Although the methodology of this case–control study appeared to be sound-particularly with regard to the selection of controls-the numbers involved were relatively small (1289 children diagnosed in mainland France with acute leukaemia under 5 years of age), since it covered cases registered only in the years 2002–2007. This result was, however, one of quite a large number of analyses reported in particular, it referred to leukaemia at all ages up to 15 years and, while the 0–4 age group showed a non-significant OR of 1.6 (0.7–4.1), this was smaller than the value for the older children. In 2008, the results of the comprehensive KiKK ( Kinderkrebs in der Umgebung von Kernkraftwerken) case–control study were published by the German Childhood Cancer Registry ( Kaatsch et al, 2008b Spix et al, 2008) these covered all cancers among children 20 km away. In Germany, investigations were carried out with generally mixed findings, the most striking observation being a marked excess of young children diagnosed with leukaemia during 1990–2005 living within 5 km of the NPP at Krümmel on the River Elbe ( Hoffmann et al, 2007). While a number of excesses were found for sites whose main function was not the generation of electricity, the Report ‘found no evidence of excess numbers of cases in any local 25 km area’ for 13 nuclear power plants (NPPs).įollowing the initial publications from the United Kingdom, a succession of similar geographical studies were conducted in other countries. The Tenth Report ( COMARE, 2005), for example, described a comprehensive analysis of the incidence of malignant disease in children under the age of 15 years in small areas lying within 25 km of 28 nuclear sites in Great Britain, using data from the National Registry of Childhood Tumours (NRCT), which has been maintained in Oxford by the Childhood Cancer Research Group (CCRG) since 1975. Several of COMARE’s reports have been concerned with subsequent investigations at Sellafield and other nuclear installations. The report rapidly prompted the ad hoc creation of the ‘Black Advisory Group’ which confirmed an unexpectedly large incidence of childhood leukaemia in the village of Seascale, adjacent to the site ( Black, 1984), and recommended the establishment of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE). The incidence of childhood leukaemia near nuclear installations in Great Britain has been the subject of concern ever since a report in a television programme in 1983 of an excess of cancer in young people near the nuclear complex at Windscale and Calder Works (now known as Sellafield), on the coast of Cumbria in north-west England ( Urquhart et al, 1984). Risk estimates are incompatible with comparable ones published in a recent German case–control study. Our results show little evidence of an increase in risk of LNHL to children aged under 5 years from living in the vicinity of an NPP. The comparison of 10 618 children with LNHL under five with 16 760 similarly aged children with other cancers also gave a negative estimate of the extra risk of residential proximity at diagnosis-interpolated OR at 5 km was 0.86 (0.62–1.18). Results:įor 9821 children with LNHL under the age of 5 years, the estimated extra risk associated with residential proximity to an NPP at birth was negative-interpolated Odds Ratio (OR) at 5 km was 0.86 (0.49–1.52).

Methods:Ĭases of childhood leukaemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (LNHL) born and diagnosed in Great Britain between 19, with matched cancer-free controls, were analysed by logistic regression to estimate the risk of residential proximity at birth and diagnosis to the nearest NPP, adjusting for relevant variables. Previous British analyses have been area based and consequently thought to be less effective than case–control studies. Concern about the risk of leukaemia in children living near nuclear power plants (NPPs) persists.

In vicinity