Research >
Childhood cancer in relation to distance from high-voltage power
lines in England and Wales: a case-control study.
This paper was published in the British Medical Journal on 3 June
2005. It has often been called the “CCRG” study or the
“Draper” study.
See also:
the abstract from the study
the
complete study
on the BMJ web site (free for one week from publication but after
that you have to pay)
responses by other organisations
to this study
Background to the study
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusions
Further work
| Results in a nutshell
- Children who lived within 200 m of high-voltage power
lines 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.
- The results do not seem to be compatible with the existing
data on magnetic fields and cancer because they extend too
far from the line
- There is no evidence the results are explained by the
“corona ion” hypothesis
|
|
Background
to the study
The study was funded by the UK Department of Health. It was
conducted by the Childhood
Cancer Research Group (CCRG) at the University of Oxford
with input from National Grid Transco. There are four authors,
three from CCRG (Gerald Draper, Honorary Senior Research Fellow,
Tim Vincent, Research Officer, Mary Kroll, Statistician) and
one from NGT (John Swanson, Scientific Advisor).
The paper spells out that the overall direction of and responsibility
for the study and publication was with Gerald Draper at CCRG,
whereas the initial idea and design of study was with Gerald
Draper and John Swanson jointly. The paper also spells out
that a written contract exists between CCRG and NGT specifying
that CCRG has complete control over the conduct, interpretation
and publication of this study; the paper has not been approved
by anyone in NGT other than John Swanson in his capacity as
author and does not necessarily represent NGT’s views.
|
Methods
Cases and controls
The study concerns nearly 33,000 cases of childhood cancer
born in England and Wales between 1962 and 1995, and diagnosed
in England, Wales or Scotland over the same period. Birth
information was obtained for just over 31,000 cases, 1,700
having been excluded because the child was adopted or the
birth record could not be traced. For each case a “matched
control” (a child of the same age and sex, but without
leukaemia, for comparison purposes) was selected from birth
registers. The final analysis dataset comprised 29,081 matched
case-control pairs (9700 for leukaemia) that were mapped with
respect to transmission lines. See also a picture explaining
the numbers of children involved [link to first slide in ppt
file as separate page]
Calculation of distance of birth domicile from power
lines
This study concerns overhead power lines forming the National
Grid in England and Wales, i.e. all 275 and 400 kV overhead
lines (the highest voltages used), plus a small fraction of
132 kV lines, about 7,000 route km altogether (more
on these lines). The grid references of all 21,800 pylons
concerned were obtained from the records of National Grid
Transco. Using the postcode of domicile at birth, subjects
within 1 km of a transmission line were identified. For 93%
of these a grid reference specific to the address was obtained
and hence the shortest distance to any of the transmission
lines that had existed in the year of birth was calculated.
The aim was to obtain a complete set of accurate distances
for all subjects within 600 m of a line, a distance chosen
to be well beyond that at which the magnetic field from the
line could be important.
The paper says it is not known which period in life, if any,
is relevant to induction of cancer by magnetic fields. This
paper considers whether risk is dependent on the proximity
of domicile at birth. Previous authors have considered domicile
at diagnosis or throughout some specified period. In practice,
for half the leukaemia cases, the two addresses are the same
anyway.
|
|
Results
The paper uses three diagnostic groups: childhood leukaemia,
central nervous system/brain tumours, and “other”.
It analyses risks within 600 m compared to a reference category
of beyond 600 m. For leukaemia, at each distance category
below 600 m the relative risks are greater than one, and there
is some evidence that the risk varies according to distance
from the line though there is not a smooth trend. For the
other diagnoses, the authors say their data suggest that there
is no increased risk.
The relative risks for leukaemia are presented for various
distances, but the version used in the abstract and conclusions
is:
Distance |
Relative Risk |
95% Confidence Interval |
0 - 200m |
1.69 |
1.13 to 2.53 |
200 - 600m |
1.23 |
1.02 to 1.49 |
See also the full results
table including graphs of the results
The paper tests for three different possible trends, and
concludes that a trend of risk with the reciprocal of distance
is statistically significant (p=0.01) and plausible.
Adjustment for socio-economic status made no virtually no
difference to the results, and an initial test of the “corona
ion” hypothesis, using the same simple model previously
used by Bristol University, assuming the prevailing wind is
from the south-west, produced no evidence to support this
hypothesis.
|
| Discussion
The authors state that the finding that the increased leukaemia
risk apparently extends so far from the line is surprising
in view of the low average level of magnetic field exposure
at these distances. They consider various possible explanations:
Bias
They conclude there is no obvious source of bias in the choice
of cases or controls, and the analyses were conducted “blind”.
Confounding by some other characteristic of the population
that varies near power lines
They give evidence that socio-economic status varies near
power lines and suggest that other factors may do too. But
adjusting for socio-economic status of the census ward of
birth domicile did not explain the finding, and they did not
have the data to test for other factors.
Chance
The results are highly statistically significant but could
nevertheless be due to chance. The authors note that some
of the controls seem to be different to others, and this could
be evidence that chance is at work.
Magnetic fields
The authors say that the most obvious explanation of the association
with distance from a line is that it is indeed a consequence
of exposure to magnetic fields. But they then cite the Ahlbom
pooled
analysis, suggesting a risk for magnetic fields above
0.4 microteslas (µT), and point out that for the power
lines they are investigating, the magnetic field falls to
0.4 µT at an average of approximately 60 m from the
line (more
on fields from power lines). Their elevated risk appears
to extend to at least 200 m, and at that distance, typical
calculated fields from power lines are less than 0.1 µT,
and often less than 0.01 µT, i.e. less than the average
fields in homes from other sources. Thus they say their results
“do not seem to be compatible with the existing data
on the relation between magnetic fields and risk.”
Comparison with previous results
The authors confine their comparison to just those studies
that were included in the Ahlbom pooled
analysis. Of these, they note that one, the United
Kingdom Childhood Cancer Study (UKCCS), with subjects
largely also included in the present study, found a relative
risk of 1.42 for acute lymphocytic leukaemia within 400 metres
for 275 and 400 kV lines; this, they say, supports their results.
Two others studies, in Canada and in Sweden, found elevated
risks; results from Denmark, Norway and the United States
found relative risks below one but are based on smaller numbers.
They point out that no previous study has investigated distances
as great as they have, and some used a reference category
that is within the distance where they found an elevated risk. |
| 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.
Participants
29081 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 by cases or controls 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. |
back
|