Birth defects in the vicinity of nuclear power plants in Germany

Abstract

Living in the vicinity of nuclear power plants (NPP) is discussed here in terms of adverse health effects. A prospective population-based cohort study was conducted to evaluate whether the prevalence of birth defects in the vicinity of NPPs is elevated and scrutinize a possible distance correlation. A birth cohort born to mothers living within 10 km of two selected NPPs (study region) was compared to a region without NPP (comparison region), and an active surveillance of all live births, stillbirths, and induced abortions in the defined regions was performed. Between 01/2007 and 02/2008, all newborns were examined by specially trained study paediatricians according to the protocols of the Birth Registry Mainz Model. The cohort consisted of 5,273 infants (90% completeness). The outcome measure was an infant with birth defect(s). The prevalence of infants with birth defects was 4.5% in the study region and 4.7% in the comparison region, which corresponds to a relative risk (RR) of 0.94 (lower 95% confidence level (CL): 0.76). Thus, the prevalence of birth defects in the regions surrounding NPPs was not increased compared to those of the comparison region. Adjustment for potential confounders did not substantially change the result (RR 0.90, lower 95% CL 0.73). The adjusted and unadjusted distance approach (1/distance in km) did not show any correlation to vicinity to a NPP (p = 0.38). Specifically, within the study region, the prevalence of birth defects showed no upward trend with decreasing distance. Birth defect prevalence and most descriptive parameters in the comparison region were identical to those in the Birth Registry Mainz Model.

Associations Between Residential Proximity to Power Plants and Adverse Birth Outcomes

“…In categorical exposure analyses, no association was found. The lack of consistent associations between nuclear plants and adverse birth outcomes is consistent with results from several previous studies, which showed no association between distance to nuclear power plants and adverse birth outcomes (17)(18)(19)34). The lack of a positive association could be explained by the fact that, compared with other types of plants, nuclear plants do not emit as many atmospheric pollutants in high concentrations (e.g., PM 2.5 , sulfur dioxide, and nitric oxides) (35).…”

“…Because of accumulating evidence of a negative relationship between power plants and human health, a few studies have assessed the association between proximity to nuclear power plants and adverse birth outcomes, but no association was found (17)(18)(19). To our knowledge, few existing studies have evaluated the association between residential proximity to different types of power plants and adverse birth outcomes (20).…”

Evidence for a teratogenic risk in the offspring of health personnel exposed to ionizing radiation?!

“…All mothers planning to give birth in the Mainz hospitals were questioned by the midwives approximately 6 weeks before giving birth. All standardized procedures of the MaMo were adapted to this study and were already implemented in the previous KuK‐Study and, thus, comparable on equal grounds (Queisser‐Luft et al, , ). Therefore, an internal validity is guaranteed throughout all groups and previous studies, and bias due to design such as selection, misclassification, and examiners are avoided.…”

“…In 2011, we published the results of the KuK‐Study, which was performed to investigate the prevalence of congenital anomalies in newborns whose mothers lived within a 10‐km‐radius surrounding a nuclear power plant (Queisser‐Luft et al, ). Compared with those in a the region without nuclear power plant, an increase in congenital anomalies (CA) in the regions surrounding nuclear power plants could not be documented.…”

“…Based on the 5273 mothers in the cohort of the underlying KuK‐Study, we expected 30 women to be wearing a dosimeter (estimated from the number of dosimeter wearing women as documented in the office of radiation protection; adjusted by population, fertility rate, and proportion of women in childbearing age). Thus, an under‐ascertainment of exposed or an over‐ascertainment of the outcome is unlikely (Queisser‐Luft et al, ). The high completeness and quality of the underlying data are attributed to the Standard Operating Procedures (Examination protocols, active design, strict definitions, low variation in‐between examiners, etc.)…”