Leukaemia in young children living in the vicinity of German nuclear power plants
Version of Record online: 7 DEC 2007
Copyright © 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
International Journal of Cancer
Volume 122, Issue 4, pages 721–726, 15 February 2008
How to Cite
Kaatsch, P., Spix, C., Schulze-Rath, R., Schmiedel, S. and Blettner, M. (2008), Leukaemia in young children living in the vicinity of German nuclear power plants. Int. J. Cancer, 122: 721–726. doi: 10.1002/ijc.23330
- Issue online: 14 DEC 2007
- Version of Record online: 7 DEC 2007
- Manuscript Accepted: 8 NOV 2007
- Manuscript Received: 19 JUL 2007
- Federal Ministry of the Environment
- Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety via the Federal Office for Radiation Protection. Grant Number: StSch 4334
- nuclear power plants;
- cancer registry
A case control study was conducted where cases were children younger than 5 years (diseased between 1980 and 2003) registered at the german childhood cancer registry (GCCR). Population-based matched controls (1:3) were selected from the corresponding registrar's office. Residential proximity to the nearest nuclear power plant was determined for each subject individually (with a precision of about 25 m). The report is focused on leukaemia and mainly on cases in the inner 5-km zone around the plants. The study includes 593 leukaemia cases and 1,766 matched controls. All leukaemia combined show a statistically significant trend for 1/distance with a positive regression coefficient of 1.75 [lower 95%-confidence limit (CL): 0.65]; for acute lymphoid leukaemia 1.63 (lower 95%-CL: 0.39), for acute nonlymphocytic leukaemia 1.99 (lower 95%-CL: −0.41). This indicates a negative trend for distance. Cases live closer to nuclear power plants than the randomly selected controls. A categorical analysis shows a statistically significant odds ratio of 2.19 (lower 95%-CL: 1.51) for residential proximity within 5 km compared to residence outside this area. This result is largely attributed to cases in previous studies of the GCCR (especially in the inner zone) as there is clearly some overlap between those studies. The result was not to be expected under current radiation-epidemiological knowledge. Considering that there is no evidence of relevant accidents and that possible confounders could not be identified, the observed positive distance trend remains unexplained. © 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.