Maternal residential proximity to nuclear facilities and low birth weight in offspring in Texas

Abstract

Health effects of close residential proximity to nuclear facilities have been a concern for both the general public and health professionals. Here, a study is reported examining the association between maternal residential proximity to nuclear facilities and low birth weight (LBW) in offspring using data from 1996 through 2008 in Texas, USA. A case-control study design was used together with a proximity-based model for exposure assessment. First, the LBW case/control births were categorized into multiple proximity groups based on distances between their maternal residences and nuclear facilities. Then, a binary logistic regression model was used to examine the association between maternal residential proximity to nuclear facilities and low birth weight in offspring. The odds ratios were adjusted for birth year, public health region of maternal residence, child's sex, gestational weeks, maternal age, education, and race/ethnicity. In addition, sensitivity analyses were conducted for the model. Compared with the reference group (more than 50 km from a nuclear facility), the exposed groups did not show a statistically significant increase in LBW risk [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.91 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.81, 1.03) for group 40-50 km; aOR 0.98 (CI 0.84, 1.13) for group 30-40 km; aOR 0.95 (CI 0.79, 1.15) for group 20-30 km; aOR 0.86 (CI 0.70, 1.04) for group 10-20 km; and aOR 0.98 (CI 0.59, 1.61) for group 0-10 km]. These results were also confirmed by results of the sensitivity analyses. The results suggest that maternal residential proximity to nuclear facilities is not a significant factor for LBW in offspring.

Low-dose ionizing radiation and adverse birth outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…A total of 14 studies examined medical exposures for diagnostic ( n = 6) (Chen et al 2018 ; Choi et al 2013 ; Goldberg et al 1997 ; Guilbaud et al 2019 ; Hujoel et al 2004 ; Mortazavi et al 2013 ) or therapeutic ( n = 8) (Chiarelli et al 2000 ; Green et al 2010 ; Green et al 2002 ; Källén et al 1998 ; Reulen et al 2009 ; Signorello et al 2006 ; van de Loo et al 2019 ; Winther et al 2008 ) purposes. The remaining sources of exposures included those from residential proximity ( n = 2) (Gong et al 2017 ; Ha et al 2015 ), nuclear disasters ( n = 3) (Hatch et al 2017 ; Igumnov and Drozdovitch 2000 ; Tsou et al 2020 ), or environmental exposures ( n = 1) (Zhang et al 2020 ). Eleven out of the 26 studies were conducted in Europe and Central Asia, ten in North America, four in East Asia and Pacific, and one in the Middle East.…”

“…There were ten studies that examined LBW that were included in our meta-analysis. Although the following studies were initially identified in the systematic review: Mortazavi et al ( 2013 ), van de Loo ( 2019 ), Gong et al ( 2017 ), Hatch et al ( 2017 ), and Tsou et al ( 2020 ); they were excluded from the LBW meta-analysis for various reasons. We excluded the (Mortazavi et al 2013 ) paper because it modelled birth weight as a continuous variable and did not classify infants as being low birth weight (≤ 2500 g) or not.…”

“…The (van de Loo et al 2019 ) study was excluded because they did not seem to apply analyses appropriate to the matched design of the study. Three studies (Gong et al 2017 ; Ha et al 2015 ; Tsou et al 2020 ) were excluded because individual-level exposure to radiation was not determined for the study participants. Of the included studies for the LBW meta-analysis, two studies examined occupational exposure including nuclear ( n = 1) and medical ( n = 1) sectors.…”

“…There is public interest in the health effects that accompany living near nuclear power plants. We identified only two studies that reported on risks of adverse birth outcomes based on residential proximity to these facilities (Gong et al 2017 ; Ha et al 2015 ). The Ha et al, study provides some evidence for an increased risk of low birth weight but not pre-term delivery among those who lived within 20 km of a nuclear power plant compared to those who lived further away (Ha et al 2015 ).…”