- Gerald Draper, honorary senior research fellow (gerald.draper{at}ccrg.ox.ac.uk)1,
- Tim Vincent, research officer1,
- Mary E Kroll, statistician1,
- John Swanson, scientific adviser2
- 1 Childhood Cancer Research Group, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6HJ
- 2 National Grid Transco plc, London WC2N 5EH
- Correspondence to: G J Draper
- Accepted 6 April 2005
Abstract
Objective To determine whether there is an association between distance of home address at birth from high voltage power lines and the incidence of leukaemia and other cancers in children in England and Wales.
Design Case-control study.
Setting Cancer registry and National Grid records.
Subjects Records of 29 081 children with cancer, including 9700 with leukaemia. Children were aged 0-14 years and born in England and Wales, 1962-95. Controls were individually matched for sex, approximate date of birth, and birth registration district. No active participation was required.
Main outcome measures Distance from home address at birth to the nearest high voltage overhead power line in existence at the time.
Results Compared with those who lived > 600 m from a line at birth, children who lived within 200 m had a relative risk of leukaemia of 1.69 (95% confidence interval 1.13 to 2.53); those born between 200 and 600 m had a relative risk of 1.23 (1.02 to 1.49). There was a significant (P < 0.01) trend in risk in relation to the reciprocal of distance from the line. No excess risk in relation to proximity to lines was found for other childhood cancers.
Conclusions There is an association between childhood leukaemia and proximity of home address at birth to high voltage power lines, and the apparent risk extends to a greater distance than would have been expected from previous studies. About 4% of children in England and Wales live within 600 m of high voltage lines at birth. If the association is causal, about 1% of childhood leukaemia in England and Wales would be attributable to these lines, though this estimate has considerable statistical uncertainty. There is no accepted biological mechanism to explain the epidemiological results; indeed, the relation may be due to chance or confounding.
Footnotes
-
Contributors GD was responsible for overall direction of the study and publication. GD and JS had the initial idea and designed the study. TV and MEK collected information on cases and controls and carried out the statistical analysis. JS assessed exposures. GD and JS are guarantors
-
Funding This study was undertaken as part of a project funded by the United Kingdom Department of Health Radiation Protection Programme. The Childhood Cancer Research Group also receives funding from the Department of Health and the Scottish Ministers. The views expressed here are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Department of Health and the Scottish Ministers. National Grid Transco provided staff time but no other funding.
-
Competing interests JS is employed by National Grid Transco and worked on this project with their permission. A written contract exists between the Childhood Cancer Research Group and National Grid Transco specifying that the Childhood Cancer Research Group has complete control over the conduct, interpretation, and publication of this study; this paper has not been approved by anyone in National Grid Transco other than JS in his capacity as author and does not necessarily represent National Grid Transco's views
-
Ethical approval The Childhood Cancer Research Group has local ethics committee approval and, through membership of the UK Association of Cancer Registries, has approval from the Patient Information Advisory Group with respect to cancer registration function.
- Accepted 6 April 2005
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mendeley
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
Re: Allocation of NHS resources: are some patients more equal than others?
Published 18 May 2012
Re: The scatter of research: cross sectional comparison of randomised trials and systematic reviews across specialties
Published 18 May 2012
Re: Medical heresy: ditch the eponyms
Published 18 May 2012
Re: Effects of interventions in pregnancy on maternal weight and obstetric outcomes: meta-analysis of randomised evidence
Published 18 May 2012
Re: Early detection and intervention evaluation for people at risk of psychosis: multisite randomised controlled trial
Published 18 May 2012
Most responses
The psychiatric oligarchs who medicalise normality (8 responses)
Published 2 May 2012
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? No (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? Yes (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
The hardest thing: admitting error (6 responses)
Published 2 May 2012
Cost effectiveness of alternative planned places of birth in woman at low risk of complications: evidence from the Birthplace in England national prospective cohort study (5 responses)
Published 19 Apr 2012