How living near a landfill ‘raises lung cancer risk’


  • Study of nearly 250,000 people found that those living within three miles of landfill were more likely to be admitted to hospital or die with lung disease
  • It tracked people living close to one of nine landfill sites in central Italy
  • Researchers also discovered that children were at particular risk of lung cancer or other breathing problems  
  • British landfill sites are regulated according to same rules as those in Italy

Ben Spencer Medical Correspondent For The Daily Mail

29

View
comments

Living close to landfill sites can increase your risk of dying from lung cancer, scientists claim.

Rotting rubbish produces harmful gases that, when inhaled, increase the chance of suffering from severe breathing problems.

A study of nearly 250,000 people found that those living within three miles of landfill were more likely to be admitted to hospital or die with lung disease.

And researchers found that children were at particular risk. The study, published in the International Journal of Epidemiology, tracked 242,000 people living close to one of nine landfill sites in central Italy.

Rotting rubbish produces harmful gases that, when inhaled, increase the chance of suffering from severe breathing problems

The participants were monitored for at least five years – and researchers found that those who were exposed to more airborne pollutants were at higher risk of lung cancer and other breathing problems.

British landfill sites are regulated according to the same rules as those in Italy, set down by the 1999 EU Landfill Directive.

The Environment Agency said last night that English sites are subject to tighter local regulations governing emissions. But campaigners said budget cuts are likely to undermine the agency’s ability to police these standards.

The researchers, from the Lazio Environmental Protection Agency in Rome, tracked levels of hydrogen sulphide – a poisonous gas produced by decomposing vegetation which typically smells of rotten eggs. They predicted that hydrogen sulphide levels were representative of the levels of all pollutants produced by the rubbish dumps.

The team divided all those living within three miles of the sites into four groups, depending on how high their exposure to hydrogen sulphide was.

A study of nearly 250,000 people found that those living within three miles of landfill were more likely to be admitted to hospital or die with lung disease

STILLBORN BIRTHS ‘ARE MORE LIKELY IN AREAS WITH HIGHER POLLUTION’ 

Pregnant women who are exposed to smog are more likely to suffer a stillbirth, a major review concludes today.

There are around 3,600 stillbirths in the UK every year and although they have been linked to infections and lifestyle, their exact cause remains a mystery.

But Danish researchers who examined 13 studies have identified a strong link to car exhaust fumes and other pollution.

They are now calling for tighter curbs on exhausts and industrial waste emissions to reduce the risk to unborn babies, which is most heightened during the third trimester.

The team from the University of Copenhagen in Denmark found that even if the concentration of air pollutants increased by a small amount – 4 micrograms per cubic metre – the chances of stillbirth rose by 4 per cent.

Writing in the journal Occupational and Environmental Medicine, the scientists wrote: ‘Pregnant women should be aware of the potential adverse effects of ambient air pollution, although the prevention against exposure to air pollutants generally requires more action by the Government than by the individual.’

Lead author Dr Marie Pedersen said: ‘Stillbirth is one of the most neglected tragedies in global health today, and the existing evidence summarised deserves additional investigation.’

Those in the group with the highest exposure levels were 34 per cent more likely to die with lung cancer than people who lived more than three miles away from the sites, the researchers found. And people in that group were 30 per cent more likely to die from other respiratory diseases. They were also 5 per cent more likely to receive hospital treatment for all respiratory diseases, including 9 per cent for asthma.

Children were even more at risk, with an 11 per cent increased chance of being admitted to hospital for respiratory disease, and a 13 per cent higher risk of asthma. The Italian team tracked pollution levels to make sure they could match disease levels to exposure to toxins.

They said that more research is needed to confirm the link, particularly to lung cancer. But they added that it was unlikely that the increased death rates were ‘entirely due to unmeasured smoking habits and other factors’.

The number of active landfill sites in Britain fell from 1,500 in the 1990s to 338 in 2014. But there are more than 22,000 ‘historic’ landfill sites which have been covered with earth and left alone. British experts last night insisted the risk in the UK was minimal.

Dr Jill Meara of Public Health England said: ‘Well-managed modern landfill sites do not pose a significant risk to public health.

‘We have reviewed studies looking at emissions from sites and research on health effects posed by modern landfill sites and concluded there is little cause for concern for those living nearby.’

A spokesman for the Environment Agency said that while Italy and the UK each have to abide by EU regulations, in England extra regulations have been put in place to limit pollution.

She said: ‘It is not possible to compare the results from the Italian research to the UK due to differences in regulatory standards.

‘In England we set strict conditions on emissions which operators must adhere to protect people and the environment.’

But Dr Michael Warhurst, executive director of the CHEM Trust, a charity that monitors environmental pollution, warned that budget cutbacks at the Environment Agency could leave people living near the sites exposed.

‘We should be turning away from landfill where we can – it is very unpleasant,’ he said. ‘And if the Environment Agency keeps getting trimmed back it is not going to have enough people to control these sites properly.’

 

Comments (29)

Share what you think

The comments below have not been moderated.

The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.

Find out now