Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Sunday January 11 2015, @02:20PM   Printer-friendly
from the gigantic-nuclear-furnace dept.

Gine Roll Skjaervoe at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology's (NTNU) ( http://www.ntnu.edu ) Department of Biology has studied church records from the period 1750-1900 and looked at life history variables: how old were women when they had their first child, and their last? How many years passed between the birth of each child, and how many of these children survived? How many of these children were in turn married and had children?

On average, the lifespan of children born in years that had a great deal of solar activity was 5.2 years shorter than other children. The largest difference was in the probability of dying during the first two years of life.

Children who were born in years with lots of sunshine and who survived were also more likely to have fewer children, who in turn gave birth to fewer children than others. This finding shows that increased UV radiation during years of high solar activity had an effect across generations.

Skjaervoe used information on the number of sunspots as an indication of the amount of UV radiation in a given year. The number of sunspots reaches a maximum every 11 years on average, which results in more UV radiation on Earth during years with high sunspot and solar activity.

UV radiation can have positive effects on human vitamin D levels, but it can also result in a reduction of vitamin B9 (folate). It is known that low folate levels during pregnancy are linked to higher child mortality.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-01/nuos-msm010915.php

Also covered by: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150109045540.htm

[Paper]: http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1801/20142032

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by cafebabe on Sunday February 01 2015, @02:17AM

    by cafebabe (894) on Sunday February 01 2015, @02:17AM (#139957) Journal

    In which case, this is circumstantial evidence in favour of the Metabolic Theory Of Ecology [wikipedia.org] previously discussed here [soylentnews.org]. If it is true, the second generation effect could be an artifact of breeding age and sun cycle duration.

    --
    1702845791×2
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2