  53. UNSCEAR (2001) Report, hereditary effects of radiation. Scientific annex. United Nations, New York, p 82Google Scholar
  54. Vogel F, Motulsky AG (1986) Human genetics. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  55. Wertelecki W (2010) Malformations in a Chernobyl-impacted region. Pediatrics 125:836–843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Whyte J (1990) First day neonatal mortality since 1935: a re-examination of the cross hypothesis. Br Med J 304:343–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zatsepin P, Verger P, Robert-Gnansia E, Gagniere B, Khmel RD, Lazjuk GI (2004) Cluster of Down's syndrome cases registered in January 1987 in the Republic of Belarus as a possible effect of the Chernobyl accident. International Journal of Radiation Medicine (Special Issue) 6:57–71Google Scholar
  58. Zatsepin I, Verger P, Robert-Gnansia E, Gagniere B, Tirmarche M, Khmel R, Babicheva I, Lazjuk G (2007) Down syndrome time-clustering in January 1987 in Belarus: link with the Chernobyl accident? Reprod Toxicol 24(3–4):289–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Biomathematics and Biometry, Helmholtz Zentrum MuenchenGerman Research Center for Environmental HealthNeuherbergGermany

Personalised recommendations