Cement, cancers and clusters: an investigation of a claim of a local excess cancer risk related to a cement works.

Richard J Roberts, John Steward, Gareth John
{"title":"Cement, cancers and clusters: an investigation of a claim of a local excess cancer risk related to a cement works.","authors":"Richard J Roberts,&nbsp;John Steward,&nbsp;Gareth John","doi":"10.1093/pubmed/fdg085","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>We investigated claims by a campaigning group of a cancer cluster associated with a local cement works.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To investigate cancer rates in the town we defined the study area as the Census wards matching the geographical area code supplied to the campaigning group. Standard methods were applied to registered cases of cancer for the area for the years 1974-1989 to derive observed and expected numbers. The significance of the relative risk was assessed using the Poisson distribution. By selecting a different denominator population we attempted to reproduce the results of the campaign group. Cancer rates around the cement works were investigated for four cancer types plausibly associated with emissions, using cancer registrations for the years 1985-1994. Cases were mapped to 1981 Census ward boundaries, and the same statistical methods were used, but expected counts were also adjusted for deprivation. Rates were calculated for an inner 2 km zone and outer zone 2-5 km from the works. Relative risk was calculated and the ratio of risks was examined for evidence of increased risk closer to the works.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Relative risks were not significantly elevated either in the town or around the cement works itself. We were able to reproduce the likely errors that resulted in the elevated relative risks for five cancer groups claimed by the campaigning group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We found no evidence of increased incidence of cancer around the cement works. Incorrect handling of cancer registration data can result in spurious cancer clusters and unnecessary public alarm.</p>","PeriodicalId":77224,"journal":{"name":"Journal of public health medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/pubmed/fdg085","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of public health medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdg085","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Background: We investigated claims by a campaigning group of a cancer cluster associated with a local cement works.

Methods: To investigate cancer rates in the town we defined the study area as the Census wards matching the geographical area code supplied to the campaigning group. Standard methods were applied to registered cases of cancer for the area for the years 1974-1989 to derive observed and expected numbers. The significance of the relative risk was assessed using the Poisson distribution. By selecting a different denominator population we attempted to reproduce the results of the campaign group. Cancer rates around the cement works were investigated for four cancer types plausibly associated with emissions, using cancer registrations for the years 1985-1994. Cases were mapped to 1981 Census ward boundaries, and the same statistical methods were used, but expected counts were also adjusted for deprivation. Rates were calculated for an inner 2 km zone and outer zone 2-5 km from the works. Relative risk was calculated and the ratio of risks was examined for evidence of increased risk closer to the works.

Results: Relative risks were not significantly elevated either in the town or around the cement works itself. We were able to reproduce the likely errors that resulted in the elevated relative risks for five cancer groups claimed by the campaigning group.

Conclusions: We found no evidence of increased incidence of cancer around the cement works. Incorrect handling of cancer registration data can result in spurious cancer clusters and unnecessary public alarm.

水泥、癌症和群集:对与水泥厂有关的当地过度癌症风险索赔的调查。
背景:我们调查了一个与当地水泥厂有关的癌症群集的运动团体的索赔。方法:为了调查镇上的癌症发病率,我们将研究区域定义为与提供给活动小组的地理区域代码相匹配的人口普查病房。对该地区1974-1989年登记的癌症病例采用标准方法,得出观察到的和预期的数字。使用泊松分布评估相对风险的显著性。通过选择不同的分母人群,我们试图重现活动组的结果。研究人员利用1985年至1994年的癌症登记资料,调查了水泥厂周围四种似乎与排放有关的癌症类型的癌症发病率。病例被映射到1981年人口普查区边界,使用了相同的统计方法,但预期计数也因剥夺而进行了调整。计算了距离工程2公里内区域和2-5公里外区域的费率。计算了相对风险,并检查了靠近工程的风险增加的证据。结果:城镇及水泥厂周边相对危险度均未显著升高。我们能够重现可能的错误,这些错误导致了运动团体声称的五种癌症群体的相对风险升高。结论:我们没有发现水泥厂周围癌症发病率增加的证据。对癌症登记数据的错误处理可能导致虚假的癌症集群和不必要的公众警报。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信