1 / 12

PK Verkasalo 1 , E Kokki 1 , E Pukkala 2 , T Vartiainen 1 , J Pekkanen 1

High Levels of Dioxins in River Sediments and Cancer Risk in Nearby Farmers: A Case Study using a GIS application. PK Verkasalo 1 , E Kokki 1 , E Pukkala 2 , T Vartiainen 1 , J Pekkanen 1 1 National Public Health Institute 2 Finnish Cancer Registry. Background.

varen
Télécharger la présentation

PK Verkasalo 1 , E Kokki 1 , E Pukkala 2 , T Vartiainen 1 , J Pekkanen 1

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. High Levels of Dioxins in River Sediments and Cancer Risk in Nearby Farmers: A Case Study using a GIS application PK Verkasalo1, E Kokki1, E Pukkala2, T Vartiainen1, J Pekkanen1 1National Public Health Institute 2Finnish Cancer Registry

  2. Background • The River Kymijoki is one of the largest rivers in southern Finland with close to 190,000 people living within 20 km from its shoreline • The sediment levels of dioxins in the river are between 0.5 and 350 ng g-1 (I-TEQ) and thus among the highest in the world • The dioxins originate from the production of a chlorophenol product where they occurred as an impurity • 2-3-7-8-TCDD is classified as a human carcinogen by IARC

  3. Hypothesis • We hypothesize that dioxins are mobilized from the river sediments and accumulate in the nearby residents via the food chain • Therefore the people and especially the farmers living closest to the river are suspected to be at the highest risk • We also explore the cancer patterns in people living near the river and the additional effect of living close to the Baltic Sea

  4. Methods • Small area statistics on health (SMASH) -system • whole of Finland divided into squares of 0.5 km * 0.5 km • for each square data on cancers and population counts by background variables (sex, age and social class) • Study design • exposure was defined as distance of residence to the river shoreline in 1980 (<1 km, 1-4 km, 5-19 km) • follow-up for cancer from 1981 to 2000 • Relative risks • from Poisson models with observed and expected cancers adjusting for sex, age, calendar period, and distance to sea

  5. Risk of total cancer in all residents River Kymijoki 1981-2000; N=187,800

  6. Risk of total cancer in farmers River Kymijoki 1981-2000; N=10,800

  7. Sex Men: 1.17 (0.87-1.56) Women: 1.27 (0.90-1.79) Age in 1980 0-44 years: 1.81 (1.16-2.84) 45-59 years: 1.09 (0.78-1.34) 60 years: 1.04 (0.69-1.57) Calendar period 1981-1990: 1.40 (1.00-1.97) 1990-2000: 1.09 (0.81-1.46) Distance to sea 40-59 km: 0.94 (0.46-1.95) 20-39 km: 1.46 (1.03-2.07) <20 km: 1.14 (0.83-1.57) Risk of total cancer in farmers* <1 km to the River Kymijoki 1981-2000; N=1500 *RRs and 95% CIs from Poisson models in comparison to the reference zone and adjusting for all other variables

  8. testis 4.0 sarcoma 2.9 brain 2.6 skin, non-melanoma 2.4 Hodgkin's disease 1.8 breast 1.8 pancreas 1.7 bladder 1.6 liver 1.5 ovary 1.5 thyroid 1.4 prostate 1.3 rectum 1.3 leukaemia 1.3 oesophagus 1.2 non-Hodgkin lymphoma 1.1 lung 0.93 corpus uteri 0.83 kidney 0.74 colon 0.70 stomach 0.61 skin, melanoma 0.40 Cancer pattern in farmers <1 km to the River Kymijoki 1981-97; N=1500

  9. Discussion about the method • Exposure assessment is based on the location of residence at one point in time • Rapid analyses can only provide first approximations of risks • In case of negative results, you need to be cautious not to exclude a real effect • In case of positive results, the method provides only limited evidence on causality

  10. Discussion about the results • The results are compatible with a dioxin effect or an effect in reproductive cancers • Some of the risk increases could be explained by alcohol, chemicals or mutagenic drinking water • The results are unlikely to be explained by smoking, dietary habits or solar exposure

  11. Thank you!

More Related