Bihar Uranium Study And The Dark Side Of Pay-To-Publish Research

The recent claim that uranium was detected in the breast milk of lactating mothers in Bihar sent shockwaves across media and public discourse. Published in the journal Nature Scientific Reports, the study suggested a potential health risk for mothers and infants. But as the dust settles, experts say this is a classic case of sensationalism overshadowing science.

Experts flag weak science, flawed methods, poor calibration, tiny sample size and lax editorial standards, which led to needless panic.

Peer Review Slips, Pay-To-Publish Model Under Scrutiny

The research paper under scrutiny was titled 'Discovery of uranium content in breastmilk and assessment of associated health risks for mothers and infants in Bihar, India.'

The research team, based in Patna and AIIMS New Delhi, reported uranium levels of 5 micrograms per liter (5 ppb) in breast milk samples from 40 women. Headlines alerted "toxic exposure", but leading nuclear scientist Dr Dinesh Kumar Aswal, Member of the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) and former Group Director at Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC), called the uproar "completely unnecessary".

"No disaster. It is an over-exaggerated finding," Dr Aswal told NDTV. "The WHO safe limit for uranium in drinking water is 30 micrograms per liter. The Bihar value is five - one-sixth of that. It is not alarming. It is within safe limits."

To put this in perspective, countries like Finland have documented uranium levels in drinking water as high as 1000-3000 micrograms per liter, with negligible biological effects. Against that backdrop, Bihar's 5 ppb looks minuscule.

Why The Science Doesn't Add Up

Dr Aswal explained why uranium in breast milk is scientifically improbable. "When we drink water, uranium being a heavy, non-reactive element-mostly passes out through urine. Only 1-2 per cent is absorbed by the intestine. It tends to deposit in bones or kidneys over time, not in breast milk. There is no known mechanism for uranium to bind to lactation pathways."

This raises a critical question: if the transfer is unlikely, how reliable is the reported measurement?

The Calibration Problem

The study used ICP-MS (Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry), a powerful tool for detecting trace elements. But its accuracy depends on calibration. Here, the researchers calibrated their instrument for 100-2,000 micrograms per liter, yet reported a value of 5 micrograms per liter. Dr Aswal offered a simple analogy: "It's like using a measuring tape marked in meters and kilometers to measure millimeters. The tape is not accurate for that level."

Without proper calibration at the low range (0-10 ug/L), the uncertainty in measurement is enormous. "If I were publishing this, I would calibrate from 0.01 to 10 micrograms per liter. They didn't. That makes the result questionable," he said.

Other Red Flags

Sample size: Only 40 samples were analysed. For comparison, BARC's nationwide uranium mapping involved 55,000 groundwater samples.

Missing biological data: No urine, blood, or bone samples were tested. No transfer coefficient calculations were provided.

Context ignored: The study did not correlate breast milk uranium levels with drinking water concentrations or maternal health indicators.

"If I were a peer reviewer, I would have asked for all these details. Without them, the study is weak," Dr Aswal emphasised.

The Journal Under Scrutiny

The most troubling aspect is the journal that published the study. 'Nature Scientific Reports' is part of the Nature family but operates on an open-access, pay-to-publish model. While open access democratises science, lax standards can let flawed studies slip through. According to Nature group, they charge $2,690 per paper, which means the authors paid about Rs 2.5 lakhs to publish the paper. Often, this is called 'predatory publishing' as publishers prey on hapless authors.

"Nature is a tough, peer-reviewed journal.'Scientific Reports' is open access-you pay and they publish. Sometimes, such studies get compromised. The peer review process here failed to catch fundamental flaws," Dr Aswal said.

The Bigger Picture

Uranium is a naturally occurring element, present in soil and water worldwide. WHO's safe limit for drinking water is 30 ug/L, and some countries allow up to 100 ug/L. The Bihar finding of 5 ug/L in milk - even if accurate - is negligible.

"Five parts per billion is almost nothing. The scientific fraternity must be careful about measurement uncertainties. Unfortunately, this paper does not even discuss them," Dr Aswal noted.

Why It Matters

Such studies, when published under the banner of a reputed journal group, can create unwarranted fear and damage public trust in science. They also risk fuelling sensational narratives that overshadow real issues. "Journals must uphold scientific rigor. Otherwise, sensationalism wins over substance," Dr Aswal warned.

"The uncertainty at five micrograms per liter is very large. Without proper calibration and comprehensive data, such findings should not be sensationalised. Unfortunately, this paper, and its publication, reflect poor scientific judgment, said Dr Aswal.