ArticleScientific reports2026
Active artisanal mining-induced radiogenic hazards: insights from radiogeochemistry of Wamba Areas, north-central Nigeria.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study assesses naturally occurring radioactive materials and radon gas contamination in drinking water sources across the artisanal mining-dominated Wamba area, North-Central Nigeria, with the primary objective of evaluating radiological safety by accurately estimating radiation hazard indicators. Lithology-based analysis of radioelement concentrations (elemental and activity) alongside radiological parameters identified the key lithological contributors to radiation exposure. The recorded radiogenic hazards in the study area’s lithological units are highest in the migmatite, and the medium- to coarse-grained granites record the lowest. The estimated mean annual absorbed dose rate of 66.33 [Formula: see text] slightly exceeds the average, while the average radium equivalent activity of 142.69[Formula: see text] and the indoor and outdoor annual effective dose equivalents, internal and external hazard indices, and gamma and alpha indices were all below the recommended safety thresholds. However, direct health risk indicators, the mean annual gonadal dose equivalent of 458.59 µ [Formula: see text] and mean excess lifetime cancer risk of 1.139 [Formula: see text] surpass the standard safe limits. In drinking water sample evaluation, radon gas levels ranged from 0.047 to 5.64 [Formula: see text], with an average of 1.396 [Formula: see text]. The average annual effective dose (AEDE) from ingestion was 0.010 [Formula: see text] for adults and 0.020 [Formula: see text] for children, while AEDE from inhalation was 3.51 [Formula: see text]. Given the anomalous radiological parameter ranges exceeding the recommended thresholds in the study area, it can be inferred that the study area is not radiologically safe, despite no widespread cases of disease, such as cancer, having been reported. However, a further health evaluation study (spatial radiation epidemiology) is needed to assess the impact of the radiological hazard on the local population within the study area.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.