You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Original article
Geographic density of landfill sites and risk of congenital anomalies in England
Free
  1. P Elliott,
  2. S Richardson,
  3. J J Abellan,
  4. A Thomson,
  5. C de Hoogh,
  6. L Jarup,
  7. D J Briggs
  1. Small Area Health Statistics Unit, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK
  1. Professor Paul Elliott, Small Area Health Statistics Unit, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, St Mary’s Campus, Norfolk Place, London W2 1PG, UK; p.elliott{at}imperial.ac.uk

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the risk of congenital anomalies in relation to an index of geographic density of landfill sites across 5×5 km grid squares in England.

Methods: 2 km zones were constructed in a geographical information system around 8804 landfill sites, including 607 that handled special (hazardous) wastes, and intersected with postcode coordinates of over 10 million births (136 821 with congenital anomalies), 1983–98. A landfill exposure index was calculated to represent the geographic density of landfill sites within 2 km of births for each 5×5 km grid square, calculated separately for landfill sites handling special, and non-special or unknown, waste. For each group of landfills, the index was classified into four categories of intensity, and risks for the second, third and top categories were compared to the bottom category, comprising areas with no such landfill sites within 2 km (index of zero). We used hierarchical logistic regression modelling in a Bayesian framework, with adjustment for potential confounding.

Results: For special waste sites, adjusted odds ratios were significant for the third category of the landfill exposure index for all anomalies combined and cardiovascular defects (OR 1.08 (95% credible interval 1.02 to 1.13) and 1.16 (1.00 to 1.33), respectively) and for hypospadias and epispadias for the third and top categories (OR 1.11 (1.02 to 1.21) and 1.12 (1.02 to 1.22), respectively). After adjustment, there were no excess risks in relation to sites handling non-special or unknown waste types.

Conclusions: There was a weak spatial association between risk of certain congenital anomalies and geographic density of special (hazardous) waste sites at the level of 5×5 km grid squares. Exposure pathways and mechanisms to help interpret these findings are not well-established.

https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.2007.038497

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Supplementary materials

    Footnotes

    • ▸ Additional tables are published online only at http://oem.bmj.com/content/vol66/issue2

    • Funding: The Small Area Health Statistics Unit is funded by a grant from the Department of Health, the Department of the Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs, the Environment Agency, the Scottish Executive, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.

    • Disclaimer: The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the funding departments, data providers or the Office for National Statistics.

    • Competing interests: None.

    • Ethics approval: Ethical approval for the study was obtained through the St Mary’s Hospital NHS Trust Research Ethics Committee approval of the Small Area Health Statistics Unit research programme.

    • ↵i An interval that includes the true parameter with probability 0.95, the Bayesian analogue to the frequentist 95% confidence interval.

    Linked Articles