An Investigation into Childhood Leukaemia in Northampton

Return to the Index Page
 

Is the environment in Pembroke Road hazardous?
6.1

Introduction

At the meeting we had with the families of children with leukaemia we explained why the Health Authority could not tell them, or find out, what caused leukaemia in their children.  The parents' own investigations and reading about the causes of leukaemia has made them worry about the physical safety of the local environment.  Quite reasonably they want the Borough Council and the Health Authority to enquire whether their environment is particularly hazardous or poses any special risk to their families.  This section reports our findings when we looked into this question for them. 
6.2

Is the Spencer Estate built on contaminated land?

One suggestion that was raised was that the Spencer Estate might have been built on contaminated land such as an old industrial site or a waste tip.  Northampton Borough Council studied the past history of the land to determine any contaminants that might be in the area, their principal hazards and any previous land uses 29. 

6.2.1 - Sources of information

  • Solid and Drift Geological Map 185, 1969 
  • Geological Map 185, sheet SP76NW 
  • Northampton Library - Historical records Department 
  • ICRCL 59/83 - Guidance on the Assessment and Redevelopment of Contaminated Land 
  • Problems in the Redevelopment of Contaminated Land 
  • Guidance on Preliminary Site Inspection of Contaminated Land - Volumes 1 & 2 
  • ICRCL 23/79 - Notes on Sewage Works and Farms 

6.2.2 - Findings

Geologically the area has drift deposits of glacial sand and gravel overlying solid deposits of Northampton sand. 

An Ordinance Survey map from 1887 show the whole area as open fields separated by tracks.  The 1901 map is the same as in 1887 apart from a gravel pit in the middle of the area and one field being used as allotments.  The only possible source of pollution were sludge pits, south of the large orchards.  This is presumed to be for agricultural sludge and is not thought to represent a hazard.  The land under Spencer Estate in in-filled in many areas.  Trial pits to a depth of 4.4m reveal that this is composed of gravel, brick, glass and sand. 

Reference to the existing contaminated land map shows that the area is not within 250m of a known landfill site. 

Since 1938 most of the site is shown as residential housing.  There was a Boot Factory and a Leather Works near Countess Road. 

6.2.3 - Conclusion

There is nothing to suggest an environmental hazard beneath the Spencer Estate.  Moreover from 1962 to 1986, the date diagnosis of the first child in our study, there were no cases of  cancer or leukaemia in this area.  If a hazard exists beneath the Spencer Estate then it might have been expected to have affected other children in the past. 
 
6.3

Has there been pollution of water on the Spencer Estate?

6.3.1 - Water pollution incidents 

The Health Authority commissioned a report from the National Rivers Authority about episodes of water pollution in Northamptonshire.  We received a computer printout of all pollution incidents in the county.  There were 1433 incidents listed altogether. 1308 were in the county of Northamptonshire.  101 were in Northampton but there were no incidents in the Spencer Estate area.  However, the report was produced from a computerised database and did not go back far enough to be relevant to the cases of leukaemia in this area.  We have asked the NRA to look for incidents going back to 1980.  This involves hand-searching the records as they are not computerised back this far and we have not yet received the results. 

6.3.2 - Conclusion 

We have no evidence that there is a particular environmental hazard from water pollution in the Spencer Estate area. 
6.4

Is there a risk from ionising radiation?

6.4.1 - What is ionising radiation?

Radiation is a very broad term and includes visible light, ultraviolet rays, radiowaves, x-rays,  etc.  When people worry about radiation they usually mean ionising radiation.  Ionising radiation is electromagnetic or particulate radiation that can cause ionisation (the ejection of an electron from an atom).   When materials emit ionising radiation they are said to be radioactive.  Radioactive materials have atomic nuclei that are unstable and change or decay into different more stable nuclei, giving out ionising radiation as they do so 30. 

6.4.2 - How is radiation measured?

The unit used to measure radioactivity, that is the number of spontaneous nuclear disintegrations or transformations occurring in a material per second, is the becquerel (Bq).  One becquerel is one transformation per second. 

A more important measure of radiation is the Absorbed Dose.  This is the energy imparted to tissues as radiation passes through it  (i.e. energy deposited per unit mass).  The unit of measurement is the gray. 

Different ionising radiations (such as electrons, x-rays or alpha particles) do different amounts of harm to tissues or organs, therefore equal absorbed doses do not necessarily produce equal biological effects.  One unit of absorbed dose from alpha radiation is much more harmful than one unit of absorbed dose from beta radiation because alpha particles are larger, slower and more heavily charged.  An absorbed dose of an alpha particle will produce about 100 times more ionisations per mm of tissue than an equal absorbed dose from beta radiation.  To take account of this we calculate the equivalent dose to allow for the varying biological effects.  The equivalent dose of radiation received by a person is expressed in sievert (Sv) or, if is the dose is small, in millisievert (mSv) (which are one thousandth of a sievert), or, if it is very small, in microsievert (µSv) (which are one millionth of a sievert). However, some tissues are more susceptible to damage by radiation than others.  The equivalent dose can be  modified to estimate the health risk to the whole body.  This leads to a measure known as the effective dose. The effective dose is also measured in sievert (Sv) or millisievert (mSv) or microsievert (µSv). 
 

Effective doses of radiation
The dose incurred in flying to Spain is about 10 µSv (or 0.01 mSv) 

The average dose from a chest x-ray is about 20 µSv (or 0.02 of a mSv) 

The average annual UK radiation dose is about 2,500 µSv (or 2.5 mSv)
 

6.4.3 - What are the biological effects of ionising radiation?

Radiation is a form of energy.  As radiation passes through tissue some of this energy may be absorbed by the tissue in electrical interactions.  99% of the energy absorbed is lost as heat.  However, this leads to only a very small rise in temperature.  The harm can come from the remaining 1% or so of energy which can produce chemical changes in the tissue, through the ionisation of atoms and molecules.  These ionised molecules produce very reactive intermediate molecules called free radicals.  These can harm important molecules in the body such as the DNA (which is the molecule that contains genetic information and is important in controlling how cells divide etc.). 
How radiation can lead to tissue damage
 
 
 

Very large doses of radiation (which only happen in nuclear accidents like in Chernobyl or when nuclear bombs are exploded) can kill or impair so many cells that the body cannot repair them fast enough and people die within a few weeks.  These are the early effects of radiation.  However, we are more interested in the late effects of radiation exposure that can occur many years after a cell was damaged (transformed). 

The most important late effect of radiation is cancer and the probability of this late effect increases as the size of the radiation does received increases. 

6.4.4 - Where does most radiation come from?

Most radiation comes from natural sources.  Two of the main types of natural radiation are alpha and gamma rays.  Alpha radiation in the home mainly comes from radon (see below) and gamma rays within the home mainly come from radioactive substances found in bricks and mortar. 

6.4.5 - Radioactive Contamination

Touching or being near radioactive material or radiation from radioactive material cannot normally make non-active substances radioactive.   Enormous radiation energies are required to do this (like inside a nuclear reactor or particle accelerator).  Materials will seem to be radioactive when they are contaminated by radioactive material. 

6.4.6 - What is radon gas?

Radon is a naturally occurring radioactive gas.  The process whereby radioactive substance break down into other substances is called radioactive decay.  Radon forms part of the decay chain between uranium-238 and lead-206.  Uranium and its decay product radium-226 occur naturally in rock and soil and can be found in bricks and other building material. 

Radon gas, and its radioactive decay product thoron gas, seep into houses from the ground and building materials and its concentration can build up (outside it gets diluted by air).  Good ventilation can help ensure that concentrations are kept down.  (Gamma rays, which come from building materials, are given off at a constant rate.  Gamma rays to not build up.) 

The National Radiation Protection Board has estimated that the average annual dose of radon in Britain is 1 mSv and accounts for about half of all natural radiation. 

6.4.7 - Does radon gas cause leukaemia?

There is some evidence from the literature that radon may be associated with an increase in childhood cancers.  However the nature of the relationship is unclear and the increase in risk is very small 31, 32. Even if radon levels are very high in the houses of children with leukaemia, it is extremely unlikely that this would account for 5 cases of leukaemia in the Pembroke Road area. 
6.5

Radon gas in Northampton

In 1992 Northamptonshire was officially designated as an action area for high radon gas.  Individuals in such an area can ask for the radon levels to be measured.  The results of these measurements are confidential and only revealed to the householder.  The Health Authority does not know whether radon has been measured in the homes of affected children and, if so, what the results were.  We have offered to arrange radon measurements so that appropriate remedial action can be taken if necessary but we do not know if any of the families have taken up this offer.  Gamma radiation and radon gas are being measured in the homes of children with leukaemia who are participating in the UK Childhood Cancer Study. 

Using aggregate statistics, however, we have concluded that high radon gas levels are unlikely to be an explanation for leukaemia in the Pembroke Road area.  Residence in NN5 7** postcode sector at diagnosis has been used as the case definition in this investigation as it was the smallest geographic unit all the cases had in common.  In NN5 7**, as at 18th August 1995,  1,455 homes have had their radon levels measured.  The average Bq/m3 was 48 and only 2.2% of homes measured had a measurement above the action line.  To put this in perspective we compared these results to the 24 other postcode sectors our area (NN1 1** to NN5 6**).  A total of  29,310 homes have had their radon measured and the average result was 56.4 Bq/m3,  i.e. higher than in the Pembroke Road area, with an average of 4.5% of homes above the action level.  Over half the postcode sectors had radon levels higher than NN5 7**. This suggests that radon gas is probably not the cause of the childhood leukaemia in the Pembroke Road area since we do not find an excess number of cases in these other areas. 

6.5.1 - Conclusion 

While radon gas is probably not the main cause of the cases of leukaemia in the Pembroke Road area it is one of the few hazards we can do something about.  Since radon levels can vary from house to house, we recommend that the families have their homes checked so that appropriate preventive measures can be taken. 
6.6

 The Railway 

6.6.1 - Introduction 

Pembroke Road is adjacent to railway land.  Just behind the gardens in Pembroke Road there are railway sidings and behind these there is the railway line.  Countess Road is separated from railway land by Gladstone Road.  See map. One of the worries that has been raised most frequently is that perhaps the leukaemia has been caused by some hazard from the railway line or railway land. 

Various suggestions have been made as to how the railway might be responsible for causing leukaemia and this section deals with railways and their risks. 

One of the ideas put forward is that the railway line could be causing leukaemia by producing electromagnetic fields, this will be discussed in section 6.8.
6.7

Exposure to ionising radiation from radioactive material

6.7.1 - Was there an accident on the railway?

The main worry expressed in 1993 was that there had been an accident on the railway involving radioactive material some time in the early 1980's and that, therefore, both parents and children might have been exposed to ionising radiation which is a known risk factor for leukaemia.  The Health Authority investigated this suggestion at the time and found no evidence of such an accident.  Mr Tony Denman, Head of Medical Physics and Northamptonshire's Radiation Protection Officer has confirmed that, in the 26 years that records have been kept in Northamptonshire, there has never been an accident involving radiation on the railway in Northampton.  An historical search through newspapers of the time also failed to reveal anything. 

In fact, there has only been one incident on the railway at all.  This occurred on the 5th January 1981 when an alarm that is used when there is a radioactive leak was knocked over and switched itself on.  There was no radioactive material involved.  On this occasion it took several hours to alert the radiation protection officer on call and the area was cordoned off for a while.  We believe that this incident may lie behind the local belief that there was an accident. 

Recently, the parents had a letter from Railtrack stating there had been a spillage of aviation fuel on the railway in the early 1980's but that details were proving difficult to obtain.  Railtrack later claimed that there was no spillage of aviation fuel and that the first letter was erroneous and what it in fact probably being referred to was an incident where a freight tanker carrying propane was derailed.  A letter to the Health Authority from the British Railways Board dated 3rd November 1995 states: 
 

"On 5 January, 1984, a freight train derailment occurred in Northampton Down Sidings (adjacent to the rear of properties in Pembroke Road), where one freight tanker, owned by ESSO, was derailed.  The tanker's load was recorded as U.N.1978 (propane or propane mixtures).  The log entry in our Dangerous Goods Incidents System, records the incident as having NIL leakage.  However, as standard practice in incidents involving dangerous goods, the fire brigade were called and attended the incident.  

"Our records contain no reference to any leakage of aviation fuel, or any other hazardous substance, in the area of Northampton throughout the period of 1980-1986..." 
Enquires by the Health Authority through local channels such as the Fire Brigade Service and the County Council Emergency Planning team revealed no other hazardous incidents. 
 

6.7.2 - Transport of Nuclear Material 

Despite the fact that there has been no accident involving radioactive material some people have the lingering anxiety that trains carrying radioactive material through Northampton may have "leaked" radioactivity as they pass through. 

Enquiries by the Health Authority have revealed that the only organisation that uses trains to carry irradiated nuclear fuel through Northamptonshire is Nuclear Electric 34.  Nuclear Electric have confirmed that a train carrying irradiated nuclear fuel uses the Northampton line once a week.  The same route is also used for carrying empty flasks.  This has always been the normal route for those trains.  Neither train stops at Northampton.  The trains have a crew change in Rugby. 
 

6.7.3 - What is the risk from nuclear material carried on trains? 

Uranium rods are used to fuel nuclear power station reactors.  After they have been used they are reprocessed.  Used fuel elements are taken regularly by train to storage and reprocessing  plant at British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) at Sellafield in Cumbria.  These irradiated fuel elements are carried in flasks.  Flasks are very secure containers designed to withstand any conceivable accident.  In more than 14,000 flask movements, covering in excess of six million miles by road and rail, there has never been a single accident involving the release of radioactivity 35. 

The transport of radioactive material is governed by national and international regulations issued by the International Atomic Energy Agency.  These regulations require that radiation doses to workers and members of the public be assessed periodically.  The doses from the transport of irradiated nuclear fuel are extremely low at about 5 µSv a year at the boundary of a marshalling yard and nearly 1000 times less for transient exposure from passing flasks.  Doses to railway workers are low at less than 100 µSv per annum in workers in marshalling yards 36. 

The Health Authority find no cause for concern in any of this information. We conclude that there is no evidence to suggest that the residents of Pembroke Road are at increased risk of exposure to ionising radiation from the railway. 

6.7.4 - Contamination of Railway Land 

Railway land is known to be highly contaminated because of the nature of the industry 37.  The type and quantity of the contaminants will vary depending on the nature and use of the site.  The following are potential contaminants that are associated with railway lines and which have the potential to contaminate ground 38: 
 
  •  Organic 
    • hydrocarbons: diesel, lubricating oils, paraffin 
    • polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) 
    • polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) 
    • solvents 
    • ethylene glycol 
    • creosote (which contains polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) 
    • herbicides: 
      • simazine, 
      • 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid 
      • atrazine 
      • sodium chlorate
      • dalapon 
      • diuron 
      • borax 
      • paraquat 
      • picloram 
      • 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 
  •  Metals 
    • ferrous residues 
    • metal fines 
     
  •  Other 
    • asbestos 
    • ash and fill  (possibly containing metals, phenols and sulphates and PAHs) 
    • sulphates 
Since we know that most railway land is contaminated, it is reasonable to assume that the railway land behind Pembroke Road is also contaminated.  Families have arranged for soil samples to be taken and analysed independently.  The Health Authority feel that this is will only demonstrate what is already known, viz. that railway land is highly contaminated.  It will not show that one of these contaminants caused leukaemia in the affected children. 

In a modern society we are surrounded by potentially unpleasant chemicals and noxious agents.  Benzene, a known carcinogen and a risk factor for leukaemia, is found in petrol. Cigarette smoke contains known toxins and carcinogens.  Under most kitchen sinks are found several potentially lethal chemicals.  Under nearly every street there are sewers and pipes carrying foul and contaminated matter full of infectious material. 

It is not enough to demonstrate the presence of a contaminant in the environment.  We need to be able to demonstrate that is has caused a problem and show a route or pathway by which it reached its target. 

An epidemiological study conducted in a small area like the Spencer Estate would be unable to do this for the reasons explained above.  It is important for all of us to have as healthy an environment as possible. Northamptonshire Health Authority welcome research into the association between potential environmental hazards and health and are committed to protecting our population against proven hazards when this is possible. 

6.7.5 - Are there studies that look at railways and leukaemia? 

We looked at studies that have examined childhood leukaemia in relation to geographical features such as railway lines.  We found no studies that convinced us that childhood leukaemia is associated with railway lines. 

One study published in 1994 claimed to show that childhood leukaemia clusters tended to be nearer railways than might be expected by chance 39.  We do not think that this conclusion can be drawn from the study.  The study has been shown to be methodologically flawed 40, but perhaps unavoidably because of the lack of control data.  The author admits that he was forced to use "less than satisfactory data" 41. 

Thus the findings of this study are not convincing because "the potential sources of bias and error are such that the findings may be entirely artefactual" 42. 

There are other studies that look at the incidence of leukaemia in adults who work on the railways.  None of these studies we found provided evidence that working on railways increased the risk of leukaemia.  A case-control study in Norwegian railway workers compared railway workers who worked on electrified railways with those who worked on non-electrified railways to see if there was an association between exposure to electric and magnetic fields and leukaemia.  In fact the study showed the opposite and does not support this association 43. 

However, we did not feel that we could conclude from the research that railway lines are not a risk factor for leukaemia.  This question has not been looked at in enough detail yet.  As before, this question cannot be addressed by a local study on an individual cluster.  It is an important question that requires a properly designed and funded study with full access to accurate geographic data. 

We found no reason to believe that the railway by the Pembroke Road is any more of a hazard than railways elsewhere.  However, in view of what is know about the contamination of railway land in general, the Health Authority recommend that British Rail Property Board should exclude the public from their land.  Parents should make sure that their children do not play on this land. 
6.8

Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMF) 

6.8.1 - Introduction 

It has been suggested that electric or magnetic fields may be harmful to health and in particular may increase the risk of childhood leukaemia.  In the Pembroke Road area of Northampton parents have raised the question of whether the presence of an electrified railway line or an electrical sub-station could be exposing local residents to harmful levels of EMF.  This section discusses the nature of EMF, the evidence that it might be a causative agent in childhood leukaemia and the situation in Pembroke Road. 

6.8.2 - What are electric and magnetic fields? 

Electric and magnetic fields arise from the generation, transmission, distribution and use of electricity. They thus occur around powerlines, electric wiring and household electrical appliances.  They also occur in nature, for example in lightening and across the cells in the human body. 
  • Electric fields 
    • Electric fields are produced where there is a voltage. 
    • The higher the voltage the stronger the electric field that is produced. 
    • High voltages are used for the transmission and distribution of electricity. 
    • Relatively low voltages are used in the home. 
    • Voltage forces electricity along a wire and it exists even when no current is flowing, thus you do not have to turn on appliances or to be using electricity for an electric field to exist. 
    • The electric fields around a wire to an appliance will only disappear when the appliance is unplugged or switched off at the wall.  (They will still exist around the cable behind the wall). 
    • Electric fields are measured in volts per metre (V/m). 
  • Magnetic fields 
    • Magnetic fields are created only when electric current is flowing. 
    • The greater the current the stronger the magnetic field. 
    • Since currents vary with power consumption, magnetic fields will vary in their strength. 
    • Magnetic fields always have electric fields with them. 
    • Magnetic fields are measured in  tesla or microtesla (µT) 
Electric and magnetic fields cannot be seen and usually cannot be felt, although high levels of electric fields can lead to small static shocks.  The strength of a field diminishes rapidly with distance from the source. 

One of the most compelling arguments against electromagnetic fields being a major cause of childhood leukaemia is that the incidence of leukaemia in children has only been rising very gradually. Figure 2 (below) shows the annual incidence rates per million population below 15 years, by age group in Great Britain over the period 1954-1991 44. 
 

The only age group that shows a slight increase in incidence is the 1-4 years group. In this group there is a small rise of about 1% per annum 45.  However, the use of electricity has been increasing at much faster rates than that.  During this same time period electricity use increased by 600%.  If electromagnetic fields were a major cause of childhood leukaemia then we would have expected incidence rates to have gone up much faster and in other age groups too.  The same is true in the U.S.A. where electricity use has gone up 300-fold this century but there has not been a striking increase in childhood cancers.  While there is not a straightforward correlation between electricity usage and exposure to electromagnetic fields (differences in the way houses are wired and different electrical appliances can produce different electromagnetic fields), we believe the lack of correlation between increased electricity usage and leukaemia rates provides very reassuring evidence that the former are not a major cause of leukaemia. 
 

"… the absence of a relationship between trends in a putative risk factor and trends in the disease being studied may provide strong evidence against the factor being aetiologically relevant (or at least quantitatively important)." 46 

6.8.3 - Epidemiological studies of electromagnetic fields (EMF) and cancer

In 1979 a case-control study of 344 children and adolescents with cancer in Colorado was published.  This was the first published study to find a positive association between childhood cancer and exposure to electromagnetic fields 47.  Since then many other similar studies have been undertaken.  In 1990 an Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation was set up by the Director of National Radiation Protection Board under the chairmanship of Sir Richard Doll.  The terms of reference of the group were "to review the work on biological effects of non-ionising radiation relevant to human health and to advise on research priorities". 

The first report of the Advisory Group was published in 1992 and reported on the question of electromagnetic fields and the risk of cancer.  The conclusion of the Group at this time was that epidemiological evidence provided no firm evidence of the existence of a cancer hazard from exposure to extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields that are associated with residence near major sources of electrical supply or the use of electrical appliances. 
 

"In summary, the epidemiological findings that have been reviewed provide no firm evidence of the existence of a carcinogenic hazard from exposure of paternal gonads, the fetus, children, or adults to the extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields that might be associated with residence near major sources of electricity supply, the use of electrical appliances, or work in the electrical, electronic, and telecommunication industries.  Much of the evidence that has been cited is inconsistent, or derives from studies that have been inadequately controlled, and some is likely to have been distorted by bias against the reporting or publishing of negative results." 48
A number of other epidemiological studies were later produced in Sweden, Denmark and Finland concerning the question of domestic exposure to electromagnetic fields.  When these findings were reviewed by the above Advisory Group, the Group concluded that although the studies do not establish that exposure to electromagnetic fields is a cause of cancer, they provide some evidence that suggests that the possibility exists. 
 
"The group has concluded that all these studies were well controlled and substantially better than those that previously reported associations with childhood cancer.  The studies do not establish that exposure to electromagnetic fields is a cause of cancer but, taken together, they do provide some evidence to suggest that the possibility exists in the case of childhood leukaemia.  The number of affected children in the studies is, however, very small." 49
The Health Authority agree with the above conclusions.  Having reviewed the currently available scientific research we believe that it does not provide compelling evidence that electric and magnetic fields are a hazard to human health.  Nonetheless we have offered, on more than one occasion, to arrange to have the electric and magnetic fields in the homes of children with leukaemia measured.  This offer has not been taken up. 

Until new research evidence becomes available there will be continued debate within the scientific community about these issues.  We recognise that it must be very frustrating for the 
public when they hear "experts" giving contradictory opinions and advice. 
 

However, we believe that the Health Authority's conclusion that that exposure to electromagnetic fields have not been shown to be a hazard to human health is supported by the majority of respected authorities.  For example, an article entitled "Electromagnetic Fields and Power Lines" in the August 1995  Scientific American, concluded that: 
 

 "There is no believable evidence that low-level electric and magnetic low-frequency fields in the common urban environment from power distribution lines and home appliances represent any significant threat to human health.  From a physical basis, the fields induced in the body from such sources must be small compared to unavoidable fields that are present all the time for natural processes".
A statement adopted by the American Physical Society Council in April this year states: 
 
"The scientific literature and the reports of reviews by other panels show no consistent, significant link between cancer and power line fields.  This literature included epidemiological studies, research on biological systems, and analyses of theoretical interaction mechanisms.  No plausible biophysical mechanisms for the systematic initiation or promotion of cancer by these power line fields have been identified.  Furthermore, the preponderance of the epidemiological and biophysical/biological research findings have failed to substantiate those studies which have reported specific adverse health effects from exposure to such fields.  While it is impossible to prove that no deleterious health effects occur from exposure to any environmental factor, it is necessary to demonstrate a consistent, significant and causal relationship before one can conclude that such effects do occur.  From this standpoint, the conjectures relating to cancer to power line fields have not been scientifically substantiated. 

 These unsubstantiated claims, however, have generated fears of power lines in some communities, leading to expensive mitigation efforts, and, in some cases, to lengthy and divisive court proceedings.  The costs of mitigation and litigation relating to the power line cancer connection have risen into the billions of dollars and threaten to go much higher.  The diversion of these resources to eliminate a threat which has no persuasive scientific basis is disturbing to us.  More serious environmental problems are neglected for lack of funding and public attention, and the burden of cost placed on the American public is incommensurate with the risk, if any".
 
A review of the evidence on electromagnetic fields and childhood cancer undertaken by the director of the Childhood Cancer Research Group after the studies from Denmark and Finland were published concluded: 
 
"…we have to conclude that at present no causal relation has been established." 50
 
While the Health Authority believe that electric and magnetic fields have not been shown to be an important health hazard we also believe that it cannot be concluded from the research evidence to date that they are not.  We think it is important that research is done to clarify whether there is a risk or not.  We note that this is one of the important questions that is being addressed by the UK Childhood Cancer Study. A large-scale epidemiological study into the effect of powerlines and childhood cancer is also being planned by the Childhood Cancer Research Group in Oxford.  While this is an important area where more research is needed, this research cannot be done by Health Authorities.  It needs to be done by professional epidemiologists with well-designed large-scale studies.  We will study the results of this research as it becomes available and will act appropriately in the light of the findings. "The question of whether there is a risk of childhood cancer attributable to electric power transmission and distribution can only be settled by larger studies incorporating careful measurement of exposure…." 51
 
Back to Section 5 Return to the Index Page Forward to Section 7
 
 
 

© Northamptonshire Health Authority, reproduced by kind permission of Dr Amanda Burls, Sen Reg in Public Health Medicine.

Created using: Lightning HTML Editor Version 2.10.1997