1: \begin{abstract}

2: A long standing question in cosmology is whether gravitational

3: lensing changes the distance-redshift relation $D(z)$ or the mean flux density of sources.

4: Interest in this has been rekindled by recent studies in

5: non-linear relativistic perturbation theory that find biases in both

6: the area of a surface of constant redshift and in the mean distance to this surface,

7: with a fractional bias in both cases on the order of the mean squared convergence 

8: $\langle \kappa^2 \rangle$.  

9: Any such area bias could alter CMB cosmology, and the corresponding bias

10: in mean flux density could affect supernova cosmology.

11: Here we show that, in an ensemble averaged sense, the perturbation to

12: the area of a surface of constant redshift is in reality much smaller,

13: being on the order of the cumulative bending angle squared, 

14: or roughly a part-in-a-million effect.

15: This validates the arguments of Weinberg (1976) that the

16: mean magnification $\mu$ of sources is unity and of Kibble \& Lieu (2005)

17: that the mean direction-averaged inverse magnification is unity.

18: It also validates the conventional treatment of lensing in analysis of CMB anisotropies.

19: But the existence of a scatter in magnification will cause any non-linear function of

20: these conserved quantities to be statistically biased.

21: The distance $D$, for example, is proportional to $\mu^{-1/2}$ so

22: lensing will bias $\langle D\rangle$ even if $\langle \mu \rangle=1$.

23: The fractional bias in such quantities is generally of order 

24: $\langle \kappa^2 \rangle$, which is orders of magnitude larger

25: than the area perturbation.  Claims for large bias in area or

26: flux density of sources appear to have resulted from misinterpretation of such effects:

27: they do not represent a new non-Newtonian effect, nor do they invalidate standard

28: cosmological analyses.

29: \end{abstract}

30: