HIGH VOLTAGE LINES
Childhood cancer in relation to distance from high voltage power lines in England and Wales: a case-control study
Gerald Draper, honorary senior research fellow1, 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).
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.
---------------------
Other scientists think the origin of the troubles could be “in utero” exposition to electromagnetic fields, which makes investigation even more complex.
Some links: