Geographic density of landfill sites and risk of congenital anomalies in England

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the risk of congenital anomalies in relation to an index of geographic density of landfill sites across 565 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 565 km grid square, calculated separately for landfill sites handling special, and nonspecial 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.

Local facility hazard risk controversy and non-local hazard risk perception

“…We chose expansion sites for two reasons: (1) residents already have experience with the facility/hazard and (2) claims of NIMBY are readily discounted because the community has already had their turn hosting landfill in their 'backyard.' We chose non-hazardous waste landfill expansion sites because landfill has been shown to be relatively low risk according to existing health studies (Dolk et al 1998;Elliott et al 2009;Rushton 2003;Vrijheid 2000). Selecting our sample from two such communities also allowed us to compare place-based differences.…”

Healthy Cities of Tomorrow: the Case for Large Scale Built Environment–Health Studies

“…Another set of studies have examined the role of specific hazardous environments including waste disposal sites and landfills [96,97] and powerlines [98,99]. The relationship of built environment design with road traffic fatalities and injuries forms another active domain of investigation [100][101][102].…”

Landfill sites and congenital anomalies – have we moved forward?

“…Elliott et al (see page ) report the findings of a spatial analysis examining the risk of congenital anomalies in relation to the density of landfill sites within 2 km of birth locations across 5×5 km grid squares in England 1. They observe significantly raised risks for some anomalies (cardiovascular defects, hypospadias) in areas classified with a higher density of sites destined to receive special (hazardous) waste; no significant excess risks were found for non-special (mainly domestic) waste sites.…”

“…Special waste sites may in fact be no more hazardous than non-special waste sites because they are subject to more stringent design and management. Elliott et al base their exposure indicator on site density, assuming that more landfills means more exposure 1. There is no information to validate this assumption.…”

“…Before and after site-opening comparisons have been informative,2 11 but apart from these, exposure assessments have not significantly advanced beyond distance-based measures. The sophisticated mapping and statistical techniques used in the current study1 are of considerable methodological interest but have brought few new insights into causality. More promise may lie in the development of pollutant dispersion models, but these require systematic information about chemical emissions from sites.…”